Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Functional Versatility of Vibrio cholerae Outer Membrane Proteins
Previous Article in Journal
Association Between Adherence Levels to the EAT-Lancet Diet in Habitual Intake and Selected Gut Bacteria in a Mexican Subpopulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Silico Detection of Genetic Determinants for the Acquired Antibiotic Resistance and Biologically Active Compounds of Lactic Acid Bacteria from the Human Oral Microbiome
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comprehensive Analysis of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Fugitive Bioaerosols from Cattle Feedyards

1
Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA
3
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, Vernon, TX 76385, USA
4
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
5
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 5(3), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063
Submission received: 4 June 2025 / Revised: 27 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 2 July 2025

Abstract

Antimicrobial use in food animals selects for antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria, which most commonly reach humans via the food chain. However, AMR bacteria can also escape the feedyard via agricultural runoff, manure used as crop fertilizer, and even dust. A study published in 2015 reported AMR genes in dust from cattle feedyards; however, one of the study’s major limitations was the failure to investigate gene presence in viable bacteria, or more importantly, viable bacteria of importance to human health. Our main objective was to investigate the presence and quantity of viable bacteria and antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) determinants in fugitive bioaerosols from cattle feedyards in the downwind environment. Six bioaerosol sampling campaigns were conducted at three commercial beef cattle feedyards to assess variability in viable bacteria and AMR determinants associated with geographic location, meteorological conditions, and season. Dust samples were collected using four different sampling methods, and spiral plated in triplicate on both non-selective and antibiotic-selective media. Colonies of total aerobic bacteria, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Escherichia coli were enumerated. Viable bacteria, including AMR bacteria, were identified in dust from cattle feedyards. Bacteria and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs via qPCR) were mainly found in downwind samples. Total suspended particles (TSPs) and impinger samples yielded the highest bacterial counts. Genes encoding beta-lactam resistance (blaCMY-2 and blaCTX-M) were detected while the most common ARG was tet(M). The predominant Salmonella serovar identified was Lubbock. Further research is needed to assess how far viable AMR bacteria can travel in the ambient environment downwind from cattle feedyards, to model potential public health risks.

1. Introduction

The continued growth of the global human population has led to increased demand for food and more intensive livestock production [1]. Agricultural animal feeding operations (AFOs) play a vital role in raising livestock for food production. The United States (USA) is the largest beef producer in the world, with beef cattle production occurring on 30% of all USA. farms. Within the U.S, Texas has the largest number of beef cattle, totaling 4,685,000 head [2]. Animals in AFOs may experience stress due to their being reared close to each other, behavioral changes, and altered diets when compared to their extensive rearing origins, all of which increase the risk of disease development and spread [3,4,5,6]. This, in turn, can lead to a greater use of antibiotics to maintain animal health, welfare, and production levels [7].
The use of antimicrobials for the prevention, control, and treatment of infectious diseases in livestock creates selection pressures for antimicrobial resistant bacteria [8,9,10,11]. Resistant bacteria can be transferred from livestock to humans not only via food and animal products, but also through the environment [12,13,14,15,16]. Antimicrobial-resistant bacteria can also escape the feedyard environment through runoff, manure used as fertilizer, or particulate matter in the air [12,13,14,15,16]. There have been multiple research studies on environmental antimicrobial resistant bacteria arising from AFOs [17,18,19]; only a few studies have focused on particulate matter as the pathway of emissions [20,21]. The airborne transmission of AMR bacteria has become an increasing concern as researchers investigate potential sources of bacterial contamination of vegetables and leafy greens [22,23]. Additionally, there are public health concerns regarding the proximity of residential areas to Open Lot Livestock Facilities (OLLFs) and the potential for dust from the feedlots to travel to these residential areas [24,25].
Hoof action and wind scouring on dry animal manure pack in feedlots generate fine particles that can be small enough to form aerosols [24,26] and bacteria can be attached to those particles. In cattle feedyards, the maximum ground-level concentration of dust typically occurs during the evening. Drier pen surfaces, increased animal activity, associated hoof action [27] along with decreased winds, decreased vertical atmospheric dispersion, decreased boundary-layer mixing height, and increased atmospheric stability create favorable conditions for the evening dust peak (EDP) [28]. Airborne bacterial suspension time depends on several factors, such as atmospheric conditions, attachment to particles, and the bacterial species themselves [29,30]. Inhalation and deposition of particulates within the respiratory tract are complex; generally, particulates larger than 10 μm are deposited in the nasal passages, particles between 5–10 μm are primarily deposited in the upper respiratory tract, and particles smaller than 5 μm can reach and settle in the lungs [31]. Therefore, human exposure to airborne bacteria from bioaerosols generated by AFOs may be a concern [21]. To accurately assess the associated risks for human health, we need to determine the quantities of viable bacteria in bioaerosols downwind from cattle feedyards and to further determine associations between viable bacteria and resistance to antimicrobials that are important for public health. A study published in 2015 raised concerns about AMR bacteria escaping cattle feedyards through particulate matter in the air [20]. One of the limitations of that study was that the authors did not verify that the AMR genes were present in viable bacteria [32] and their co-location within the same. The presence of AMR genes is not a risk to public health unless the genes are detected in viable bacteria capable of causing infections in humans. Even then, the risk exists only if a bacterial infection arising is resistant to the same antibiotic chosen by a physician. Additionally, many of the resistance genes reported are naturally found in bacteria in the environment, conferring innate resistance to many classes of antibiotics.
Free DNA fragments, including those that may carry AMR genes from dead bacterial cells, may also be found in the environment and can be taken up by other bacteria via transformation and incorporated into their genome [33]. Transformation was the first discovered mechanism of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and involves the transfer of DNA to viable bacteria that are in a competent state [34]. Conjugation among two viable bacteria involves specialized and independent replicating genetic elements, like plasmids or integrated conjugative elements (ICEs), including transposons (CTns). Conjugation facilitates the transference of the plasmid or ICE to the same or different species of bacteria [35]; consequently, plasmid-mediated transmission is the most common mechanism of HGT [36]. Although DNA containing AMR genes can be incorporated into bacteria in the environment, the presence of viable bacteria is necessary for this to occur through a HGT mechanism [37].
Various methods, like filtration and impingement, have been employed to measure dust concentrations in feedlots [38], and to detect ARGs [20], yet little is known about the most effective techniques for sampling bioaerosols while preserving bacterial viability. Each bioaerosol sampling method offers distinct advantages and disadvantages, with varying levels of efficacy depending on the specific application. Those methods are classified as active and passive methods according to the type of collection [39]. Active methods (filtration and impingement) use a mechanical component to actively capture particles from the air, while passive methods (deposition) collect particles by allowing them to settle naturally onto a collection surface via gravity.
Filtration methods most often employ a dry filter of varying composition that selectively collects different particulate sizes: Total Suspended Particulates (TSPs) have an aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) of up to 45 μm; along with a subset of this, particulate matter of 10 μm (PM10), represent two examples of different particulate sizes targeted by specific collection devices and filter types. Liquid impingers collect particles greater than 2 μm in diameter using a liquid collection medium, which helps reduce damage to microorganisms resulting from physical impact and desiccation [40,41]. Deposition samplers, which measure dry-deposition flux rather than airborne concentration, gather primarily coarse particles of varying sizes, including multiple viable and non-viable bacterial sizes ranges [42].
While considerable research has been conducted on bioaerosol sampling at indoor AFOs, particularly in poultry and swine facilities [25,43,44,45,46,47], similar studies are scarce in the outdoor ambient environments of cattle feedlots. Little is known about (a) the viability of bacteria in particulate matter originating from AFOs and (b) whether AMR genes found in dust are harbored in viable bacteria of concern to human health. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the presence and quantity of commensal and pathogenic bacteria and AMR determinants in bioaerosols upwind and downwind of commercial beef cattle feedyards using three different sampling methodologies (filtration, impingement, and deposition). Additionally, any detected viable bacteria were characterized using phenotypic and genotypic techniques to determine sequence types, serovars, antimicrobial susceptibility, and antimicrobial resistance genes. The outcome of this effort was to improve the understanding of the public health risks associated with fugitive bioaerosols from cattle feedyards.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

Three commercial feedyards (FY1, FY2, and FY3) with one-time capacities ranging from 18,000 to 50,000 head of cattle in the high plains of Texas, USA, were sampled for bioaerosols using three different methods. To control dust, all three feedyards used manure harvesting while only FY3 employed a water sprinkler system. Six sampling campaigns were conducted: Campaign 1 (July 2018), Campaign 2 (January 2019), Campaign 3 (February 2019), Campaign 4 (May 2019), Campaign 5 (July 2019), and Campaign 6 (September 2019). Samples were collected for 2.5 h to 4 h (6:30 pm to 10:00 pm) during the EDP. The timing of the sampling was varied depending on the length of the EDP and sampling conditions.

2.2. Bioaerosol Sampling Methods

Downwind samplers were placed along the projected dust plume based on the prevailing wind conditions. Campaigns each included three downwind sampling locations, one at the center of the plume on the property line, and two near the edges of the plume. Downwind samplers were oriented longitudinally at different distances from the property line. Additionally, one sampler was located upwind from the feedyard to represent background aerosols. A schematic of the distribution of the samplers in the upwind and downwind directions is shown in Figure S1. The average distances between the upwind and downwind air monitors were approximately 1.25 km (FY1), 0.5 to 0.8 km (FY2), and 0.75 km (FY3) for the three feedyards.

Hardware

Three distinct sampling methods were used to compare bioaerosols and quantities of viable bacteria. Sampling durations were computed from the optimal flow rate for each sampling device to keep the air volume sampled constant across sampling events. Corresponding sampling durations by campaign and sample type are specified in Table 1. Before each sampling, a field and a trip blank were prepared for each sample type to serve as controls using 1X PBS Gibco® phosphate-buffered saline (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Gaithersburg, MD, USA). The field blank was exposed to the environment during sample collection and processed in the laboratory as an environmental sample. The trip blank was maintained within the sterilization pouch and was not exposed to the environment during sample collection. Additional measurements collected during the sampling included near-real-time mass concentrations of particulate matter (PM), near-real-time particle counts, and standard meteorological data (air temperature, wind speed/direction, relative humidity, solar radiation, barometric pressure, and precipitation).
Critical-flow liquid impingers (BioSampler, 20 mL) (SKC, Inc., Eighty Four, PA, USA) containing a previously validated solution of 95% 1X PBS and 5% glycerol were used to capture bioaerosol samples. The impinger consisted of (a) a glass vessel containing approximately 20 mL of a sterile liquid, and (b) a glass air inlet with three roughly tangential nozzles that induced swirling in the sampling liquid. The swirling action reduced the mechanical violence of particle impact on the liquid surface. The pump flow rate from the BioSampler was adjusted to induce gentle but easily visible swirling without the liquid splashing up the glass vessel wall, and the airflow rate was measured with an integrated rotameter. Following the sampling interval, the sampling liquid and its suspended particles were extracted with a sterile syringe and injected into a sterile, 50 mL conical tube (Falcon, Corning, NY, USA).
The filtration method is an active method that combines impaction and filtering. The filtration method included high-volume gravimetric aerosol samplers for both total suspended particulate (TSP) (Staplex® TSP; The Staplex® Company, Brooklyn, NY, USA) and particles ≤ 10 μm AED (PM10) (Andersen Model RAAS10-100 PM10 Single Channel PM10 Sampler; Manual Reference Method: RFPS-0699-130) using 20.3 × 25.4 cm A/E Glass Fiber Filters (quartz filter = QF) (Cytiva, Marlborough, MA, USA) following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines [48]. Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) (Series 1400a, Thermo Fisher Scientific, East Greenbush, NY, USA) were used to measure particle mass concentrations in the air.
Deposition samples were collected using a marble sampling technique. Marble sampling was based on passive methods previously described but with modifications [49]. Sterilized opaque, white glass marbles (0.91 kg) (Moon Marble Company, Bonner Springs, KS, USA) were placed in a sterilized 22.9 cm aluminum pie plate and set out for the sampling duration. After exposure, the marbles and pan were rinsed using 1X PBS.
Liquid from the impingers and rinsate from the marbles were dispensed into sterile 50 mL conical tubes (Falcon); meanwhile, the quartz filters (QFs) were packed in a sterilization pouch. All of the samples were stored at 4 °C, packaged with ice, and shipped overnight to the laboratory at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX for further processing and microbiological analysis.

2.3. Microbiological Processing

The liquid samples (impinger liquid aliquot and marble rinsate) and quartz filters (TSP and PM10) from the three feedyards were processed to determine both bacterial prevalence and bacterial quantification. The liquid samples were vortexed for 20 s before processing, if there was more than one conical tube per sample, the liquid from both tubes was combined into a single conical tube and vortexed. A 20 mL aliquot of the mixed liquid was used for microbiological processing. Each packaged quartz filter was opened in a sterilized biological safety cabinet, removed from the envelope with sterile forceps, and placed into a sterilized glass 22.5 × 33 cm Pyrex® pan (Pyrex, South Greencastle, PA, USA). A total of 200 μL of 1X PBS was used to wash the filter. Each glass pan, with a filter and 1X PBS, was covered and gently shaken by hand for 1 min, then held at room temperature for 2 h. After this holding period, the liquid was collected with a sterile serological pipette (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA) and distributed into four 50 mL conical tubes (Falcon) that were centrifuged at 4700 rpm for 3 min. After centrifugation, 25 mL of each sample from the top of each tube was discarded. The remaining 25 mL from each of the two falcon tubes were combined to obtain 100 mL in total. The suspension of one of the tubes was used for microbiological processing. The remaining liquid was aliquoted into 5 mL polypropylene culture tubes (VWR): one tube with 50% glycerol at a 1:1 ratio for microbiological analysis, and a second tube without glycerol for molecular analysis. Both polypropylene tubes were stored at −80 °C until further use.

