Indoor Airborne Microbial Load of Selected Offices in a Tertiary Institution in South-Western Nigeria

Abstract

Indoor air quality (IAQ) has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one of the most urgent top five environmental risks to public health. Numerous studies have documented that sick building syndrome (SBS) is surprisingly common even in buildings without widespread complaints and its relationship with hypersensitivity disease are often associated with exposure to high concentration of airborne microbial organisms. To contribute to knowledge on IAQ, this study evaluates the levels and composition of bacterial and fungal contamination of different offices in a tertiary institution in South-western Nigeria. A cross sectional design was used to compare the indoor airborne microbial load of three categories of offices within the institution premises: the central administrative (CA), academic (AC) and work and maintenance (W&M) offices. Indoor temperature (ºC) and relative humidity (%) of the respective offices were measured using a 5-in-1 multi-tester N21FR made in China and categorized into comfort and high levels. Air samples were collected using a TE-10-890 Andersen single stage microbial air sampler and the total counts per cubic metre were compared with the American Industrial Hygiene Association guideline (AIHA). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, Spearman's rank correlation and regression analysis. Offices in CA recorded the highest mean indoor Total Bacteria Count (TBC) of 22.6 ± 12.2cfu/m 3 as compared to W&M (18.3 ± 10.4cfu/m 3 ) and AC (15.6 ± 8.4cfu/m 3 ) p<0.05. However, AC offices recorded the highest mean Total Fungi Count (TFC) of 3.6 ± 2.3cfu/m 3 as compared to CA (3.5 ± 1.7cfu/m 3 ) and W&M (3.3 ± 2.1cfu/m 3 ) p>0.05. The indoor TBC and TFC of the categories of offices were found to be lower than the AIHA guideline limit. The number of persons at the point of sampling was found to significantly predict the level of indoor TBC, p<0.01. The most isolated bacteria were Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp. and Micrococcus spp., whereas Cladosporium spp., Aspergillus spp. were the most abundant fungi isolates. The present study implicated population as a major source of microbial contamination in the office environment. Adequate knowledge about indoor air quality in terms of microbial contamination and its implication on health should be provided to staff of the institution in the hierarchy of control measures to mitigate the levels of indoor airborne microorganisms.

Home Assessment of Indoor Microbiome (HAIM) in Relation to Lower Respiratory Tract Infections among Under-Five Children in Ibadan, Nigeria: The Study Protocol

“…First, the HAIM study will be the first to fully explore the diversity and composition of microbiome in homes within SSA and its association with LRTI among U-5Cs. Second, several studies from SSA have made use of active airborne sampling [47][48][49] and passive airborne sampling using petri dishes [50][51][52], but the HAIM study is the first to apply electrostatic dust collectors (EDCs) in SSA. The EDC has been employed by several studies [29,53,54] in the developed world and has been proven to be useful for assessing exposure to airborne dust and microbial constituents in home or work environments.…”

Antifungal Potency of Green-Fabricated Nanoparticles-An Overview of Recent Advances

“…The number of patients at risk for IFDs is rising, and older people are among those (Fisher et al 2022). Indoor and outdoor environments are both favourable to fungi, according to the statement "Risk increases synchronously with a time of exposure," however, indoor airborne fungi are more effective on human health than outdoor airborne fungi (Omolola et al 2018;Al-Bader et al 2021). Aspergillus species., Candida spp., involving C. auris, and Mucoromycota spp., which display strong innate and acquired resistance to antifungal therapies, have increased their prevalence in patients with severe viral infections for instance the influenza virus and COVID-19 patients (Singh et al 2016;Arastehfar et al 2020;Janssen et al 2021).…”