4.3 Article

Re-aerosolization of Bacillus thuringiensis spores from concrete and turf

Journal

LETTERS IN APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages 364-369

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/lam.12726

Keywords

Bacillus anthracis; Bacillus thuringiensis; concrete; re-aerosolization; spores; turf; wind tunnel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spores of Bacillus anthracis deposited on surfaces can become airborne again as a result of air currents and mechanical forces. As such, they are a potential source of infection by inhalation. Spores of Bacillus thuringiensis were used to quantify this phenomenon in a simulation of outdoor conditions. Concrete and turf surfaces were inoculated by aerosol to produce high spore densities (greater than 1x10(9)CFU per m(2)) which were then subjected to the passage of air at 10ms(-1) with and without simulated walking. Re-aerosolized spores were sampled by wetted wall cyclone air samplers. The mean total re-aerosolization rate from concrete (m(-2)min(-1)) was 116x10(-3) for wind alone and 32x10(-3) for wind and simulated walking while for turf the respective values were 27x10(-4) and 67x10(-4). Significance and Impact of the StudyFollowing the malicious and/or accidental release of an aerosol of Bacillus anthracis spores, the immediate risk of human inhalation would decrease as the spores were deposited on surfaces or diluted by wind flow. There is, however, a concern that the deposited spores could become re-aerosolized and so present an ongoing hazard. Using an accurate simulant for B.anthracis spores a method is reported here that allowed the enumeration of re-aerosolized spores from concrete and turf by wind flow and footfall. Under the conditions used, the rates of re-aerosolization were low. These findings will need to be verified under real outdoor conditions before the true significance in terms of secondary exposure to pathogenic spores can be assessed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available