2.3.1. Crude Bacterial Quantification

All samples were processed in triplicate. Fifty microliters from each sample (including the blank controls) were spiral plated using an Eddy Jet® 2 spiral plater (Neutec Group Inc., Farmingdale, NY, USA) with the E-Mode 50 μL setting onto Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) (Difco, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) for total aerobic bacterial counts (colony forming units—CFU). Three types of MacConkey Agar (MAC) (Difco) were used for E. coli quantification; plain (MAC), MAC supplemented with ceftriaxone (MAC-AXO) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MA, USA) at 4 μg/mL, and MAC supplemented with tetracycline (MAC-TET) at 16 μg/mL. Three types of m-Enterococcus agar (ME) (Difco) were used for Enterococcus spp. quantification; plain ME, ME supplemented with tetracycline at 16 μg/mL (ME-TET) (Sigma-Aldrich), and ME supplemented with erythromycin at 8 μg/mL (ME-ERY) (Sigma-Aldrich). All antimicrobial supplemented plates were prepared at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) human clinical breakpoint concentrations for bacterial resistance [50]. The TSA and MacConkey plates were incubated at 37 °C for 18 h, and the ME plates were incubated at 42 °C for 48 h. After incubation, all aerobic bacteria from TSA, presumptive E. coli (pink, lactose fermenting) colonies from MAC, and Enterococcus spp. (dark red to maroon with a cream halo) colonies from ME, all based on phenotypic characterization, were counted using the automated Flash & Go colony counter (Neutec Group Inc., Farmingdale, NY, USA).
Additionally, 1 mL of each sample type (impinger, marbles, quartz filter) was inoculated onto three different CompactDry™ plates in triplicate. CompactDry™ Total Count (CDTC) (all CompactDry™ products: Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, CA, USA) for the aerobic bacterial counts, and CompactDry™ Escherichia coli (CDEC) for E. coli and coliforms counts. The CDTC and CDEC CompactDry™ plates were incubated at 37 °C for 18 h. For Salmonella, 1 mL of the sample was inoculated into 9 mL of trypticase soy broth (TSB) (Difco) and incubated at 37 °C for 18 h. Following incubation, 10 μL of the TSB culture was inoculated onto the CompactDry™ Salmonella (CDSL) plate and incubated at 42 °C for 24 h. Colonies were counted using a light box with a grid sheet (1 cm × 1 cm). Specifications on the CompactDry™ plates, incubation time and temperature, bacteria cultured, and morphology of the presumptive colonies are described in Table 2. Figure S2 displays the morphological characteristics of bacterial colonies cultured on the various media.

2.3.2. Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qPCR) for Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

Community DNA Extraction for qPCR
Community DNA from samples stored without glycerol was extracted using the DNeasy® PowerSoil ®Pro Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol with some modifications. Samples were centrifuged at 4700 RPM for 15 min, the supernatant was discarded, and approximately 250 μL of the sediment was used for DNA extraction. The CD1 solution (Qiagen) was prepared by adding 0.3 g of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) to 10 mL of CD1 buffer. Then, 800 µL of the solution (CD1 + SDS) was added to the sample and vortexed. Proteinase K (Qiagen) (40 µL) was added to each tube. The tubes were incubated at 60 °C for 1 h at 900 RPM in a ThermoMixer™ (Eppendorf North America, Enfield, CT, USA), and a heat shock was performed for 10 min at 95 °C. The suspension was cooled at room temperature and 4 µL of RNAse A (Qiagen) was added to the suspension. The total volume was added to one PowerBead pro tube (Qiagen) to mechanically break the cells using the Qiagen TissueLyser system™ (Qiagen) at 25 Hz, for 10 min. The remaining steps of the DNeasy® PowerSoil ®Pro Kit protocol was continued on the Qiacube robot (Qiagen), following the manufacturer’s instructions for the DNeasy® PowerSoil ®Pro Kit protocol. DNA quality and quantity were measured at 260/280 nm wavelengths on the FLUOrstar Omega microplate reader, program version 3.02 R2 (BMG Labtech, Cary, NC, USA). DNA was quantified using a Qubit 3 fluorometer using the Quant—iT™ Pico Green ™ ds DNA Assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), and the DNA was stored at −30 °C for further genotypic analysis.
Primers and Reaction Setup
Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was performed on community DNA from QF and marble samples to identify target gene copies [i.e., 16S rRNA, tet(A), tet(B), blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M group 1, blaCTX-M group 9, tet(M), and ermB]. The 16S rRNA gene quantities were used as a proxy index of the total bacterial population and to normalize the target genes. The tet(A), tet(B), blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M group 1, and blaCTX-M group 9 genes were used to quantify the antimicrobial resistance genes of importance among Gram-negative bacteria, while the tet(M) and ermB genes were used to quantify antimicrobial resistance genes of clinical importance in Gram-positive bacteria. Primer sets are listed in Table S1. Reaction volumes included 10 µL of Ultrafast Brilliant III SYBR green (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), 3 µL nuclease-free water (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA), 2.5 µL each of forward and reverse primers (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA, USA), and 2 µL of total community DNA.
The reactions were run on an AriaMx Real-Time PCR system (Agilent Technologies) with thermocycler conditions adjusted for each gene (Table S2). The reaction plates were set up on a QIAgility™ (Qiagen) and samples were run in duplicate. The assays were subjected to PCR performance analysis following the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) [51].
Standard Curve Generation
Genomic DNA arising from previously sequenced isolates in our laboratory were used as templates for standard curve generation, including an E. coli NCBI Bioproject PRJNA625742/Biosample SAMN14842426 with genome size of 4,761,741 bp, E. coli NCBI Bioproject PRJNA625742/Biosample SAMN14842436 with genome size of 5,043,385 bp, E. coli NCBI Bioproject PRJNA625290/Biosample SAMN14596646 with genome size of 5,265,300 bp, Enterococcus faecium NCBI Bioproject PRJNA1197524/Biosample SAMN45828174 genome size of 2,926,163 bp, and Enterococcus faecium NCBI Bioproject PRJNA595617/Biosample SAMN45828633 with genome size of 2,946,289 bp. Standard curve templates were prepared by performing ten serial dilutions for each bacterial strain that contained the target gene for each primer pair. Gene copy numbers were estimated using the DNA concentration (ng/µL), Avogadro’s number = 6.022 × 1023, size of the reference genome (bp), and the molar mass per base pair set as 650 (g/mol)/bp (Equation (1)).
c o p y   n u m b e r = a m o u n t   b y   Q u b i t   n g µ L × A v o g a d r o s   n u m b e r b p × 650 × 1 × 10 9 × 2   µ L × #   o f   g e n e   c o p i e s   p e r   g e n o m e

2.3.3. Phenotypic Characterization of Bacteria

One presumptive, phenotypically identified bacterial isolate per each selective agar plate was further characterized using biochemical tests. E. coli were confirmed by the indole test, Salmonella were confirmed using agglutination with O-antigen polyvalent antisera (Difco), and Enterococcus spp. were confirmed by the bile esculin test. Additionally, one presumptive E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Salmonella colony per plate each were plated onto tryptic soy agar (TSA) with 5% sheep blood agar (RemelTM, Lenexa, KS, USA) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h (E. coli and Salmonella) or 48 h (Enterococcus spp.), respectively, for genus and species confirmation using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) (Bruker Daltonik GmbH, Billerica, MA, USA). A detailed description of the MALDI-TOF methods in our laboratory was previously published [52]. After confirmation of genus and species, isolates were preserved in cryoprotectant beads (Scientific Device Laboratory, Des Plaines, IL, USA) at −80 °C for further characterization.
Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST)
Antimicrobial susceptibility was performed for all the Salmonella isolates and E. coli resistant to tetracycline or ceftriaxone using the broth microdilution method via the SensititreTM system (TREK, Thermo Scientific Microbiology, Oakwood Village, OH, USA) using Sensititre™ NARMS Gram-negative CMV3AGNF plates (TREK) to identify the minimum inhibitory concentration (MICs) of E. coli and Salmonella. A detailed description of the protocol in our laboratory was previously published [53]. The results were interpreted as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [50] using SWIN software version 3.4 (TREK) or else breakpoints established by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for enteric bacteria (NARMS) for Salmonella and E. coli (Table 3). Intermediate isolates were later reclassified as susceptible for statistical analyses. Isolates resistant to three or more classes of antimicrobials were considered multidrug-resistant (MDR).

2.3.4. Genotypic Characterization of Bacterial Isolates

DNA Extraction for Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
DNA was extracted from stored Salmonella and a selection of resistant E. coli isolates using the QIAamp 96 DNA QIAcube HT Kit™ (Qiagen) on the QIAcube HT™ instrument (Qiagen). Fresh cultures from cryoprotectant beads were streaked onto tryptic soy agar (TSA) with 5% sheep blood and incubated at 37 °C for 18–24 h. After incubation, one colony per isolate was suspended into 5 mL of trypticase soy broth (TSB) (Difco) and incubated overnight at 37 °C. DNA extraction methods have been previously described in detail [53].
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
WGS was performed using the Illumina MiSeq platform using the Miseq V2 Reagent Kit (500 cycles) with paired-end reads (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Libraries for 32 isolates were multiplexed with the Swift 2s Turbo DNA Library Kit with Adapters (Integrated DNA Technologies), Swift Normalase Kit (Integrated DNA Technologies), and Swift Normalase Combinatorial Dual Indexing Primer Kit (Integrated DNA Technologies) following the manufacturer’s instructions using the Eppendorf Flexlid Mastercycler nexus gradient thermocycler (Eppendorf North America). The quality and quantity of the libraries were checked using the Fragment Analyzer instrument system (Advanced Analytical, Ankeny, IA, USA).
Bioinformatics Analysis of WGS Data
Raw reads (fastq files for reverse and forward reads) were obtained and used for further analysis on the Terra cluster of the High Performance Research Computing system (HPRC) at Texas A&M University. Fastq files were trimmed using Trimmomatic v0.39 [54]. The quality of the raw reads was checked with FastQC v0.11.9 [55]. The results from FastQC were aggregated in MultiQC [56]. Trimmed reads were de novo assembled by Spades v3.14.0 [57]. The assembly quality was assessed on QUAST v5.0.2 [58], which analyzes the number of contigs, and total length of the genome by bp, GC content (%), N50, and L50. The minimum required contig length was set to 250 bp. The SISTR v1.1.1 pipeline was used for serovar identification [59]. Serovar predictions were determined from WGS assemblies by antigen and cgMLST gene alleles using BLAST Sequence type v2.2.30 [59]. Multilocus sequence types (MLSTs) were identified for Salmonella and E. coli isolates using BIO-MLST-Check v2.1.1706216 [57], which identifies the combination of 7 house-keeping genes for each Salmonella (aroC, dnaN, hemD, hisD, purE, sucA, and thrA) and E. coli (adk, fumC, gyrB, icd, mdh, purA, and recA). The genomes were analyzed through Abricate v0.9.9 [60], which includes the Resfinder database [61,62] to determine acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, PointFinder [63] to determine chromosomal point mutations, and PlasmidFinder [64] to identify plasmid replicon types.

2.3.5. Dust Mass Calculations

To calculate the dust mass recovered by the quartz filter (Equation (2)) and impinger (Equations (3) and (4)) samples, the following equations, and parameters were applied.
Aerosol mass concentration (AMC) in grams per m3 of air sampled in quartz filter:
A M C = M e M o Q × Δ t Sampler-specific equation :   Aerosol   mass   concentration   ( AMC )   in   grams   per   m 3   of   air   in   TSP :   A M C T S P = T S P g a i r ( m 3 ) Aerosol   mass   concentration   ( AMC )   in   grams   per   m 3   of   air   in   PM 10 :   A M C P M 10 = P M 10 g a i r ( m 3 )
where,
  • Mo = mass of filter before sampling (g)
  • Me = mass of filter after sampling (g)
  • AMCTSP = concentration of bioaerosol captured in TSP filter in grams per m3 of air
  • AMCPM10 = concentration of bioaerosol captured in PM10 filter in grams per m3 of air
  • TSP(g) = MeTSP − MoTSP
  • PM10(g) = MePM10 − MoPM10
  • Q = Air sampling flow rate (m3/min)
  • Δ t = Sampling time (min)
Aerosol mass concentration (AMC) in grams per m3 of air sampled in impinger:
A M C i m p = V A L × A M T S P g 1000 ( L m 3 )
where:
  • VA = Volume of air sampled by impinger (L)
  • AMTSP = Aerosol mass (AM) derived from co-located high-volume TSP sampler (TSP (g))
  • AMCimp = concentration of bioaerosol captured in impinger in grams per m3 of air
V A = Q i m p × Δ t i m p L
where,
  • Qimp = Air sampling flow rate through impinger (L/min)
  • Δtimp = Impinger sampling time (min)
Marble sampling required a different approach to measure the dust mass. The transmittance of the rinsate was measured using the Spectronic 200® spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) after generating a standard curve by weighing 3 g of dried manure sample and preparing ten 2-fold serial dilutions in 1X PBS. Values were plotted in Microsoft® Excel® for Microsoft 365 MSO (Version 2402 Build 16.0.17328.20346) 64-bit using the exponential function to model the data (Figure S3).
Mass of dust (g) was estimated for each sample from the standard curve and subsequently used in statistical analyses. The sampling time for marbles was held constant throughout the campaigns in which this method was deployed.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata/BE version 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

2.4.1. Bacterial Count Analyses

For bacterial count analyses, the numbers of aerobic bacteria, coliforms, E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Salmonella in the dust samples were each expressed in (1) log10 CFU per g of dust, (2) log10 CFU per m3 of air, and (3) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample. As a result of the expected high number of zero counts in several of the log10 CFU bacterial endpoints from the dust samples, Cragg Hurdle regression (churdle) statistical models were used to address overdispersion. The hurdle model has two subsets of populations. In the first subset, there are observations at the boundary values (i.e., zero), and the second subset has observations above the lower boundary. There are two models: (1) the selection model—modeling the probability of an observation being in the non-boundary subset; and (2) the outcome model—modeling the value of the dependent variable for non-boundary observations. The final model used a linear regression analysis. Three types of models were generated to evaluate the log10 CFU (colony-forming units) per g of dust, per m3 of bioaerosol, and per mL of sample. The dependent variable in the first model used CFU/g of dust using the standardized aerosol mass concentrated in grams (AMstd) specified in Equation (5) for impingers, in Equation (6) for marbles, and in Equation (7) for QF. The second model used the CFU/m3 of dust aerosols calculated using the CFU/g and multiplying by the mass of bioaerosol concentrated in air AMC (g/m3) Equation (2). The third model simply used the CFU/mL of the raw sample. The AMstd per sample type was calculated as follows:
A M s t d i m p = A M i m p V 1   f o r   i m p i n g e r s
where,
  • AMimp = Aerosol mass (AM) derived from co-located high-volume TSP sampler (TSP (g))
  • V1 = 100 mL of raw sample
A M s t d m b = A M m b V 2   f o r   m a r b l e s
where,
  • AMmb = Aerosol mass (AM) derived from transmittance measure
  • V2 = 150 mL of raw sample
A M s t d Q F = A M Q F V 3   f o r   q u a r t z   f i l t e r s ( T S P   o r   P M 10 )
where,
  • AMQF = Aerosol mass (AM) derived from quartz filter sampler (g)
  • V3 = 200 mL of raw sample
Marbles were excluded from the second model (CFU/m3) because of the missing AMC records due to the sampling methodology differences.
The dependent variable of the model was the log10 CFU per g of dust, per m3 of bioaerosol, or per mL of raw sample, and the independent variables were the season (baseline was summer), and the interaction between direction (baseline downwind) and sample type (baseline TSP). The same variables were included in the selection equation. Sample replicate was included as a random effect to account for the potential clustering of the samples due to processing in triplicate using the clustered robust function -vce- (cluster).
For aerobic bacteria isolated on TSA, a full factorial model was used; however, for lower counts, like aerobic bacteria on CDTC and bacteria on selective media (E. coli and Enterococcus spp.), only the two-way interaction term was included to address model convergence issues caused by the large number of zero counts. The feedyard variable was not significant (p > 0.05), and so it was excluded from the model for posterior analysis. The log10 CFU from Campaign 5 was excluded from the analysis due to missing dust mass records.
To assess the potential total human exposure to bacteria, the Human Hourly Intake (HHI) of the targeted bacteria via PM10, TSP, and impinger samples was calculated using a previously reported equation [65]. The daily inhalation rate for a human body weight of 70 kg is 20 m3/day [66], which corresponds to 0.83 m3/h. The calculation of the HHI was performed using Equation (8).
H H I = l o g 10 C F U m 3 Δ t ( h ) × 0.83   m 3 / h

2.4.2. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Analysis

Antimicrobial susceptibility MIC data were imported into Stata/BE in the Trek SWIN (CSV) format. Intermediate resistance was collapsed into the “susceptible” category and resistance was analyzed as a binary variable. The presence or absence of a known resistance gene was compared with the phenotypic interpretation for the corresponding antimicrobial using descriptive statistics.

2.4.3. Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qPCR) for Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

qPCR reactions below the limit of quantification (LOQ) were recorded as missing values. Multiple imputations were assessed for datasets with a high number of missing values in the data (>5%). Models incorporating fixed effects for the campaigns were built. The models were compared across feedyards, seasons, and meteorological variables. Marginal mean estimates from the final model and bar graphs were generated for visualization. In a multiple imputation model, each missing value (i.e., value below the LOQ) was replaced by ‘m’ suitable values. Using typical methods without missing data, each filled dataset was separately examined, producing m sets of estimates and their variances. A comprehensive estimate was generated by integrating these estimations, considering both the observed data and the presence of missing values [67].
A three-step process was followed to impute the missing values. First, the data were explored using histograms and summary statistics (number of observations, missing, mean, minimum, and maximum counts) to understand the data distribution. Second, the appropriate auxiliary variables were selected to improve the predictive missingness and correlation with the observed data, as recommended [68]. Most of these auxiliary variables were not used in the estimation analysis. Third, an independent imputation model was employed that best matched the distribution and requirements of the data [69]. The Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) model was employed choosing the appropriate model for each gene in Stata/BE version 17.0 (StataCorp LLC). For the 16S rRNA, blaCTX-M group 9, tet(A), tet(B), tet(M), and ermB genes the imputation model used a truncated regression whereas blaCMY-2 used an interval regression model. The number of imputations (77) was based on the maximum missing qPCR data for any one gene (77%). A multivariable regression model was then built for each of the log10 gene copy endpoints. The variables in the full factorial model included log10 gene copies as the dependent variable, the independent variable feedyard (FY2 as baseline), and the full interaction of sample type (TSP as the baseline) and wind direction (downwind as the baseline). The model included only the sample types analyzed by qPCR (PM10, TSP, and marbles). Marginal mean estimates from the final models were generated and displayed with bars corresponding to the 95% confidence intervals. For the analysis of the blaCTX-M group 1 gene, the hurdle model was used instead of multiple imputation. Methods for the hurdle model followed those previously described for the CFU data.
The log10 gene copies were further analyzed in bivariable models with meteorological data. Eight variables were analyzed (relative humidity, air temperature, vapor pressure, total wind run, maximum wind just, total solar load, precipitation, and reference evapotranspiration (ETo)). Evapotranspiration refers to the total water loss to the atmosphere through the combined processes of evaporation and transpiration [70] and it is influenced by radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and vapor pressure deficit [71]. For our purposes, ETo represents the atmosphere’s propensity to evaporate water from surfaces and living tissues.

3. Results

3.1. Bacterial Prevalence and Quantification

3.1.1. Descriptive Statistics

A total of 91 raw samples were processed in triplicate (i.e., 273 total processed samples) for bacterial quantification. These included impinger (n = 22), quartz filter: TSP (n = 25) and PM10 (n = 22), and marble (n = 22) samples. Bacterial prevalence varied by campaign (Table S3), feedyard (Table S4), and sample type (Table S5) with aerobic bacteria having the highest prevalence and antimicrobial-resistant E. coli and Enterococcus spp. having lower prevalences (Tables S3–S5). Raw bacterial CFU (log10) for each bacterial type as tabulated by campaign (Table S6), feedyard (Table S7), and sample type (Table S8) also varied. The quantities of dust by direction and sample type are described in Table 4.

3.1.2. Hurdle Regression Models

Aerobic Bacteria
Viable aerobic bacterial counts were higher in downwind than upwind samples for both TSA and CDTC plates (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Downwind aerobic bacterial quantities on TSA plates were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in impinger samples for log10 CFU/g and log10 CFU/m3 of dust when compared to TSP samples. Downwind aerobic bacterial quantities for log10 CFU/mL were significantly less for PM10 and marble sample types compared to TSP and impinger sample types on TSA plates.
Downwind aerobic bacterial quantities for log10 CFU/g of bioaerosol on CDTC plates were significantly higher for marble samples (p < 0.05) compared to PM10, TSP, and impinger samples. In contrast, downwind aerobic bacterial quantities for log10 CFU/m3 of bioaerosol on CDTC plates were significantly higher for impinger samples than PM10 and TSP samples. Considering downwind aerobic bacterial quantities for log10 CFU/mL of sample, TSP samples were significantly higher than PM10, impinger, and marble samples.
E. coli 
E. coli counts were higher downwind than upwind for all sample types (Figure 3). Downwind E. coli counts for log10 CFU/g and log10 CFU/mL did not differ significantly between sample types (p < 0.05); however, downwind E. coli quantities for log10 CFU/m3 were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in impinger samples compared to PM10 and TSP samples.
Tetracycline-resistant E. coli were only present in downwind samples and no tetracycline-resistant E. coli were isolated from marble samples (Figure 4). There were no significant differences in downwind tetracycline-resistant E. coli quantities for log10 CFU/g or log10 CFU/mL when comparing sample types; however, for log10 CFU/m3 E. coli quantities were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in impinger samples compared to PM10.
Ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli were only present in downwind samples and were found in very low quantities (Figure 5). There were no significant differences among sample types for log10 CFU/g, log10 CFU/mL or log10 CFU/m3, although TSP samples had numerically higher quantities of ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli compared to PM10, impinger, and marble samples (Figure 5).
Enterococcus spp.
For upwind samples, Enterococcus spp. were only recovered from TSP samples and the quantity was significantly less than for downwind TSP samples for log10 CFU/g of bioaerosol, log10 CFU/mL of raw sample, and log10 CFU/m3 of bioaerosol (Figure 6). Downwind Enterococcus spp. quantities for log10 CFU/g were significantly lower in PM10 samples compared to TSP and impinger samples; for log10 CFU/mL and log10 CFU/m3, quantities were significantly lower in PM10 compared to TSP.
Tetracycline-resistant Enterococcus spp. were only recovered from downwind samples (Figure 7). There were no significant differences in downwind tetracycline-resistant Enterococcus spp. among sample types for log10 CFU/g, log10 CFU/mL, or log10 CFU/m3; however, quantities were numerically higher in TSP and impinger samples compared to PM10 and marble samples.
Erythromycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. were only recovered from downwind samples and found in low quantities (Figure 8). There were no significant differences among sample types concerning downwind erythromycin Enterococcus spp. quantities for log10 CFU/g, log10 CFU/mL, and log10 CFU/m3.
Salmonella 
For upwind samples, Salmonella were only recovered from impinger samples and although not significant, the quantities were numerically less than the downwind impinger samples (Figure 9). As was reported in the methods section (Section 2.3.1), to increase the probability of recovering Salmonella, the bacteria were exposed to a pre-enrichment step which inflated the CFUs of Salmonella per sample. Salmonella downwind quantities were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in TSP samples compared to PM10 samples for log10 CFU/g, log10 CFU/mL, and log10 CFU/m3.
Coliforms
For upwind samples, coliforms were only recovered from impinger and marble samples, meanwhile, coliform quantities were numerically higher in downwind impinger and marble samples (Figure 10). Downwind coliform quantities were significantly higher in TSP samples compared to PM10 samples (p < 0.05) for log10 CFU/g, log10 CFU/mL, and log10 CFU/m3.
Modeled marginal means and 95% confidence intervals of all types of log10 CFU bacteria per gram, per mL, and per m3 of dust are described in Tables S9–S11, respectively.

3.2. Bacterial Resistance Gene Quantification in Dust

Higher bacterial resistance gene counts were found in downwind samples compared to upwind samples, similar to the viable bacterial quantification results (Figure 11). The one exception was where slightly higher counts of blaCTX-M group 9 genes were found in the upwind marble samples compared to the downwind marble samples. Impinger samples did not yield large enough quantities of community DNA to allow for bacterial quantification via qPCR.
The 16S rRNA gene represented both the viable and non-viable bacterial counts in the samples. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between downwind and upwind gene copies in PM10 samples. No other significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between sample types or directions for the quantity of 16S rRNA gene copies. Interestingly, the highest quantity of 16S rRNA genes was found in the downwind marble samples.
Among the antimicrobial resistance genes targeted in this study, the highest quantity gene was tet(M), followed in decreasing order by ermB, tet(A), tet(B), blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M group 1, and lastly bla CTX-M group 9. The highest quantities of blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M group 1, blaCTX-M group 9, tet(B), ermB, and tet(M) genes were found in downwind TSP samples; however, the only significant difference (p < 0.05) found was for the blaCTX-M group 1 when comparing downwind and upwind TSP samples. The highest quantity of tet(A) genes were found in the downwind marble samples; however, there were no significant differences in tet(A) gene quantities by sample type or direction.
The log10 gene copies were further analyzed with meteorological data. ETo which represents the atmosphere’s propensity to evaporate water from surfaces and living tissues influenced by temperature, humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, soil type, and vegetation cover was the meteorological variable that was significantly higher with the most prevalent genes: log10 16S rRNA (p = 0.011), tet(A) (p = 0.005), ermB (p < 0.001), and tet(M) (p = 0.031). Other variables, such as relative humidity, air temperature, vapor pressure, total wind run, maximum wind gust, total solar load, and precipitation, were not significantly associated.

