Chinese Science Bulletin

, Volume 58, Issue 26, pp 3169–3176

Negatively and positively charged bacterial aerosol concentration and diversity in natural environments

Open Access
Invited Article Environmental Sciences

Abstract

Bioaerosol charge information is of vital importance for their electrostatic collection. Here, electrostatic means and molecular tools were applied to studying bioaerosol charge dynamics. Positively or negatively charged bioaerosols were collected using an electrostatic sampler operated with a field strength of 1.1 kV cm−1 at a flow rate of 3 L min−1 for 40 min. Those with fewer or no charges bypassing the sampler were also collected using a filter at the downstream of the electrostatic sampler in one environment. The experiments were independently conducted three times in three different environments. The collected bacterial aerosols were cultured directly on agar plates at 26°C, and the colony forming units (CFU) were manually counted. In addition, the CFUs were washed off from the agar plates, and further subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) for culturable diversity analysis. The results revealed remarkable differences in positively and negatively charged culturable bacterial aerosol concentration and diversity among the studied environments. In the office environment, negatively charged culturable bacterial aerosols appeared to dominate (P = 0.0489), while in outdoor and hotel environments both polarities had similar concentration levels (P = 0.078, P = 0.88, respectively). DGGE patterns for positively charged culturable bacterial aerosols were shown strikingly different from those of negatively charged regardless of the sampling environments. In addition, for each of the environments positively charged culturable bacterial aerosols collected were found to have more band pattern similarity with those positively charged for respective regions of agar plates than those negatively charged, and vice versa. The information developed here is useful for developing efficient electrostatic sampling protocols for bioaerosols.

Keywords

positive charge negative charge bacterial aerosol culturable diversity PCR DGGE gel pattern similarity 

