Diversity of airborne bacteria in samples collected using different devices for aerosol collection
- 798 Downloads
Bacteria are ubiquitous in the atmosphere, where they form a highly diverse community, albeit low in abundance. Several approaches are available for collecting airborne particles, though few comparative studies have been conducted to date. This study examined how different sampling strategies affect the apparent composition of the airborne community. Three devices were tested: an impactor, a liquid impinger, and a Teflon membrane filter. Comparative studies were conducted at one mountainous location in Norway and one seaside location in Sweden. At both locations, microbial samples were collected in parallel using the sampling devices. DNA extraction, construction of 16S rRNA gene clone libraries, and subsequent sequencing were used to identify the bacteria. The comparison between clone libraries retrieved using the different devices indicated good agreement regarding dominant species, overall diversity, and distribution of species among phylogenetic groups. Among the less common species, there were few shared sequences in different clone libraries, likely due to the high diversity of the assessed samples. Bacteria belonging to the Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria phyla dominated at both locations, and the most common genera were Sphingomonas sp. and Pantoea sp. Chloroplast-like 16S rRNA gene sequences were detected in all samples.
KeywordsAirborne bacteria Bacterial diversity Aerosol collection Aerobiology
Hilde Kristiansen and Sabina Arnautovic are thanked for helping with sample collection. This work was financed by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Science and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), grant no. 214-2008-1113, by EU grant no. SEC6-PR-214400 (AEROBACTICS), and by the Research Council of Norway, grant no. 177802/V40.
- Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990). Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology, 215(3), 403–410.Google Scholar
- Amato, P., Parazols, M., Sancelme, M., Laj, P., Mailhot, G., & Delort, A. M. (2007). Microorganisms isolated from the water phase of tropospheric clouds at the puy de dome: Major groups and growth abilities at low temperatures. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 59(2), 242–254. doi: 10.1111/J.1574-6941.2006.00199.X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baron, P. A., & Willeke, K. (2001). Aerosol measurement: Principle, techniques, and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bovallius, A., Bucht, B., Roffey, R., & Anäs, P. (1978). Long-range air transmission of bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 35, 1231–1232.Google Scholar
- Bowers, R. M., Lauber, C. L., Wiedinmyer, C., Hamady, M., Hallar, A. G., Fall, R., et al. (2009). Characterization of airborne microbial communities at a high-elevation site and their potential to act as atmospheric ice nuclei. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75(15), 5121–5130. doi: 10.1128/Aem.00447-09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colwell, R. K. (2009). Estimates: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.2. User’s guide and application published at: http://purl.Oclc.Org/estimates.
- Fields, N. D., Oxborrow, G. S., Puleo, J. R., & Herring, C. M. (1974). Evaluation of membrane filter field monitors for microbiologial air sampling. Applied Microbiology, 27, 517–520.Google Scholar
- Good, I. J. (1953). The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population parameters. Biometrika, 40(3–4), 237–264.Google Scholar
- Jensen, P. A., Todd, W. F., Davis, G. N., & Scarpino, P. V. (1992). Evaluation of eight bioaersol samplers challenged with aerosols of free bacteria. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 53, 660–667.Google Scholar
- Kesavan, J., Bottiger, J. R., & McFarland, A. R. (2008). Bioaerosol concentrator performance: Comparative tests with viable and with solid and liquid nonviable particle. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 104, 285–295.Google Scholar
- King, M. D., Thien, B. F., Tiirikainen, S., & McFarland, A. R. (2009). Collection characteristics of a batch-type wetted wall bioaerosol sampling cyclone. Aerobiologia 25, 239–247.Google Scholar
- Lundholm, I. M. (1982). Comparison of methods for quantitative-determinations of airborne bacteria and evaluation of total viable counts. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 44(1), 179–183.Google Scholar
- Maron, P. A., Lejon, D. P. H., Carvalho, E., Bizet, K., Lemanceau, P., Ranjard, L., et al. (2005). Assessing genetic structure and diversity of airborne bacterial communities by DNA fingerprinting and 16s rdna clone library. Atmospheric Environment, 39(20), 3687–3695. doi: 10.1016/J.Atosenv.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(4), 623–656.Google Scholar
- Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., & Doyle, J. J. (1998). Molecular systematics of plants ii: DNA sequencing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Weisburg, W. G., Barns, S. M., Pelletier, D. A., & Lane, D. J. (1991). 16s ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. Journal of Bacteriology, 173(2), 697–703.Google Scholar