3.3. Phenotypic Characterization

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance in E. coli and Salmonella

The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to 14 antimicrobials were determined for all 27 Salmonella isolates cultured from the bioaerosol samples and a subset of 26 E. coli strains cultured from MAC supplemented with tetracycline or ceftriaxone (Figure 12). The proportion of Salmonella isolates resistant to an individual antimicrobial ranged from a low of 0% for ciprofloxacin and gentamicin to a high of 48.1% for tetracycline. The proportion of tested E. coli isolates resistant to an individual antimicrobial ranged from a low of 0% for gentamicin to a high of 92.9% for tetracycline.
For the 27 Salmonella isolates, six (22.2%) were MDR (≥3 classes of antimicrobials), six (22.2%) were classified as resistant to fewer than three classes of antimicrobials, and 14 (51.9%) were classified as pan-susceptible (i.e., susceptible to all the antimicrobials evaluated). For the 26 E. coli isolates grown on TET or AXO-antimicrobial-selective media, 16 (61.5%) were MDR, nine (34.6%) were classified as resistant to fewer than three classes of antimicrobials, and one (3.6%) was classified as pan-susceptible. Among the 13 Salmonella isolates exhibiting resistance to at least one antimicrobial, seven distinct antimicrobial resistance patterns were found among eight serovars (Table S12). Salmonella Reading was resistant to most antimicrobials (nine antimicrobials), while S. anatum, S. lubbock, and S. montevideo were resistant only to tetracycline.
Among the 25 E. coli isolates exhibiting resistance to at least one antimicrobial, fifteen distinct antimicrobial resistance patterns were found among seventeen different sequence types (STs) (Table S13). ST 224 and ST 278 were resistant to most antimicrobials (10 antimicrobials), while ST 20, ST 58, ST 109, ST 730, ST 1148, ST 5204, and ST 6643 were resistant to only one antimicrobial (tetracycline or ampicillin). It is important to note that all E. coli subjected to phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing were cultured on antibiotic selective media containing either ceftriaxone or tetracycline at CLSI breakpoint concentrations.

3.4. Genotypic Characterization

3.4.1. Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

Whole genome sequencing identified a total of 10 ARGs in the Salmonella isolates and 15 ARGs in the E. coli isolates. It is important to note that genes not typically associated with phenotypic resistance (fosA7) and genes encoding multidrug efflux pumps (mdf(A)) were not included in the analysis. Out of 27 isolates, 13 Salmonella (48.1%) carried at least a single antimicrobial resistance gene (ARG) and 14 (51.8%) did not harbor any ARGs (Table S11). Out of 26 E. coli isolates, 25 (96.4%) carried at least one ARG (Table S12), and only one isolate (3.5%) did not harbor any ARGs. Once again, it is important to note that all E. coli subjected to WGS were cultured on antibiotic selective media.

3.4.2. Salmonella Serovars

A total of eight different Salmonella serovars were identified and all serovars represented a single ST. The most prevalent serovars were Lubbock (ST 413, 25.9%, 7/27), Anatum (ST 64, 22.2%, 6/27), followed by Cerro (ST 2398, 18.5%, 5/27), Meleagridis (ST 463,14.8%, 4/27), Montevideo (ST 138, 7.4%, 2/27), Lille (ST 297, 3.7%, 1/27), Muenchen (ST 83, 3.7%, 1/27), and Reading (ST 1628, 3.7%, 1/27). Interestingly, the proportion of Salmonella serovars differed by sample type (Figure 13). Salmonella was isolated from only two of the six campaigns and from two of the three feedyards (Figure 14 and Figure 15).

3.4.3. Plasmid Analysis

A total of 25 (89%) E. coli and 12 (44.4%) Salmonella isolates harbored at least one plasmid. Six different plasmid incompatibility (Inc) types were identified in the 27 Salmonella isolates (IncA/C2, IncFII, IncI1, IncN, IncR, and IncX) and the predominant type was IncI1 (22.2%, n= 6) (Table S12). Eight different plasmid incompatibility (Inc) types were identified in E. coli (IncFIA, IncFIB, IncFIC, IncFII, IncI1, IncR, IncX, and IncY) and the predominant type was IncFIB (64.3%, n= 18) (Table S13).

4. Discussion

This study was conceived and designed to determine the presence and quantities of viable Gram-negative and Gram-positive indicator bacteria in addition to pathogenic bacteria (indicators of antimicrobial resistance) [72] and antimicrobial resistance genes in bioaerosol samples collected from three feedyards during six seasonal sampling campaigns using several sampling methods. The study revealed significant findings regarding the presence of viable antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria and antimicrobial-resistant genes (ARGs) in bioaerosol samples from cattle feedyards. Viable AMR bacteria were detected, which suggests a potential route for dissemination within the feedyard environment and to the surrounding area. These findings are similar to results reported in other studies regarding dust emissions from animal production facilities [24,73]. The identification of AMR bacteria, particularly those resistant to commonly used antimicrobials, such as cephalosporins, macrolides, and tetracycline, aligns with previous studies from animals in feedlots [74,75,76,77,78]. The viability of bacteria in bioaerosols suggests these bacteria can survive the harsh environmental conditions of feedyards and become aerosolized. A recent study from our own group found bacteria in manure samples were able to survive UV-B exposure and desiccation under strict laboratory conditions [79]. The potential for bacteria to persist in bioaerosols raises potential health concerns, particularly regarding the risk of respiratory transmission to humans working with animals residing in the feedyard environment.
The mean concentrations of bioaerosols were higher downwind in TSP, impinger, and PM10 samples than in upwind samples. The concentration of bioaerosols in PM10 samples was three times higher than what has previously been reported from feedyards [80]; however, for TSP, similar studies reported ten times more dust than our study [81,82]. The ratio of upwind to downwind bioaerosols was between 0.03 to 0.10 depending on the sampling method, which was within the range (0.004 to 0.74) previously reported [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87]. These concentrations were measured directly downwind and onsite at the feedyards. Previous studies have reported a rapid decay of particulate matter with increasing downwind distance, sometimes reporting a reduction to 8.5% at 3.5 km beyond the edge of the feedyard [88].

4.1. Bacterial Quantification in Dust

Similar to bioaerosol mass and concentrations, bacterial prevalence and concentrations were higher in downwind samples when compared to upwind samples, indicating that the majority of bacteria in the bioaerosols likely originated from the feedyard. Previous studies in cattle feedyards have also found that bacterial concentrations were higher downwind than upwind [26,87,89]. Although bacterial concentrations were consistently higher in downwind samples across all sample types, we detected variations in bacterial levels among the different sample types.
A variety of different selective and differential agars was used to quantify bacteria in the bioaerosol samples. TSA agar, MAC agar (with and without antibiotics), and ME agar (with and without antibiotics) were used with spiral plating techniques to determine the concentrations of total aerobic bacteria, E. coli, and Enterococcus spp., respectively. Additionally, CompactDry™ plates, which are commonly used in a variety of industries to test food, cosmetics, and other raw materials, were utilized to quantify coliforms and Salmonella. The inclusion of a variety of different media types allowed for the investigation of both broad and narrow groups of viable aerobic and enteric bacteria in bioaerosols and allowed determination of differences within direction, sample type, feedyard, and campaign.
To quantify total aerobic bacteria, we employed two different types of media, TSA and CompactDry™ CDTC plates. Interestingly, we found differences between the media and sample types. Aerobic bacterial counts on CDTC plates were highest for marbles, followed by impinger samples. In contrast, for TSA plates, bacterial counts were higher for TSP and impinger samples. Although similar aerobic bacterial counts have been reported between TSA and CDTC plates in samples with a low quantity of bacteria [90], the differences that were found in our study could be due to the high concentrations and variability of bacteria in the feedyard environment, along with differences in sample types.
Marbles are passive samplers and particles are collected passively via gravity, deposition, and electrostatic attraction [91]. Previous studies suggested that marbles should be treated only as a qualitative measure as the sampled air volume is unknown [91]. Passive methods can yield very different species based on the size of the microorganisms, deposition rates, ventilation, and other parameters [91]. The TSP method collects all airborne particles regardless of size, and that broader range allows TSP samples to capture a more comprehensive array of particles, including larger ones that may carry bacteria. The impinger is capable of preserving the physiological state of bacteria (viability, cultivability, metabolic activity, ice-nucleation activity), even during long sampling periods due to the gentle collection method [92,93,94].
For comparison with other studies, it is important to note that we reported bacterial concentrations in log10 CFU, while other studies present their data in raw CFU values. For downwind samples, our mean quantity of aerobic bacteria was 4.0 on TSA and 2.9 log10 CFU/m3 on CDTC. Purdy, et al. (2007), reported a mean CFU of 1383 ± 223 CFU/m3 (3.1 log10 CFU/m3) in non-respirable particles (particles sizes 5 to 10 μm) [80], and Wilson, et al. (2002), reported a mean of 1146 CFU/m3 (3.1 log10 CFU/m3) aerobic bacteria [87]. For upwind samples, our mean quantity of aerobic bacteria was 1.1 on TSA and 1.6 log10 CFU/m3 on CDTC, while Purdy et al. (2007), reported a mean of 376 ± 66 CFU/m3 (2.6 log10 CFU/m3) in non-respirable particles. It is important to clarify that the time of sampling in Purdy et al. (2007), was very short (5 min) in comparison with our study, which was between 3 h to 4 h. Additionally, Purdy et al. (2007), used impactor samplers to collect the bacteria [80]. Differences in CFU between our study and previous studies could be due to sampling time or different sampling methods.
E. coli were primarily recovered from downwind samples; however, a small quantity of E. coli were recovered from upwind impinger and marble samples. Antimicrobial resistant (TET and AXO) E. coli were only recovered from downwind samples; overall, ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli were found in very low quantities. Downwind impinger samples had the highest quantity of E. coli and tetracycline-resistant E. coli, similar to previously published studies [95]. A study that compared different bioaerosol sampling methods on poultry farms, found that impingers were more effective in collecting E. coli than ACD-200 Bobcat (dry surface collection) and similar to the Andersen six-stage impactor [95]. This is most likely due to the liquid media in the impinger that reduced the stress of the bacteria during the collection process, maintaining viability and facilitating recovery and quantification of E. coli [39]. Moreover, impingers capture a wide range of particle sizes, including larger particles (>7 μm), that may be more likely to carry bacteria [95].
Previous studies have focused on the potential impact of bioaerosols from cattle feedyards by studying E. coli and E. coli O157:H7 concentrations on spinach and leafy greens grown in close proximity to cattle feedyards [23]. The samples collected in those studies would be expected to be similar to the marble samples in the current study. In the study by Berry et al. (2015), E. coli O157:H7 were not detected in downwind samples from a feedlot using MAS-100 Eco microbial air samplers [23]; however, on a very dusty day, 837.2 CFU/m3 non-type specific E. coli were found at the edge of the feedlot. Additionally, in the leafy green plots; E. coli quantities were 16.7 CFU/m3 at 60 m, 10 CFU/m3 at 120 m, and 5.3 CFU/m3 at 180 m, showing a decrease in E. coli concentrations with increasing distance from the feedyard [23].
Enterococcus spp. were also primarily recovered from downwind samples and only recovered from TSP samples upwind. This contrasts with E. coli which were recovered in impinger and marble samples upwind. This most likely can be explained by the thick cell wall of Enterococcus spp. (and other Gram-positive organisms) that allowed the bacteria to remain viable after the harsh impact and desiccation when using filters in the TSP samplers. Additionally, the high-volume collection of the TSP samplers favor finding bacteria in lower abundance, and a lower abundance of Enterococcus spp. compared to E. coli in the upwind environment may explain why Enterococcus spp. were not recovered from the impinger or marble samples. Similar to the antimicrobial-resistant E. coli, antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus spp. were only recovered from downwind samples. A previous study in feedyards isolated Enterococcus spp. from downwind samples using a high-volume air sampler; however, that the study did not test for antimicrobial resistance [96].
Salmonella were also primarily recovered from downwind samples except for upwind impinger samples. Similar to E. coli, Salmonella are Gram-negative organisms and most likely were less able to survive the high impact of the TSP and PM10 samplers. Similar to E. coli and Enterococcus spp., Salmonella were found in higher quantities in the downwind TSP and impinger samples. However, care should be taken when comparing the Salmonella findings with the other bacteria because the Salmonella were subjected to a pre-enrichment step prior to plating. Additional growth curve experiments were conducted to determine the effect of pre-enrichment in TSB for 24 h on Salmonella quantities; however, at 24 h, Salmonella had reached the stationary phase and were no longer increasing in CFUs. Future studies on Salmonella quantification from bioaerosols would benefit from testing pre-enrichments at various intervals to obtain a better understanding of the effect of pre-enrichment on Salmonella quantification.
Similar to E. coli, coliforms were found primarily in downwind samples but were recovered from upwind impinger and marble samples. We would expect the coliform results to be similar to the E. coli results because coliforms include E. coli and other Gram-negative bacilli, such as Citrobacter spp., Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. Previous studies have reported marbles to be an effective sampling method for coliforms and the interstitial spaces between the marbles can trap particles and coliforms effectively and protect them from harsh environmental conditions (e.g., heat, desiccation, UV light) [97]. Marbles have been reported to capture different Enterobacteriaceae bacteria, like Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., and Citrobacter spp., that are more resistant to environmental conditions than E. coli and Salmonella [98], and this may explain why we recovered coliforms in upwind marble samples in addition to impinger samples. Additionally, since coliforms encompass genera in addition to Escherichia spp., we would expect higher bacterial quantities in comparison to E. coli alone.
The risk for exposure to bioaerosols containing antimicrobial-resistant bacteria was evaluated using the Human Hourly Intake (HHI) model. The raw total count of aerobic bacteria on TSA and CDTC media had the highest level of HHI (at 7 to 10 CFU/h) and if totaled across the 4 h (EDP) we have 40 CFU of aerobic bacteria. The HHI for raw total E. coli was 3 CFU/h, tetracycline-resistant E. coli was 2 CFU/h, and Enterococcus spp. was around 3 CFU/h. For the entire duration of the EDP, this resulted in a cumulative total of 12 CFU for total E. coli and Enterococcus spp., and 4 CFU for tetracycline-resistant E. coli. Bai et al. (2022), reported a daily intake (DI) of 1769 to 2160 CFU/day of Staphylococcus spp. from a chicken house, and 1512 to 3522 CFU/day from a dairy barn [73], which is a higher intake in comparison to what we found. An important consideration is that we found lower HHI for PM10 in comparison with TSP, which is logical being PM10 a fraction within TSP.

4.2. Bacterial Gene Quantification in Dust

Similar to the viable bacterial quantities, gene quantities were consistently higher in downwind samples, though such genes were consistently recovered both upwind and downwind in all sample types. In concert with our inability to recover viable bacteria in several upwind sample types, this provides evidence that many of these genes are likely harbored in non-viable bacteria. As expected, the highest copy number gene was the 16S rRNA gene. The number of bacteria in the sample was estimated using this gene as a baseline, but it is crucial to remember that this number includes both viable and non-viable bacteria, and bacteria can harbor more than one copy of this gene. For most antimicrobial resistance genes, the highest quantity was found in the downwind TSP samples. Since the results include both viable and non-viable bacteria, we would anticipate seeing the highest concentrations of genes from the TSP samplers, because these samplers collected the highest concentrations of dust. The most prevalent antimicrobial resistance gene was tet(M), followed by ermB, tet(A), tet(B), blaCMY-2, and then blaCTX-M variants.
The tet(M) gene is predominant in Gram-positive bacteria like Enterococcus spp. [99]. This gene is responsible for clinically important resistance to tetracycline, which is a highly important antimicrobial family in human medicine [100]. In cattle, tetracycline is used to prevent, control, and treat bacterial pneumonia associated with shipping fever complex or bovine respiratory disease (BRD) [101]. The tet(M) gene has been reported at a prevalence of 30.7% in Enterococcus hirae isolates from beef production systems [102]. McEachran et al. (2015), found tet(M) was the most abundant tetracycline gene in downwind samples [20], which is consistent with our results. The tet(M) gene has also been reported in bioaerosols from pig farms [47,103] and feedyards [82].
The ermB gene was the second most common gene and is also predominant in Enterococcus spp. in cattle, the environment, and humans, [104,105]. This gene encodes for resistance to erythromycin with cross-resistance to other macrolides like azithromycin [106]. Macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin) are critically important antimicrobials for treating Legionella spp., Campylobacter spp., MDR Salmonella, and Shigella spp. in humans [100]. Tilmicosin, tulathromycin, and tylosin are macrolides used to control and treat bovine respiratory disease in cattle [107], and tylosin is also commonly used to prevent liver abscesses [108]. Another study on bioaerosols detected the ermB gene in samples collected near a conventional cattle farm, although quantification data were not provided [109]. The ermB has also been reported as an abundant gene in bioaerosols from poultry and pig production environments [110].
The tet(A), tet(B), blaCMY-2, and blaCTX-M genes were found in lower quantities. Interestingly, these genes are predominant in Gram-negative bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella, rather than in Gram-positive organisms, such as Enterococcus spp. The finding of higher gene copies for resistance genes predominant in Gram-positive organisms would suggest that Gram-positive organisms are more prevalent in bioaerosols downwind from cattle feedyards. Alternatively, Gram-positive organisms may be more prevalent in the cattle feedyard environment, or they may have a greater ability to survive in feedyard environment and become aerosolized. Further research is needed to determine the differences in viable Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in the feedyard environment and the ability of these organisms and their resistance genes to survive and become aerosolized.

4.3. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of E. coli and Salmonella Isolates

4.3.1. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance in E. coli and Salmonella spp.

Many of the Salmonella isolates were pan-susceptible; however, the most prevalent resistance phenotypes were tetracycline, sulfisoxazole, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. These results are similar to previous studies of Salmonella from cattle feces, which found that the majority of the Salmonella were pan-susceptible, and the highest resistance was for tetracycline and sulfisoxazole [111]. In contrast to Salmonella, most of the E. coli isolates were phenotypically MDR, and the most prevalent resistance phenotypes were of tetracycline, streptomycin, and sulfisoxazole. It is important to note that E. coli isolates selected for phenotypic and genotypic characterization in our study were chosen from antimicrobial selective plates and, therefore, we would not expect any of the E. coli isolates to be pan-susceptible. One E. coli isolate selected from antimicrobial selective media was pan-susceptible when subjected to Sensititre testing. This result could be explained by the bacterium exhibiting transient tolerance mechanisms, such as efflux pumps, which allow survival under selective pressure [112], Additionally, the isolate might belong to a heterogeneous population (mixed population), where not all cells carry specific resistance determinants [113].
A study comparing airborne bacteria from conventional and organic beef cattle farms found that bacteria from conventional farms were more resistant to beta-lactams, tetracycline, and sulfonamides [109], which is similar to the resistance profiles reported in this study for Salmonella and E. coli. According to the NARMS 2023 data, tetracycline was the highest reported phenotypic resistance for E. coli (38.9%) and Salmonella (15.8%) from the cecal content of beef cattle [114]. The higher proportion of tetracycline resistance in E. coli versus Salmonella concurs with the results in our study. Additionally, the resistance types found in the E. coli and Salmonella isolates from bioaerosols were consistent with antimicrobials commonly administered to feedlot cattle [115].
Some E. coli and Salmonella isolates were also resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, aminoglycosides, macrolides, phenicols, quinolones, and sulfonamides. These antibiotics are of varying importance in human medicine. Macrolides, third-generation cephalosporins, and quinolones are considered to be the highest priority and critically important antimicrobials by the World Health Organization [100]. It is important to note that no gentamicin-resistant E. coli were found, and no ciprofloxacin-resistant Salmonella were detected.

4.3.2. Salmonella Serovars

The most common Salmonella serovar identified was Lubbock. Salmonella Lubbock has been identified in feedlot cattle populations across Texas [116,117,118,119,120]. Additional serovars cultured included Anatum, Cerro, Lille, Meleagridis, Montevideo, Muenchen, and Reading, which also have been reported in Texas feedlots [53,116,117,121,122,123].
The TSP samples had a wider variety of serovars in comparison with marbles, from which only serovar Lubbock was found. This is unsurprising, as TSP samples tend to capture higher dust concentrations, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting Salmonella serovars that may be present in lower abundance. As previously discussed, the Salmonella culturing process included a pre-enrichment step in TSB, which could promote the growth of specific serovars over others. This pre-enrichment step likely increased the chances of culturing certain serovars by providing favorable conditions for their expansion, even if they were initially present in low numbers. Salmonella was only isolated from two campaigns (1 and 5), both of which occurred in the summer. Earlier studies have reported seasonal differences in Salmonella prevalence [124], with Salmonella being more prevalent during the summer and early fall compared to the winter and spring [117,125,126]. Additionally, Salmonella was only cultured from two of the three feedyards. Studies have also reported differences in Salmonella prevalence between feedyards, which is most likely due to differences in management strategies [127].

4.3.3. Bacterial Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

The phenotypic tetracycline resistance found in Salmonella and E. coli isolates was consistent with the presence of the tet genes found through WGS. The tet(A) gene was the most common gene encoding for tetracycline resistance in the Salmonella (n = 13) and E. coli (n = 27) isolates. In a study of E. coli from air samples and exudates on dairy cattle farms, 10% of the isolates harbored the tet(A) gene [128]. This finding was also consistent with what we found in the log10 gene counts detected by qPCR, in which the tet(A) gene counts were higher than the tet(B) gene. Additionally, the tetracycline genes were most likely harbored in additional bacterial species besides E. coli, Salmonella, and Enterococcus spp. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on the tet(M) gene, as we did not further characterize the Enterococcus spp. in this study by using WGS. The Enterococcus species primarily identified in our study was Enterococcus hirae, which is associated with cattle, but it is very rarely associated with infections in humans [129].
The blaCMY-2 gene was the only beta-lactam resistant gene found in Salmonella isolates and was also detected by qPCR analysis. Previous studies in feedlot cattle animals in the USA have reported the presence of blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M, blaTEM, and blaSHV [130]. In E. coli, the blaTEM gene was the most common beta-lactam resistance gene (n = 12), and the ESBL resistance genes detected were blaCTX-M-55 and blaCTX-M-1. The blaCTX-M gene was also detected by qPCR. In a study by Schmid et al. (2013), ESBL E. coli were also isolated from dust samples in beef cattle feedyards, highlighting the potential for the airborne transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria [74]. It is important to note that there was a small number of Salmonella isolates recovered from bioaerosol samples and subsequently sequenced and only a subset of phenotypically resistant E. coli isolates were sequenced. Therefore, phenotypic and genotypic AMR results may not be representative of the overall population of Salmonella and E. coli in bioaerosol samples from cattle feedyards.

4.3.4. Plasmids

The most common plasmid incompatibility (Inc) type in Salmonella was IncI, which is the most common Inc type reported in Salmonella [131,132]. IncI has been found to harbor beta-lactamase genes like blaCMY-2 [133,134]. The most common plasmid Inc type in E. coli was the IncFIB, as reported in previous studies [135,136]. IncFIB has been associated with multiple ARGs including aminoglycosides (aph(3″)-Ib and aph(6)-Id), beta-lactams (blaTEM-1B), folate synthesis inhibitors (dfrA5, sul2, and sul1), and tetracyclines (tet(A) and tet(B)) [135]. The MDR Reading, Cerro, Meleagridis, and Lille Salmonella serovars were harboring either A/C2, X1, or R Inc plasmids. The IncA/C2 plasmid is commonly associated with MDR and is widely distributed among Salmonella [137]. This plasmid often carries multiple resistance genes, including blaCMY-2, which confers resistance to second and third generation cephalosporins and potentiated beta-lactam antibiotics complicates treatment options [137,138].
Our study provided data on the quantification of viable E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Salmonella and phenotypic and genotypic resistance patterns of these bacteria in bioaerosols from cattle feedyards. Several studies have been conducted on the quantification of dust in feedyards, and additional studies have reported on antimicrobial resistance in the dust from feedyards. However, the majority of these studies have focused on molecular methods that are more sensitive to identifying antimicrobial resistance genes but cannot differentiate between viable bacteria or attribute the genes to particular bacteria. To our knowledge, this study is one of the most comprehensive investigations focusing on the identification and quantification of a viable indicator and pathogenic bacteria, along with their associated ARGs, in feedlot dust using various sampling methods. The extensive comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods will be invaluable for future studies on bacterial populations in bioaerosol samples in agricultural environments. Limitations related with the spatial and temporal variation in studies that capture dust in open environments in the feedyards are inevitable because of the required meteorological conditions which may affect the sampling frequency. Additionally, in our study, the use of different equipment to compare the sampling methods required a complex, labor-intensive set up. Further exploration is required to determine additional spatial and temporal variations between feedyards.
This study provides crucial data to guide the monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in the feedyard environment and to facilitate the development of mitigation strategies to decrease the risk of antimicrobial resistance via bioaerosols.