Supplementary material

11434_2013_5852_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (514 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 513 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Douwes J, Thorne P, Pearce N, et al. Bioaerosol health effects and exposure assessment: Progress and prospects. Ann Occup Hyg, 2003, 47: 187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walinder R, Norback D, Wessen B, et al. Nasal lavage biomarkers: Effects of water damage and microbial growth in an office building. Arch Environ Occup Health, 2001, 56: 30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laumbach R J, Kipen H M. Bioaerosols and sick building syndrome: Particles, inflammation, and allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol, 2005, 5: 135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tolchinsky A D, Sigaev V I, Sigaev G I V, et al. Development of a personal bioaerosol sampler based on a conical cyclone with recirculating liquid film. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2010, 7: 156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haatainen S, Laitinen J, Linnainmaa M, et al. The suitability of the IOM foam sampler for bioaerosol sampling in occupational environments. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2010, 7: 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bundke U, Reimann B, Nillius B, et al. Development of a bioaerosol single particle detector (BIO IN) for the fast Ice nucleus chamber FINCH. Atmos Meas Tech, 2010, 3: 263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park D, Kim Y H, Park C W, et al. New bio-aerosol collector using a micromachined virtual impactor. J Aerosol Sci, 2009, 40: 415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen B T, Feather G A, Maynard A, et al. Development of a personal sampler for collecting fungal spores. Aerosol Sci Tech, 2004, 38: 926–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan M, Shen F, Yao M, et al. Development of an automated electrostatic sampler (AES) for bioaerosol sensing. Aerosol Sci Tech, 2011, 45: 1154–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xie C, Shen F, Yao M. A novel method for measuring the charge distribution of airborne microbes. Aerobiologia, 2011, 27: 135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han T, Mainelis G. Design and development of an electrostatic sampler for bioaerosols with high concentration rate. J Aerosol Sci, 2008, 39: 1066–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yao M, Zhang H, Dong S, et al. Comparison of electrostatic collection and liquid impinging methods when collecting airborne house dust allergens, endotoxin and (1,3)-β-D-glucans. J Aerosol Sci, 2009, 40: 492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han T, An H R, Mainelis G. Performance of an electrostatic precipitator with superhydrophobic surface when collecting airborne bacteria. Aerosol Sci Tech, 2010, 44: 339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madsen A M, Sharma A K. Sampling of high amounts of bioaerosols using a high-volume electrostatic field sampler. Ann Occup Hyg, 2008, 52: 167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao M, Mainelis G. Utilization of natural electrical charges on airborne microorganisms for their collection by electrostatic means. J Aerosol Sci, 2006, 37: 513–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mainelis G, Grinshpun S A, Willeke K, et al. Collection of airborne microorganisms by electrostatic precipitation. Aerosol Sci Tech, 1999, 30: 127–144Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mainelis G, Adhikari A, Willeke K, et al. Collection of airborne microorganisms by a new electrostatic precipitator. J Aerosol Sci, 2002, 33: 1417–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mainelis G, Willeke K, Baron P, et al. Electrical charges on airborne microorganisms. J Aerosol Sci, 2001, 32: 1087–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee S A, Willeke K, Mainelis G, et al. Assessment of electrical charge on airborne microorganisms by a new bioaerosol sampling method. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2004, 1: 127–138Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melandri C, Prodi V, Tarroni G, et al. On the deposition of unipolarly charged particles in the human respiratory tract. In: Walton W H, ed. Inhaled Particles, No. 4. Oxford: Pergamon, 1977. 193–201Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vincent J H, Johnston W B, Jones A D, et al. Static electrification of airborne asbestos: A study of its causes, assessment and effects on deposition in the lungs of rats. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1981, 42: 711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prodi V, Mullaroni A. Electrostatic lung deposition experiments with humans and animals. Ann Occup Hyg, 1985, 29: 229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bailey A G. The inhalation and deposition of charged particles within the human lung. J Electrostat, 1997, 42: 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grinshpun S A, Adhikari A, Honda T, et al. Control of aerosol contaminants in indoor air: Combining the particle concentration reduction with microbial inactivation. Environ Sci Technol, 2007, 41: 606–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li C S, Wen Y M. Control effectiveness of electrostatic precipitation on airborne microorganisms. Aerosol Sci Technol, 2003, 37: 933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yao M, Mainelis G, An H R. Inactivation of microorganisms using electrostatic fields. Environ Sci Technol, 2005, 39: 3338–3344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hogan C, Lee M H, Biswas P. Capture of viral particles in soft X-ray-enhanced corona systems: Charge distribution and transport characteristics. Aerosol Sci Technol, 2004, 38: 475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen F, Tan M, Xu H, et al. Development of a novel conductance-based technology for environmental bacterial sensing. Chin Sci Bull, 2013, 58: 440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fierer N, Liu Z, Rodríguez-Hernández M, et al. Short-term temporal variability in airborne bacterial and fungal populations. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2008, 74: 200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shelton B G, Kirkland K H, Flanders W D, et al. Profiles of airborne fungi in buildings and outdoor environments in the united states. Appli Environ Microbiol, 2002, 68: 1743–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee T, Grinshpun S A, Martuzevicius D, et al. Culturability and concentration of indoor and outdoor airborne fungi in six single-family homes. Atmos Environ, 2006, 40: 2902–2910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brodie E L, DeSantis T Z, Parker J P M, et al. Urban aerosols harbor diverse and dynamic bacterial populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2007, 104: 299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muyzer G, de Waal E C, Uitterlinden A G. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1993, 59: 695–700Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maron P A, Lejon D P H, Carvalho E, et al. Assessing genetic structure and diversity of airborne bacterial communities by DNA fingerprinting and 16S rDNA clone library. Atmos Environ, 2005, 39: 3687–3695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bowers R M, Lauber C L, Wiedinmyer C, et al. Characterization of airborne microbial communities at a high-elevation site and their potential to act as atmospheric ice nuclei. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2009, 75: 5121–5130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang L. Electrical impedance spectroscopy for detection of bacterial cells in suspensions using interdigitated microelectrodes. Talanta, 2008, 74: 1621–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations