| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 727.04 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
This study aims to assess the airborne bioburden of rural and urban Portuguese Primary Health Care Centers (PHCC) using active and passive sampling methods and identify the potential differences in airborne microbiota between both environments. The highest total aerobic mesophilic bacterial load in indoor air was found in the Vaccination Room (448 CFU.m−3) in the Rural PHCC and in the Waiting Room (420 CFU.m−3) for Urban PHCC. The total coliform contamination level in indoor air was detected only in the Cleaning Supplies Room (4 CFU.m−3) in the Urban PHCC. The most frequent bacteria genera identified was Micrococcus (21% Rural PHCC; 31% Urban PHCC). The surface samples showed the highest total aerobic mesophilic bacterial contamination in the Treatment Room (86 × 103 CFU.m−2) from the Rural PHCC and in the Front Office (200 × 103 CFU.m−2) from the Urban PHCC. The electrostatic dust cloth (EDC) samples showed the highest bacterial load in the Urban PHCC. Total aerobic mesophilic bacterial load in settled dust and in the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) filter samples in the Urban PHCC (8 CFU.g−1 and 6 × 103 CFU.m−2) presented higher values compared with the Rural PHCC (1 CFU.g−1 and 2.5 × 103 CFU.m−2). Urban PHCC presented higher bacterial airborne contamination compared with the Rural PHCC for the majority of sampling sites, and when compared with the indoor air quality (IAQ) Portuguese legislation it was the Rural PHCC in two sampling places that did not comply with the established criteria.
Description
Project EXPOsE, nº 23222 (02/SAICT/2016)
Keywords
Primary health care center Airborne bacteria Antibiotic resistance profile Rural setting Urban setting Portugal Project EXPOsE Project nº 23222 (02/SAICT/2016)
Citation
Monteiro A, Almeida B, Paciência I, Ribeiro E, Carolino E, Viegas C, et al. Bacterial contamination in health care centers: differences between urban and rural settings. Atmosphere. 2021;12(4):450.
Publisher
MDPI