5. Conclusions

Our study provides valuable insights into viable bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in bioaerosols from beef cattle feedyards. The results highlight the potential public health implications and the need for continued monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in feedyards. Further research and collaborative efforts are crucial to better understand the dynamics of ARG dissemination through the dust in feedyards and to develop strategies for mitigating the spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in the feedyard environment as well as in landscapes further downwind.
These findings emphasize the need for management practices to mitigate the spread of AMR bacteria from agricultural settings. This includes improving manure handling and dust-control measures, stewardship in the use of antimicrobials, as well as exploring alternatives for the use of antibiotics in beef cattle production. By addressing these factors, the dispersion risk of AMR bacteria in the environment, especially via bioaerosols, can be reduced.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063/s1. Figure S1: Diagram illustrating the spatial distribution of samplers positioned upwind and downwind in the feedyard. Figure S2: Colony morphology of bacteria (aerobic, E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Salmonella) obtained from various media used to culture dust samples collected from feedyards. Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA), MacConkey Agar (MAC), m-Enterococcus agar (ME), CompactDry™ Total Count (CDTC), CompactDry™ Escherichia coli (CDEC), CompactDry™ Salmonella (CDSL). Figure S3: A standard curve for dust concentration was generated using ten 2-fold serial dilutions, with transmittance measured on the Spectronic 200® spectrophotometer. Table S1: Primer sets used for qPCR including annealing temperature and product size. Table S2: Thermocycler conditions for each targeted gene. Table S3: Overall bacterial percent prevalence in bioaerosol samples by campaign (n = 91 raw samples). Table S4: Overall bacterial percent prevalence in bioaerosol samples by feedyard (n = 91 raw samples). Table S5: Overall bacterial percent prevalence in downwind bioaerosol samples by sample type (n = 91 raw samples). Table S6: Raw bacterial log10 CFU per mL of bioaerosol sample (n=273 total processed samples) by campaign. Table S7: Raw bacterial log10 CFU per mL of bioaerosol sample (n=273 total processed samples) by feedyard. Table S8: Raw bacterial log10 CFU per mL of bioaerosol samples (n=273 total processed samples) by sample type. Table S9: Modeled statistics of log10 CFU bacteria per gram of dust by direction. Table S10: Modeled statistics of log10 CFU bacteria per mL of dust by direction. Table S11: Modeled statistics of log10 CFU bacteria per m3 of dust by direction. Table S12: Salmonella phenotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns, antimicrobial resistance genes, plasmids, sequence types (STs), and serovars. Table S13: E. coli phenotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns, antimicrobial resistance genes, plasmids, and sequence types (STs).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., and W.E.P.; methodology, K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., W.E.P., I.M.L., and G.L.; software, I.M.L., K.N.N., and H.M.S.; formal analysis, I.M.L., H.M.S., and K.N.N.; investigation, I.M.L., K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., W.E.P., J.K.S., and S.D.L.; resources, K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., W.E.P., and J.K.S.; data curation, I.M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.L., and K.N.N.; writing—review and editing, I.M.L., K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., W.E.P., J.K.S., S.D.L., J.V., and G.L.; visualization, I.M.L.; supervision, K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.J.B., K.D.C., W.E.P., and J.V.; project administration, K.N.N.; funding acquisition, K.N.N., H.M.S., B.W.A., K.D.C., and W.E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, project award no. 2018-68003-27465, from the United States. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s. The genome sequences have been submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information GenBank database under BioProject accession number PRJNA1187599.

