Is external contamination with organic pollutants important for concentrations measured in bird feathers?

Although there is increasing evidence that bird feathers can be used as a non-destructive biomonitoring tool for organic pollutants [such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and p,p'-dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane and metabolites (DDTs)], the importance of external contamination of these organic pollutants onto the feathers has not been considered. Here we examine to which extent external contamination of organic pollutants occurs onto the feathers of a predatory bird. We have analysed primary wing feathers of 16 common buzzards (Buteo buteo) collected in Belgium. In order to study differences in external contamination within and among wing feathers, the vane and the shaft of each feather were separated and were analysed in parallel, pooled for the three inner and the three outer primary wing feathers. Most organic pollutants could be measured in these pooled samples of both the vane and the shaft. Concentrations of hexachlorobenzene (HCB), DDTs, PCBs and PBDEs were significantly higher in the vane compared to the shaft. The profiles of PCBs and PBDEs in the shaft closely resembled the profiles in liver and muscle tissue, in contrast with the profile of the vane. The PBDE congeners 47, 99 and 153 had a similar contribution in shafts of primary feathers of common buzzards. Although these results suggest that external contamination could be important on the vane, no differences in the profile of PBDEs or PCBs were found between the inner and outer (more exposed) primary feathers. Furthermore, correlation coefficients with internal tissues were not univocally distinct between the shaft and the vane. Therefore our results indicate that the higher concentrations found in the vane in comparison to the shaft do not originate from external contamination via the air, but that other factors such as structure and chemical properties of the feathers may be of importance. The lack of significant external contamination onto the feather surface is an additional asset for the use of feathers as a non-destructive biomonitor for organic pollutants.     

Occupational risk of exposure to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the quality of infection hygiene in nursing homes

• Staff members were not colonised with MRSA. • But staff were exposed to MRSA from air, sedimented dust and surfaces. • MRSA was found in the rooms of MRSA-colonised residents but not in common areas. • Staff worry about MRSA and spreading it to other residents, family, and acquaintances. • The use of protective eyewear and facemasks could be improved. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an increasing health concern across the globe and is often prevalent at long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes. However, we know little of whether nursing home staff is exposed to MRSA via air and surfaces. We investigated whether staff members at nursing homes are colonised with and exposed to culturable MRSA, and assessed staff members’ self-reported knowledge of MRSA and compliance with infection hygiene guidelines. Five nursing homes with MRSA positive residents were visited in Copenhagen, Denmark. Personal bioaerosol exposure samples and environmental samples from surfaces, sedimented dust and bioaerosols were examined for MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) to determine occupational exposure. Swabs were taken from staffs’ nose, throat, and hands to determine whether they were colonised with MRSA. An online questionnaire about MRSA and infection control was distributed. No staff members were colonised with MRSA, but MRSA was detected in the rooms of the colonised residents in two out of the five nursing homes. MRSA was observed in air (n = 4 out of 42, ranging from 2.9–7.9 CFU/m³), sedimented dust (n = 1 out of 58, 1.1 × 10³ CFU/m²/d), and on surfaces (n = 9 out of 113, 0.04–70.8 CFU/m²). The questionnaire revealed that half of the staff members worry about spreading MRSA to others. Identified aspects for improvement were improved availability and use of protective equipment, not transferring cleaning supplies (e.g., vacuum cleaners) between residents’ rooms and to reduce worry of MRSA, e.g., through education.