Occupational Exposure to Biological Agents in a Typical Restaurant Setting: Is a Photocatalytic Air Purifier Helpful?

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Safety Pub Date : 2023-11-21 DOI:10.3390/safety9040081
M. Ratti, Daniele Ceriotti, Rabia Bibi, Andrea Conti, Massimiliano Panella
{"title":"Occupational Exposure to Biological Agents in a Typical Restaurant Setting: Is a Photocatalytic Air Purifier Helpful?","authors":"M. Ratti, Daniele Ceriotti, Rabia Bibi, Andrea Conti, Massimiliano Panella","doi":"10.3390/safety9040081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to many national legislations, biological agents represent an occupational hazard that must be managed in order to ensure safety at workplace. Bioaerosols have been associated to many pathological conditions but, despite many efforts, precise threshold limit values (TLV) are still undefined. We planned and conducted an environmental study concerning a typical restaurant that aimed to evaluate: (1) the occupational exposure to bacterial and fungal bioaerosol; (2) the efficacy of a photocatalytic air purifier device in mitigating such exposure. This observational study evaluated two dining rooms (Area 1 and Area 2) of a restaurant which can be considered typical during two consecutive weeks. Based on a national protocol, we monitored total bacterial and mycotic loads searching for two typologies of bacteria, psychrophilic bacteria (environmental contamination) along with mesophilic bacteria (human or animal origin source), and two types of fungi, mold and yeast. Baseline total bacterial load was 346.8 CFU/m3 for Area 1 and 412.9 CFU/m3 for Area 2. When the sanitizing device was operative, the total bacterial load decreased to 202.7 CFU/m3 (−41.50%—p value: <0.01) for Area 1 and to 342.2 CFU/m3 (−17.10%—p value: 0.06) for Area 2. Considering the fungal load, the mean baseline value was 189.7 CFU/m3 for Area 1 and 141.1 CFU/m3 for Area 2. When the device was kept on, the total fungal load was 108.0 CFU/m3 (−43.10%—p value: 0.055) for Area 1 and 205.0 CFU/m3 (+45.30%—p value: 0.268) for Area 2. Our findings supported the conclusion that, concerning the occupational risk derived from biological agents, a typical restaurant should be considered relatively safe. In order to mitigate or limit any possible increase of such risk, a photocatalytic device may be helpful, but not against the pollution caused by mold or yeasts. Our research also reaffirmed the need of further research assessing the kind of relationship between diseases and exposure levels, before considering the need of setting precise threshold limit values.","PeriodicalId":36827,"journal":{"name":"Safety","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9040081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to many national legislations, biological agents represent an occupational hazard that must be managed in order to ensure safety at workplace. Bioaerosols have been associated to many pathological conditions but, despite many efforts, precise threshold limit values (TLV) are still undefined. We planned and conducted an environmental study concerning a typical restaurant that aimed to evaluate: (1) the occupational exposure to bacterial and fungal bioaerosol; (2) the efficacy of a photocatalytic air purifier device in mitigating such exposure. This observational study evaluated two dining rooms (Area 1 and Area 2) of a restaurant which can be considered typical during two consecutive weeks. Based on a national protocol, we monitored total bacterial and mycotic loads searching for two typologies of bacteria, psychrophilic bacteria (environmental contamination) along with mesophilic bacteria (human or animal origin source), and two types of fungi, mold and yeast. Baseline total bacterial load was 346.8 CFU/m3 for Area 1 and 412.9 CFU/m3 for Area 2. When the sanitizing device was operative, the total bacterial load decreased to 202.7 CFU/m3 (−41.50%—p value: <0.01) for Area 1 and to 342.2 CFU/m3 (−17.10%—p value: 0.06) for Area 2. Considering the fungal load, the mean baseline value was 189.7 CFU/m3 for Area 1 and 141.1 CFU/m3 for Area 2. When the device was kept on, the total fungal load was 108.0 CFU/m3 (−43.10%—p value: 0.055) for Area 1 and 205.0 CFU/m3 (+45.30%—p value: 0.268) for Area 2. Our findings supported the conclusion that, concerning the occupational risk derived from biological agents, a typical restaurant should be considered relatively safe. In order to mitigate or limit any possible increase of such risk, a photocatalytic device may be helpful, but not against the pollution caused by mold or yeasts. Our research also reaffirmed the need of further research assessing the kind of relationship between diseases and exposure levels, before considering the need of setting precise threshold limit values.
典型餐厅环境中的生物制剂职业暴露:光催化空气净化器有用吗?
根据许多国家的法律,生物制剂是一种职业危害,必须加以管理,以确保工作场所的安全。生物气溶胶与许多病理情况有关,但尽管做了许多努力,精确的阈限值(TLV)仍未确定。我们计划并开展了一项关于典型餐厅的环境研究,旨在评估:(1)职业暴露于细菌和真菌生物气溶胶的情况;(2)光催化空气净化器在减少此类暴露方面的功效。这项观察性研究对一家餐厅的两个餐厅(1 区和 2 区)进行了评估,这两个餐厅被认为是连续两周的典型餐厅。根据一项国家协议,我们监测了细菌和霉菌的总数量,以寻找两种类型的细菌,即嗜心理细菌(环境污染)和嗜中性细菌(人类或动物来源),以及两种类型的真菌,即霉菌和酵母菌。区域 1 的基准细菌总数为 346.8 CFU/m3,区域 2 为 412.9 CFU/m3。消毒装置运行后,1 号区的细菌总数降至 202.7 CFU/m3(-41.50%-p 值:<0.01),2 号区降至 342.2 CFU/m3(-17.10%-p 值:0.06)。考虑到真菌负荷,区域 1 的平均基线值为 189.7 CFU/m3,区域 2 为 141.1 CFU/m3。当装置持续开启时,区域 1 的总真菌量为 108.0 CFU/m3(-43.10%-p 值:0.055),区域 2 为 205.0 CFU/m3(+45.30%-p 值:0.268)。我们的研究结果支持这样的结论,即就生物制剂带来的职业风险而言,一家典型的餐厅应被视为相对安全的。为了减轻或限制可能增加的风险,光催化装置可能会有所帮助,但不能抵御霉菌或酵母菌造成的污染。我们的研究还再次证实,在考虑是否有必要设定精确的阈值限值之前,有必要进一步研究评估疾病与暴露水平之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Safety
Safety Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信