Acknowledgments

We thank Cameron Adams, Dough Fulford, and Greg Ferguson for their help with the project at Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension in Amarillo and Vernon, TX. We thank Roberta Pugh and all the graduate and undergraduate students from K.N. Norman and H.M. Scott’s Microbial Ecology and Molecular Epidemiology (ME2) laboratory for assisting with the sample processing. We would also like to thank Jing Wu from the TAMU-CVMBS Clinical Microbiology Laboratory for assistance with the use of the MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gilchrist, M.J.; Greko, C.; Wallinga, D.B.; Beran, G.W.; Riley, D.G.; Thorne, P.S. The potential role of concentrated animal feeding operations in infectious disease epidemics and antibiotic resistance. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. USDA. Quick Stats; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. Available online: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).
  3. OIE. Animal Welfare and Beef Cattle Production Systems; World Organisation for Animal Health: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Snowder, G.; Van Vleck, L.D.; Cundiff, L.; Bennett, G. Bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle: Environmental, genetic, and economic factors. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Meadows, A.J.; Mundt, C.C.; Keeling, M.J.; Tildesley, M.J. Disentangling the influence of livestock vs. farm density on livestock disease epidemics. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Machalaba, C.C.; Loh, E.H.; Daszak, P.; Karesh, W.B. Emerging Diseases from Animals. In State of the World 2015: Confronting Hidden Threats to Sustainability; Island Press/Center for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hao, H.; Cheng, G.; Iqbal, Z.; Ai, X.; Hussain, H.I.; Huang, L.; Dai, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yuan, Z. Benefits and risks of antimicrobial use in food-producing animals. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chantziaras, I.; Boyen, F.; Callens, B.; Dewulf, J. Correlation between veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals: A report on seven countries. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Prescott, J.F. History of Antimicrobial Usage in Agriculture: An Overview. In Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria of Animal Origin; Aarestrup, F.M., Ed.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  10. Casey, J.A.; Kim, B.F.; Larsen, J.; Price, L.B.; Nachman, K.E. Industrial Food Animal Production and Community Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Woolhouse, M.; Ward, M.; van Bunnik, B.; Farrar, J. Antimicrobial resistance in humans, livestock and the wider environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Molton, J.S.; Tambyah, P.A.; Ang, B.S.; Ling, M.L.; Fisher, D.A. The global spread of healthcare-associated multidrug-resistant bacteria: A perspective from Asia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 56, 1310–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pal, C.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Kristiansson, E.; Larsson, D.G. The structure and diversity of human, animal and environmental resistomes. Microbiome 2016, 4, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pruden, A. Balancing water sustainability and public health goals in the face of growing concerns about antibiotic resistance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rolain, J.M. Food and human gut as reservoirs of transferable antibiotic resistance encoding genes. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fernando, G.A.; Collignon, P.J.; Bell, J.M. A risk for returned travellers: The “post-antibiotic era”. Med. J. Aust. 2010, 193, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, H.; Qi, J.-F.; Qin, R.; Ding, K.; Graham, D.W.; Zhu, Y.-G. Intensified livestock farming increases antibiotic resistance genotypes and phenotypes in animal feces. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Manyi-Loh, C.; Mamphweli, S.; Meyer, E.; Okoh, A. Antibiotic Use in Agriculture and Its Consequential Resistance in Environmental Sources: Potential Public Health Implications. Molecules 2018, 23, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chee-Sanford, J.C.; Aminov, R.I.; Krapac, I.J.; Garrigues-Jeanjean, N.; Mackie, R.I. Occurrence and diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two swine production facilities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 1494–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. McEachran, A.D.; Blackwell, B.R.; Hanson, J.D.; Wooten, K.J.; Mayer, G.D.; Cox, S.B.; Smith, P.N. Antibiotics, bacteria, and antibiotic resistance genes: Aerial transport from cattle feed yards via particulate matter. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gibbs, S.G.; Green, C.F.; Tarwater, P.M.; Mota, L.C.; Mena, K.D.; Scarpino, P.V. Isolation of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from the Air Plume Downwind of a Swine Confined or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 1032–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yanamala, S.; Miller, M.F.; Loneragan, G.H.; Gragg, S.E.; Brashears, M.M. Potential for microbial contamination of spinach through feedyard air/dust growing in close proximity to cattle feedyard operations. J. Food Saf. 2011, 31, 525–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Berry, E.D.; Wells, J.E.; Bono, J.L.; Woodbury, B.L.; Kalchayanand, N.; Norman, K.N.; Suslow, T.V.; López-Velasco, G.; Millner, P.D. Effect of proximity to a cattle feedlot on Escherichia coli O157:H7 contamination of leafy greens and evaluation of the potential for airborne transmission. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 1101–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Létourneau, V.; Nehmé, B.; Mériaux, A.; Massé, D.; Cormier, Y.; Duchaine, C. Human pathogens and tetracycline-resistant bacteria in bioaerosols of swine confinement buildings and in nasal flora of hog producers. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2010, 213, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dohmen, W.; Schmitt, H.; Bonten, M.; Heederik, D. Air exposure as a possible route for ESBL in pig farmers. Environ. Res. 2017, 155, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dungan, R.S. Board-Invited Review: Fate and transport of bioaerosols associated with livestock operations and manures. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 3693–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Guo, L.; Maghirang, R.G.; Razote, E.B.; Auvermann, B.W. Laboratory evaluation of dust-control effectiveness of pen surface treatments for cattle feedlots. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1503–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Auvermann, B.; Bottcher, R.; Heber, A.; Meyer, D.; Parnell, C.B.; Shaw, B.; Worley, J. Particulate Matter Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nguyen, X.D.; Zhao, Y.; Evans, J.D.; Lin, J.; Purswell, J.L. Survival of Escherichia coli in Airborne and Settled Poultry Litter Particles. Animals 2022, 12, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tang, J.W. The effect of environmental parameters on the survival of airborne infectious agents. J. R. Soc. Interface 2009, 6, S737–S746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carpenter, G.A. Dust in livestock buildings—Review of some aspects. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1986, 33, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Apley, M.I.S.; Scott, H.M. Remarks Addressing Airborne Feedyard Dust and Antimicrobial Resistance; Texas A&M University-Veterinary Medicine: College Station, TX, USA, 2015; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dubnau, D. DNA uptake in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1999, 53, 217–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Frost, L.S.; Leplae, R.; Summers, A.O.; Toussaint, A. Mobile genetic elements: The agents of open source evolution. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005, 3, 722–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Burrus, V.; Waldor, M.K. Shaping bacterial genomes with integrative and conjugative elements. Res. Microbiol. 2004, 155, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Norman, A.; Hansen, L.H.; Sørensen, S.J. Conjugative plasmids: Vessels of the communal gene pool. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2275–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Partridge, S.R.; Kwong, S.M.; Firth, N.; Jensen, S.O. Mobile Genetic Elements Associated with Antimicrobial Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, e00088-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sweeten, J.M.; Parnell, C.B.; Shaw, B.W.; Auvermann, B. Particle size distribution of cattle feedlot dust emission. Trans. ASABE 1998, 41, 1477–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Haig, C.W.; Mackay, W.G.; Walker, J.T.; Williams, C. Bioaerosol sampling: Sampling mechanisms, bioefficiency and field studies. J. Hosp. Infect. 2016, 93, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, Z.; Reponen, T.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Górny, R.L.; Willeke, K. Effect of sampling time and air humidity on the bioefficiency of filter samplers for bioaerosol collection. J. Aerosol Sci. 2001, 32, 661–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ghosh, B.; Lal, H.; Srivastava, A. Review of bioaerosols in indoor environment with special reference to sampling, analysis and control mechanisms. Environ. Int. 2015, 85, 254–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Acosta-Martínez, V.; Van Pelt, S.; Moore-Kucera, J.; Baddock, M.C.; Zobeck, T.M. Microbiology of wind-eroded sediments: Current knowledge and future research directions. Aeolian Res. 2015, 18, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, D.; Chai, T.; Xia, X.; Gao, Y.; Cai, Y.; Li, X.; Miao, Z.; Sun, L.; Hao, H.; Roesler, U.; et al. Formation and transmission of Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) aerosols carrying antibiotic-resistant genes in a poultry farming environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 426, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Just, N.A.; Létourneau, V.; Kirychuk, S.P.; Singh, B.; Duchaine, C. Potentially pathogenic bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in bioaerosols from cage-housed and floor-housed poultry operations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2012, 56, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schmithausen, R.M.; Schulze-Geisthoevel, S.V.; Stemmer, F.; El-Jade, M.; Reif, M.; Hack, S.; Meilaender, A.; Montabauer, G.; Fimmers, R.; Parcina, M.; et al. Analysis of Transmission of MRSA and ESBL-E among Pigs and Farm Personnel. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hermann, J.R.; Brockmeier, S.L.; Yoon, K.-J.; Zimmerman, J.J. Detection of respiratory pathogens in air samples from acutely infected pigs. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2008, 72, 367–370. [Google Scholar]
  47. Song, L.; Wang, C.; Jiang, G.; Ma, J.; Li, Y.; Chen, H.; Guo, J. Bioaerosol is an important transmission route of antibiotic resistance genes in pig farms. Environ. Int. 2021, 154, 106559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. EPA. Appendix B to Part 50—Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended Particulate Matter in the Atmosphere (High-Volume Method). 2023. 165. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol2-part50-appB.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  49. Sow, M.; Goossens, D.; Rajot, J.L. Calibration of the MDCO dust collector and of four versions of the inverted frisbee dust deposition sampler. Geomorphology 2006, 82, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 33rd ed.; CLSI document M100; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bustin, S.A.; Benes, V.; Garson, J.A.; Hellemans, J.; Huggett, J.; Kubista, M.; Mueller, R.; Nolan, T.; Pfaffl, M.W.; Shipley, G.L.; et al. The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments. Clin. Chem. 2009, 55, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Murray, S.A.; Holbert, A.C.; Norman, K.N.; Lawhon, S.D.; Sawyer, J.E.; Scott, H.M. Effects of tylosin, a direct-fed microbial and feedlot pen environment on phenotypic resistance among Enterococci isolated from beef cattle feces. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ohta, N.; Norman, K.N.; Norby, B.; Lawhon, S.D.; Vinasco, J.; den Bakker, H.; Loneragan, G.H.; Scott, H.M. Population dynamics of enteric Salmonella in response to antimicrobial use in beef feedlot cattle. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bolger, A.M.; Lohse, M.; Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Babraham, B. FastQC/0.11.6-Java-1.8.0. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
  56. Ewels, P.; Magnusson, M.; Lundin, S.; Käller, M. MultiQC: Summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 2016, 32, 3047–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gurevich, A.; Saveliev, V.; Vyahhi, N.; Tesler, G. QUAST: Quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 1072–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yoshida, C.E.; Kruczkiewicz, P.; Laing, C.R.; Lingohr, E.J.; Gannon, V.P.J.; Nash, J.H.E.; Taboada, E.N. The Salmonella In Silico Typing Resource (SISTR): An Open Web-Accessible Tool for Rapidly Typing and Subtyping Draft Salmonella Genome Assemblies. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seemann, T. Abricate; Github: Melbourne, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zankari, E.; Hasman, H.; Cosentino, S.; Vestergaard, M.; Rasmussen, S.; Lund, O.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Larsen, M.V. Identification of acquired antimicrobial resistance genes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 2640–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Bortolaia, V.; Kaas, R.S.; Ruppe, E.; Roberts, M.C.; Schwarz, S.; Cattoir, V.; Philippon, A.; Allesoe, R.L.; Rebelo, A.R.; Florensa, A.F.; et al. ResFinder 4.0 for predictions of phenotypes from genotypes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 3491–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zankari, E.; Allesøe, R.; Joensen, K.G.; Cavaco, L.M.; Lund, O.; Aarestrup, F.M. PointFinder: A novel web tool for WGS-based detection of antimicrobial resistance associated with chromosomal point mutations in bacterial pathogens. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 2764–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Carattoli, A.; Zankari, E.; García-Fernández, A.; Voldby Larsen, M.; Lund, O.; Villa, L.; Møller Aarestrup, F.; Hasman, H. In silico detection and typing of plasmids using PlasmidFinder and plasmid multilocus sequence typing. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 3895–3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xin, H.; Gao, M.; Wang, X.; Qiu, T.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, L. Animal farms are hot spots for airborne antimicrobial resistance. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual; Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
  67. Harel, O.; Zhou, X.H. Multiple imputation: Review of theory, implementation and software. Stat. Med. 2007, 26, 3057–3077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schafer, J.L. Multiple imputation in multivariate problems when the imputation and analysis models differ. Stat. Neerl. 2003, 57, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Eddings, W.; Marchenko, Y. Diagnostics for multiple imputation in Stata. Stata J. 2012, 12, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yong, S.L.S.; Ng, J.L.; Huang, Y.F.; Ang, C.K. Estimation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration with Three Different Machine Learning Models and Limited Meteorological Variables. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pereira, L.S.; Allen, R.G.; Smith, M.; Raes, D. Crop evapotranspiration estimation with FAO56: Past and future. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 147, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. NARMS. 2018 NARMS Update: Integrated Report Summary Interactive Version; FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2018. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/national-antimicrobial-resistance-monitoring-system/2018-narms-update-integrated-report-summary-interactive-version (accessed on 12 November 2020).
  73. Bai, H.; He, L.Y.; Wu, D.L.; Gao, F.Z.; Zhang, M.; Zou, H.Y.; Yao, M.S.; Ying, G.G. Spread of airborne antibiotic resistance from animal farms to the environment: Dispersal pattern and exposure risk. Environ. Int. 2022, 158, 106927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Schmid, A.; Hörmansdorfer, S.; Messelhäusser, U.; Käsbohrer, A.; Sauter-Louis, C.; Mansfeld, R. Prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli on Bavarian dairy and beef cattle farms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 3027–3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Benedict, K.M.; Gow, S.P.; McAllister, T.A.; Booker, C.W.; Hannon, S.J.; Checkley, S.L.; Noyes, N.R.; Morley, P.S. Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Recovered from Feedlot Cattle and Associations with Antimicrobial Use. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cameron, A.; McAllister, T.A. Antimicrobial usage and resistance in beef production. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Messele, Y.E.; Alkhallawi, M.; Veltman, T.; Trott, D.J.; McMeniman, J.P.; Kidd, S.P.; Low, W.Y.; Petrovski, K.R. Phenotypic and Genotypic Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Recovered from Feedlot Beef Cattle in Australia. Animals 2022, 12, 2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. NARMS. 2018 NARMS Update: Integrated Report Summary; NARMS U.S. Food & Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2018.
  79. Leon, I.M.; Auvermann, B.W.; Bush, K.J.; Casey, K.; Pinchak, W.E.; Vinasco, J.; Lawhon, S.D.; Smith, J.K.; Scott, H.M.; Norman, K.N. Assessing the Resilience of Enteric Bacteria in Manure in Response to Changes in Relative Humidity and UV-B Light. Environments 2024, 11, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Purdy, C.W.; Clark, R.N.; Straus, D.C. Analysis of Aerosolized Particulates of Feedyards Located in the Southern High Plains of Texas. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wooten, K.J.; Blackwell, B.R.; McEachran, A.D.; Mayer, G.D.; Smith, P.N. Airborne particulate matter collected near beef cattle feedyards induces androgenic and estrogenic activity in vitro. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 203, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wooten, K.J.; Mayer, G.D.; Smith, P.N. Persistence of elevated concentrations of PM, affiliated pharmaceuticals, and tetracycline resistance genes downwind of feedyards. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 247, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bonifacio, H.F.; Maghirang, R.G.; Auvermann, B.W.; Razote, E.B.; Murphy, J.P.; Harner Iii, J.P. Particulate matter emission rates from beef cattle feedlots in Kansas—Reverse dispersion modeling. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2012, 62, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Guo, L.; Maghirang, R.G.; Razote, E.B.; Trabue, S.L.; McConnell, L.L. Concentrations of Particulate Matter Emitted from Large Cattle Feedlots in Kansas. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011, 61, 1026–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Gonzales, B.H.; Maghirang, G.R.; Wilson, D.J.; Razote, B.E.; Guo, L. Measuring Cattle Feedlot Dust Using Laser Diffraction Analysis. Trans. ASABE 2011, 54, 2319–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Emert, A.D.; Griffis-Kyle, K.; Green, F.B.; Smith, P.N. Atmospheric transport of particulate matter and particulate-bound agrochemicals from beef cattle feedlots: Human health implications for downwind agricultural communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 894, 164678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wilson, S.C.; Morrow-Tesch, J.; Straus, D.C.; Cooley, J.D.; Wong, W.C.; Mitlöhner, F.M.; McGlone, J.J. Airborne microbial flora in a cattle feedlot. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 3238–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hiranuma, N.; Brooks, S.D.; Gramann, J.; Auvermann, B.W. High concentrations of coarse particles emitted from a cattle feeding operation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011, 11, 8809–8823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Purdy, C.W.; Straus, D.C.; Parker, D.B.; Wilson, S.C.; Clark, R.N. Comparison of the type and number of microorganisms and concentration of endotoxin in the air of feedyards in the Southern High Plains. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2004, 65, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. De Vaugelade, S.; Aime, M.; Farcette, N.; Maurel, E.; Lacour, T.; Thomas, C.; Bouchonnet, S.; Pirnay, S. Comparison of the compact dry TC method with the standard method ISO 21149:2006 for determining aerobic colony counts in cosmetic emulsion. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2017, 39, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mainelis, G. Bioaerosol sampling: Classical approaches, advances, and perspectives. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 496–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Šantl-Temkiv, T.; Amato, P.; Gosewinkel, U.; Thyrhaug, R.; Charton, A.; Chicot, B.; Finster, K.; Bratbak, G.; Löndahl, J. High-Flow-Rate Impinger for the Study of Concentration, Viability, Metabolic Activity, and Ice-Nucleation Activity of Airborne Bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11224–11234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chi, M.-C.; Li, C.-S. Analysis of Bioaerosols from Chicken Houses by Culture and Non-Culture Method. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chen, P.-S.; Li, C.-S. Sampling Performance for Bioaerosols by Flow Cytometry with Fluorochrome. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nguyen, X.D.; Zhao, Y.; Evans, J.D.; Lin, J.; Schneider, L.; Voy, B.H.; Hawkins, S.A.; Purswell, J.L. Evaluation of Bioaerosol Samplers for Airborne Escherichia Coli Carried by Poultry Litter Particles. J. ASABE 2022, 65, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Thompson, K.N.; Wooten, K.J.; Hensley, L.L.; Smith, P.N.; Mayer, G.D. Viable Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria are Transported from Cattle Feed Yards viaAerosolized Particulate Matter. J. Veter Sci. Med. 2018, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Reheis, M.C. A 16-year record of eolian dust in Southern Nevada and California, USA: Controls on dust generation and accumulation. J. Arid. Environ. 2006, 67, 487–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Eden, R. Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms and E. coli: Classical and Modern Methods for Detection and Enumeration. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, MS, USA, 2014; pp. 667–673. [Google Scholar]
