The performance of culture-based methods and microscopy for quantification of noninfectious airborne microorganisms in epidemiological studies of highly contaminated work environments.

Wijnand Eduard
{"title":"The performance of culture-based methods and microscopy for quantification of noninfectious airborne microorganisms in epidemiological studies of highly contaminated work environments.","authors":"Wijnand Eduard","doi":"10.1202/463.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Airborne levels of microorganisms traditionally have been measured by culture-based methods. Culture-based methods are suitable for the detection of infectious agents, but their suitability for the detection of microorganisms with toxic and allergic effects is less clear, because these effects do not depend on viability of the organisms. During the last 15 years several noncultural methods have been developed for the quantification of airborne microorganisms, including microscopic methods. Microscopy may be expected to provide more valid exposure estimates of microorganisms than culture-based methods, because live and dead microorganisms can be detected. However, their validity may also depend on the ability to differentiate between species. The literature was searched for epidemiological studies in which exposure-response analyses were carried out using culture-based methods and/or microscopy. The influence of several factors on exposure-response associations were considered: design; population size; analytical method; sampling method; exposure levels; outcome; and confounder adjustment. Thirteen studies were found, including a total of 49 exposure-response analyses, and 45% of the analyses showed associations. It was found that the potential of microscopic methods to uncover exposure-response associations was only marginally better than that of culture-based methods (47 and 44%, respectively). Exposure-response associations were more often found with fungi (70%) than with gram-negative bacteria (50%) or total bacteria (22%), perhaps because fungal exposure is more strongly associated to respiratory outcomes than exposure to bacteria. But the shortcomings of the measurement methods may also be important. Further development of measurement methods for bacteria is therefore needed. The complex composition of bioaerosols in many work environments necessitate the assessment of exposure to multiple agents and multivariate statistical analysis of exposure-response associations.</p>","PeriodicalId":83618,"journal":{"name":"AIHA journal : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":"64 5","pages":"684-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIHA journal : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1202/463.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Airborne levels of microorganisms traditionally have been measured by culture-based methods. Culture-based methods are suitable for the detection of infectious agents, but their suitability for the detection of microorganisms with toxic and allergic effects is less clear, because these effects do not depend on viability of the organisms. During the last 15 years several noncultural methods have been developed for the quantification of airborne microorganisms, including microscopic methods. Microscopy may be expected to provide more valid exposure estimates of microorganisms than culture-based methods, because live and dead microorganisms can be detected. However, their validity may also depend on the ability to differentiate between species. The literature was searched for epidemiological studies in which exposure-response analyses were carried out using culture-based methods and/or microscopy. The influence of several factors on exposure-response associations were considered: design; population size; analytical method; sampling method; exposure levels; outcome; and confounder adjustment. Thirteen studies were found, including a total of 49 exposure-response analyses, and 45% of the analyses showed associations. It was found that the potential of microscopic methods to uncover exposure-response associations was only marginally better than that of culture-based methods (47 and 44%, respectively). Exposure-response associations were more often found with fungi (70%) than with gram-negative bacteria (50%) or total bacteria (22%), perhaps because fungal exposure is more strongly associated to respiratory outcomes than exposure to bacteria. But the shortcomings of the measurement methods may also be important. Further development of measurement methods for bacteria is therefore needed. The complex composition of bioaerosols in many work environments necessitate the assessment of exposure to multiple agents and multivariate statistical analysis of exposure-response associations.

在高污染工作环境的流行病学研究中,基于培养的方法和显微镜对非传染性空气微生物的定量分析。
空气中微生物的水平传统上是通过基于培养的方法来测量的。基于培养的方法适用于检测感染原,但它们是否适合检测具有毒性和过敏作用的微生物尚不清楚,因为这些作用并不取决于生物体的活力。在过去的15年中,已经开发了几种非培养方法来定量空气中微生物,包括显微镜方法。与基于培养的方法相比,显微镜可以提供更有效的微生物暴露估计,因为可以检测到活的和死的微生物。然而,它们的有效性也可能取决于物种之间的区分能力。检索流行病学研究的文献,其中使用基于培养的方法和/或显微镜进行暴露-反应分析。考虑了几个因素对暴露-反应关联的影响:设计;人口规模;分析方法;抽样方法;暴露水平;结果;还有混杂因素调整。共发现了13项研究,包括49项暴露-反应分析,其中45%的分析显示出相关性。研究发现,显微镜方法揭示暴露-反应关联的潜力仅略好于基于培养的方法(分别为47%和44%)。与革兰氏阴性菌(50%)或总细菌(22%)相比,真菌(70%)的暴露-反应相关性更常见,这可能是因为真菌暴露比细菌暴露与呼吸结果的相关性更强。但是测量方法的缺点也很重要。因此,需要进一步发展细菌的测量方法。在许多工作环境中,生物气溶胶的复杂组成需要对多种物质的暴露进行评估,并对暴露-反应关联进行多元统计分析。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信