Bacterial bioaerosol concentration and size distribution in the selected animal premises in a zoological garden

Abstract

Currently, there are almost no studies concerning bioaerosol and particulate matter levels in animal enclosures of zoos. Numerous air contamination sources can be found there, and zoos are both working environments and popular tourist objects. The aim of this study was to assess bacterial aerosol levels in premises for animals (giraffes, monkeys, pheasants and ostriches) of the Kraków Zoo. Bioaerosol samples were collected using six-stage Andersen impactor to assess the concentration and size distribution of airborne mesophilic bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria and staphylococci. Particulate matter levels (PM 10 , PM 4 , PM 2.5 and PM 1) were assessed using DustTrak Aerosol Monitor. The results showed that the concentration of airborne bacteria varied significantly between enclosures for the analyzed animal groups and various groups of bacteria reached their maximum concentrations in premises for different animals. The mean share of respirable fraction of bacteria was quite high-68%, with values ranging from 12.8% for Gram-negative bacteria to 98% for mannitol-positive staphylococci, indicating potential harmfulness to the health of exposed people. Dust concentrations remained at similar, relatively low levels (maximum of 0.105 mg/m 3 for PM 10 in rooms for giraffes). This study showed that neither bacterial bioaerosol levels, nor dust concentrations exceed the permissible values provided by Polish guidelines, but comparing the values with other countries' limits suggests that the air could be considered as contaminated. The animals are a significant source of bioaerosol; therefore, attention should be paid to thorough cleaning of animals themselves and their premises and to maintaining appropriate levels of microclimatic parameters prevailing in the rooms.

Size distribution and concentration of fungal aerosol in animal premises of a zoological garden

“…There have been numerous studies on microbial aerosol in animal production premises (e.g., Dutkiewicz et al 1994;Jacobson et al 2003;Ławniczek-Wałczyk et al 2013;Budzińska et al 2014;Matković et al 2007Matković et al , 2009Millner 2009;Sowiak et al 2012;Viegas et al 2013) or in farming environment (e.g., Karwowska 2005;Douglas et al 2018), but none of those referred to non-production facilities, such as zoological gardens. In a previous study, Grzyb and Lenart-Boroń (2019) investigated the concentration and size distribution of bacterial aerosol in some premises of a Zoological Garden in Kraków and indicated that animals can be a significant source of bacterial bioaerosol components, but the levels of bioaerosol may vary significantly depending on the animals kept in the premises. Moreover, the respirable fraction of bioaerosol was predominant, reaching 70% of the total fraction in some cases, which indicates possible health threats to the people exposed.…”

Impact of bacterial aerosol, particulate matter, and microclimatic parameters on animal welfare in Chorzów (Poland) zoological garden

“…The comparison of the research results obtained in the course of the examinations conducted in the zoo in Kraków (Grzyb and Lenart-Boroń 2019 ) with those delivered as a result of measurements taken in Chorzów revealed that concentrations recorded in the shelters for giraffes in Kraków zoo were 12 times lower, while in rooms for monkeys about 3 times higher. Due to the fact that the facilities for giraffes in both zoos are of the same age, the difference in bioaerosol concentration may be the result of different area per one animal (Kraków: 244 m 2 ; Chorzów: 66.8 m 2 ).…”

“…Microbial cells are usually associated with dust particles, what facilitates penetration of microorganisms with the air (bacteria—in the form of cells and spores, molds as spores). Previous research has shown that microbial aerosol concentrations were relatively high in the animal facilities (Sowiak et al 2012 ; Grzyb and Lenart-Boroń 2019 ). The concentrations of airborne bacteria in rooms intended to house animals are usually much higher than in human dwellings.…”

Facility for generation of ambient-like model aerosols in the laboratory: application in the intercomparison of automated PM monitors with the reference gravimetric method

“…The large positive deviation of the DustTrak by a factor of about 1.5 is not surprising. Previous studies have found that different DustTrak models over-recorded PM values by a factor of 1.2−3 (Chung et al, 2001;Grzyb and Lenart-Boron, 2019;Heal et al, 2000;Kingham et al, 2006;Liu et al, 2017;McNamara et al, 2011;Wallace et al, 2011;Yanosky et al, 2002) depending on the aerosol properties. It has been suggested that the "over-estimation is a simple calibration issue in which differences between the optical properties of the manufacturer's factory calibration PM (Arizona Road Dust) and the PM under study explained the uniform relative errors recorded" (Kingham et al, 2006).…”

“…This requires long and expensive testing campaigns at multiple sites during different times of the year in an attempt to include all representative meteorological conditions and the temporal and spatial variations of the ambient air composition. Portable and cost-effective PM monitors, such as the DustTrak (TSI Inc., USA) and Fidas Frog (Palas, Hermany), which are mostly employed for industrial/occupational hygiene surveys (Asbach et al, 2018;Davison et al, 2019;Grzyb and Lenart-Boron, 2019), outdoor (Kingham et al, 2006;Viana et al, 2015;Wallace et al, 2011) and indoor (Chowdhury et al, 2013;Manibusan and Mainelis, 2020;Zhou et al, 2016) air quality investigations, process or emissions monitoring (Al-Attabi et al, 2017;Crilley et al, 2012;Grall et al, 2018;McNamara et al, 2011) and aerosol research studies, do not necessarily go through equivalence testing. Instead, they are often calibrated in the laboratory with simple model aerosols, e.g.…”