  99. Levy, S.B.; Miller, R.V. Gene transfer in the environment. In Environmental Biotechnology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 1–434. [Google Scholar]
  100. WHO. WHO’s List of Medically Important Antimicrobials: A Risk Management Tool for Mitigating Antimicrobial Resistance Due to Non-Human Use; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024.
  101. NRC. The Effects on Human Health of Subtherapeutic Use of Antimicrobials in Animal Feeds HHS Vulnerability Disclosure. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216502/ (accessed on 23 May 2024).
  102. Zaidi, S.E.; Zaheer, R.; Barbieri, R.; Cook, S.R.; Hannon, S.J.; Booker, C.W.; Church, D.; Van Domselaar, G.; Zovoilis, A.; McAllister, T.A. Genomic Characterization of Enterococcus hirae From Beef Cattle Feedlots and Associated Environmental Continuum. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 859990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zhang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Dong, H. Dispersion of Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs) from stored swine manure biogas digestate to the atmosphere. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 144108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zaheer, R.; Cook, S.R.; Barbieri, R.; Goji, N.; Cameron, A.; Petkau, A.; Polo, R.O.; Tymensen, L.; Stamm, C.; Song, J.; et al. Surveillance of Enterococcus spp. reveals distinct species and antimicrobial resistance diversity across a One-Health continuum. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3937. [Google Scholar]
  105. Strong, K.M.; Marasco, K.L.; Invik, J.; Ganshorn, H.; Reid-Smith, R.J.; Waldner, C.L.; Otto, S.J.G.; Kastelic, J.P.; Checkley, S.L. Factors associated with antimicrobial resistant enterococci in Canadian beef cattle: A scoping review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1155772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Leclercq, R. Mechanisms of Resistance to Macrolides and Lincosamides: Nature of the Resistance Elements and Their Clinical Implications. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002, 34, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zaheer, R.; Cook, S.R.; Klima, C.L.; Stanford, K.; Alexander, T.; Topp, E.; Read, R.R.; McAllister, T.A. Effect of subtherapeutic vs. therapeutic administration of macrolides on antimicrobial resistance in Mannheimia haemolytica and enterococci isolated from beef cattle. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cazer, C.L.; Eldermire, E.R.B.; Lhermie, G.; Murray, S.A.; Scott, H.M.; Gröhn, Y.T. The effect of tylosin on antimicrobial resistance in beef cattle enteric bacteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020, 176, 104934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Sancheza, H.M.; Echeverria, C.; Thulsiraj, V.; Zimmer-Faust, A.; Flores, A.; Laitz, M.; Healy, G.; Mahendra, S.; Paulson, S.E.; Zhu, Y.; et al. Antibiotic Resistance in Airborne Bacteria Near Conventional and Organic Beef Cattle Farms in California, USA. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 2016, 227, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Luiken, R.E.C.; Heederik, D.J.J.; Scherpenisse, P.; Van Gompel, L.; van Heijnsbergen, E.; Greve, G.D.; Jongerius-Gortemaker, B.G.M.; Tersteeg-Zijderveld, M.H.G.; Fischer, J.; Juraschek, K.; et al. Determinants for antimicrobial resistance genes in farm dust on 333 poultry and pig farms in nine European countries. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. USDA; APHIS. Veterinary Services, Center for Epidemiology and animal Health. In Salmonella in U.S. Cattle Feedlots; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  112. Trastoy, R.; Manso, T.; Fernández-García, L.; Blasco, L.; Ambroa, A.; Pérez Del Molino, M.L.; Bou, G.; García-Contreras, R.; Wood, T.K.; Tomás, M. Mechanisms of Bacterial Tolerance and Persistence in the Gastrointestinal and Respiratory Environments. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dewachter, L.; Fauvart, M.; Michiels, J. Bacterial Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Survival: Understanding and Combatting Persistence and Heteroresistance. Mol. Cell 2019, 76, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. NARMS. NARMS Now: Integrated Data; United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2023.
  115. NAHMS. Antimicrobial Use and Stewardship on U.S. Feedlots, 2017; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; p. 81.
  116. Levent, G.; Schlochtermeier, A.; Ives, S.E.; Norman, K.N.; Lawhon, S.D.; Loneragan, G.H.; Anderson, R.C.; Vinasco, J.; Scott, H.M. Population Dynamics of Salmonella enterica within Beef Cattle Cohorts Followed from Single-Dose Metaphylactic Antibiotic Treatment until Slaughter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e01386-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Nickodem, C.; Arnold, A.N.; Gehring, K.B.; Gill, J.J.; Richeson, J.T.; Samuelson, K.L.; Scott, H.M.; Smith, J.K.; Taylor, T.M.; Vinasco, J.; et al. A Longitudinal Study on the Dynamics of Salmonella enterica Prevalence and Serovar Composition in Beef Cattle Feces and Lymph Nodes and Potential Contributing Sources from the Feedlot Environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2023, 89, e0003323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Amachawadi, R.G.; Thomas, M.; Nagaraja, T.G.; Scaria, J. Genome Sequences of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Lubbock Strains Isolated from Liver Abscesses of Feedlot Cattle. Genome Announc. 2016, 4, e00319-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Bugarel, M.; Bakker, H.C.d.; Nightingale, K.K.; Brichta-Harhay, D.M.; Edrington, T.S.; Loneragan, G.H. Two Draft Genome Sequences of a New Serovar of Salmonella enterica, Serovar Lubbock. Genome Announc. 2015, 3, e00215-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bugarel, M.; Cook, P.W.; Bakker, H.C.d.; Harhay, D.; Nightingale, K.K.; Loneragan, G.H. Complete Genome Sequences of Four Salmonella enterica Strains (Including Those of Serotypes Montevideo, Mbandaka, and Lubbock) Isolated from Peripheral Lymph Nodes of Healthy Cattle. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2019, 8, e01450-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Xie, Y.; Savell, J.W.; Arnold, A.N.; Gehring, K.B.; Gill, J.J.; Taylor, T.M. Prevalence and Characterization of Salmonella enterica and Salmonella Bacteriophages Recovered from Beef Cattle Feedlots in South Texas. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1332–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Arnold, A.N.; Sawyer, J.E.; Gehring, K.B. Longitudinal Evaluation of Salmonella in Environmental Components and Peripheral Lymph Nodes of Fed Cattle from Weaning to Finish in Three Distinct Feeding Locations. J. Food Prot. 2023, 86, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gragg, S.E.; Loneragan, G.H.; Nightingale, K.K.; Brichta-Harhay, D.M.; Ruiz, H.; Elder, J.R.; Garcia, L.G.; Miller, M.F.; Echeverry, A.; Porras, R.G.R.; et al. Substantial within-Animal Diversity of Salmonella Isolates from Lymph Nodes, Feces, and Hides of Cattle at Slaughter. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4744–4750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Nesemeier, B.; Ekiri, A.B.; Landblom, D.G.; Doetkott, D.K.; Khaitsa, M.L. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella enterica Shed from Range and Feedlot Cattle from Post-weaning to Slaughter. Food Prot. Trends 2015, 35, 280–289. [Google Scholar]
  125. Dargatz, D.A.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Ladely, S.R.; Kopral, C.A.; Ferris, K.E.; Headrick, M.L. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonella spp. isolates from US cattle in feedlots in 1999 and 2000. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 95, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gragg, S.E.; Loneragan, G.H.; Brashears, M.M.; Arthur, T.M.; Bosilevac, J.M.; Kalchayanand, N.; Wang, R.; Schmidt, J.W.; Brooks, J.C.; Shackelford, S.D.; et al. Cross-sectional study examining Salmonella enterica carriage in subiliac lymph nodes of cull and feedlot cattle at harvest. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013, 10, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Green, A.L.; Dargatz, D.A.; Wagner, B.A.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Ladely, S.R.; Kopral, C.A. Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Salmonella spp. Isolated from U.S. Feedlot Cattle. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Navajas-Benito, E.V.; Alonso, C.A.; Sanz, S.; Olarte, C.; Martínez-Olarte, R.; Hidalgo-Sanz, S.; Somalo, S.; Torres, C. Molecular characterization of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli strains from a dairy cattle farm and its surroundings. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 362–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Bourafa, N.; Loucif, L.; Boutefnouchet, N.; Rolain, J.M. Enterococcus hirae, an unusual pathogen in humans causing urinary tract infection in a patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia: First case report in Algeria. New Microbes New Infect. 2015, 8, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mollenkopf, D.F.; Mathys, D.A.; Dargatz, D.A.; Erdman, M.M.; Habing, G.G.; Daniels, J.B.; Wittum, T.E. Genotypic and epidemiologic characterization of extended-spectrum cephalosporin resistant Salmonella enterica from US beef feedlots. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 146, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Leon, I.M.; Lawhon, S.D.; Norman, K.N.; Threadgill, D.S.; Ohta, N.; Vinasco, J.; Scott, H.M. Serotype Diversity and Antimicrobial Resistance among Salmonella enterica Isolates from Patients at an Equine Referral Hospital. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e02829-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Rychlik, I.; Gregorova, D.; Hradecka, H. Distribution and function of plasmids in Salmonella enterica. Vet. Microbiol. 2006, 112, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ingle, D.J.; Ambrose, R.L.; Baines, S.L.; Duchene, S.; Gonçalves da Silva, A.; Lee, D.Y.J.; Jones, M.; Valcanis, M.; Taiaroa, G.; Ballard, S.A.; et al. Evolutionary dynamics of multidrug resistant Salmonella enterica serovar 4,[5],12:i:- in Australia. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Wong, M.H.-y.; Kan, B.; Chan, E.W.-c.; Yan, M.; Chen, S. IncI1 Plasmids Carrying Various blaCTX-M Genes Contribute to Ceftriaxone Resistance in Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in China. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 982–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Messele, Y.E.; Trott, D.J.; Hasoon, M.F.; Veltman, T.; McMeniman, J.P.; Kidd, S.P.; Djordjevic, S.P.; Petrovski, K.R.; Low, W.Y. Phylogenetic Analysis of Escherichia coli Isolated from Australian Feedlot Cattle in Comparison to Pig Faecal and Poultry/Human Extraintestinal Isolates. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Shin, S.W.; Jung, M.; Shin, M.-K.; Yoo, H.S. Profiling of antimicrobial resistance and plasmid replicon types in β-lactamase producing Escherichia coli isolated from Korean beef cattle. J. Vet. Sci. 2015, 16, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Rozwandowicz, M.; Brouwer, M.S.M.; Fischer, J.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Gonzalez-Zorn, B.; Guerra, B.; Mevius, D.J.; Hordijk, J. Plasmids carrying antimicrobial resistance genes in Enterobacteriaceae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 1121–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Han, J.; Pendleton, S.J.; Deck, J.; Singh, R.; Gilbert, J.; Johnson, T.J.; Sanad, Y.M.; Nayak, R.; Foley, S.L. Impact of co-carriage of IncA/C plasmids with additional plasmids on the transfer of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica isolates. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 271, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Marginal means for log10 CFU of aerobic bacteria on TSA (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 1. Marginal means for log10 CFU of aerobic bacteria on TSA (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g001
Figure 2. Marginal means for log10 CFU of aerobic bacteria on CDTC (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 2. Marginal means for log10 CFU of aerobic bacteria on CDTC (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g002
Figure 3. Marginal means for log10 CFU of E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 3. Marginal means for log10 CFU of E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g003
Figure 4. Marginal means for log10 CFU of tetracycline-resistant E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 4. Marginal means for log10 CFU of tetracycline-resistant E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g004
Figure 5. Marginal means for log10 CFU of ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 5. Marginal means for log10 CFU of ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g005
Figure 6. Marginal means for log10 CFU of Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 6. Marginal means for log10 CFU of Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g006
Figure 7. Marginal means for log10 CFU of tetracycline-resistant Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 7. Marginal means for log10 CFU of tetracycline-resistant Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g007
Figure 8. Marginal means for log10 CFU of erythromycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 8. Marginal means for log10 CFU of erythromycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of raw sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g008
Figure 9. Marginal means for log10 CFU of pre-enriched Salmonella (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 9. Marginal means for log10 CFU of pre-enriched Salmonella (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g009
Figure 10. Marginal means for log10 CFU of coliforms (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Figure 10. Marginal means for log10 CFU of coliforms (quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate)), IMP (impinger), and MARB (marbles). (A) log10 CFU per gram of bioaerosol, (B) log10 CFU per mL of sample, and (C) log10 CFU per m3 of bioaerosol.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g010
Figure 11. Marginal means of log10 16S rRNA, blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M G1 (group 1), blaCTX-M G9 (group 9), tet(A), tet(B), ermB, and tet(M) genes per gram of bioaerosol by direction: Downwind (DW) and Upwind (UW).Quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate), MARB (marbles).
Figure 11. Marginal means of log10 16S rRNA, blaCMY-2, blaCTX-M G1 (group 1), blaCTX-M G9 (group 9), tet(A), tet(B), ermB, and tet(M) genes per gram of bioaerosol by direction: Downwind (DW) and Upwind (UW).Quartz filters: PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm) and TSP (total suspended particulate), MARB (marbles).
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g011
Figure 12. The proportion of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella (n = 27) and TET-or AXO-resistant E. coli (n = 26) isolates to 14 antimicrobials. AUG2, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (2:1 ratio); AMP, ampicillin; AZI, azithromycin; AXO, ceftriaxone; CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; FIS, sulfisoxazole; FOX, cefoxitin; GEN, gentamicin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline; and XNL, ceftiofur.
Figure 12. The proportion of antimicrobial resistant Salmonella (n = 27) and TET-or AXO-resistant E. coli (n = 26) isolates to 14 antimicrobials. AUG2, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (2:1 ratio); AMP, ampicillin; AZI, azithromycin; AXO, ceftriaxone; CHL, chloramphenicol; CIP, ciprofloxacin; FIS, sulfisoxazole; FOX, cefoxitin; GEN, gentamicin; NAL, nalidixic acid; STR, streptomycin; SXT, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; TET, tetracycline; and XNL, ceftiofur.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g012
Figure 13. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by sample type.
Figure 13. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by sample type.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g013
Figure 14. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by feedyard.
Figure 14. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by feedyard.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g014
Figure 15. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by campaign. Campaigns 1 and 5 correspond to the summer season, Campaigns 2 and 3 correspond to the winter season, Campaign 4 corresponds to the spring season, and Campaign 6 corresponds to the fall season.
Figure 15. Proportion of the eight Salmonella serovars identified by whole genome sequencing in the 27 Salmonella isolates by campaign. Campaigns 1 and 5 correspond to the summer season, Campaigns 2 and 3 correspond to the winter season, Campaign 4 corresponds to the spring season, and Campaign 6 corresponds to the fall season.
Applmicrobiol 05 00063 g015
Table 1. Sampling duration by campaign and sample type.
Table 1. Sampling duration by campaign and sample type.
CampaignSample TypeΔt (min) 4Δt (h) 4
1Impinger, QF 1 (PM10 2, TSP 3), and marbles215–2493.58–4.15
2QF (TSP)149–2152.48–3.58
3Impinger, QF (PM10, TSP), and marbles184–1923.07–3.20
4Impinger, QF (PM10 and TSP), and marbles142–1482.37–2.47
5Impinger, QF (PM10 and TSP), and marblesno recordedno recorded
6Impinger, QF (PM10 and TSP) and marbles195–2053.25–3.42
1 QF: Quartz filter. 2 PM10: particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 10 μm. 3 TSP: total suspended particulate. 4 Δt (): Sampling measurement time in minutes (min) and hours (h).
Table 2. Specifications for compact dry plates.
Table 2. Specifications for compact dry plates.
Plate TypeCDTC 1CDEC 2CDSL 3
BacteriaTotal AerobicColiforms and E. coliSalmonella
Temperature (°C)37 °C37 °C42 °C
Incubation time (h)181824
Expected
phenotypic
results
Most colonies will be redPink and purple colonies are coliforms and blue-colored colonies are E. coliGreen or blue colonies with and without the black center on a yellow background
1 CDTC= CompactDry™ Total Count. 2 CDEC= CompactDry™ Escherichia coli count. 3 CDSL = CompactDry™ Salmonella count.
Table 3. Interpretive categories used for susceptibility testing of Salmonella and E. coli for the 14 antimicrobials included on the CMV3AGNF Trek SensititreTM Gram-negative NARMS plate.
Table 3. Interpretive categories used for susceptibility testing of Salmonella and E. coli for the 14 antimicrobials included on the CMV3AGNF Trek SensititreTM Gram-negative NARMS plate.
Antimicrobial ClassAntimicrobial AgentBreakpoints (µg/mL)
SusceptibleIntermediateResistant
AminoglycosidesGentamicin≤48≥16
Streptomycin 1≤16N/A≥32
β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor CombinationsAmoxicillin–Clavulanic Acid≤8/416/8≥32/16
CephemsCefoxitin≤816≥32
Ceftriaxone≤12≥4
Ceftiofur≤24≥8
Folate Pathway InhibitorsSulfisoxazole256N/A≥512
Trimethoprim–Sulfamethoxazole≤2/38N/A≥4/76
MacrolidesAzithromycin 1≤16N/A≥32
PenicillinsAmpicillin≤816≥32
PhenicolsChloramphenicol≤816≥32
QuinolonesCiprofloxacin 2≤0.060.12–0.5≥1
Nalidixic acid≤16N/A≥32
TetracyclinesTetracycline≤48≥16
1 Breakpoints were adopted from the CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) M100-Ed30 document, except for streptomycin and azithromycin, which have no CLSI breakpoint. 2 In 2012, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)’s M100-S27 expanded the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) range that defines the intermediate susceptibility category for ciprofloxacin. Decreased susceptibility to ciprofloxacin (DSC, MIC >= 0.12 µg/mL) is used as a marker for emerging fluoroquinolone resistance (CLSI, 2017).
Table 4. Concentration of bioaerosol captured in grams per m3 of air sampled by sample type and direction.
Table 4. Concentration of bioaerosol captured in grams per m3 of air sampled by sample type and direction.
DirectionSample TypeObservationsMeanStd. Dev.MinMax
downwindPM10330.000800.001110.000030.00380
downwindTSP420.002270.002790.000060.01006
downwindimpinger330.002760.002970.000060.01006
upwindPM10210.000080.000090.0000040.00023
upwindTSP210.000090.000050.000030.00018
upwindimpinger210.000090.000050.000030.00018
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leon, I.M.; Auvermann, B.W.; Bush, K.J.; Casey, K.D.; Pinchak, W.E.; Levent, G.; Vinasco, J.; Lawhon, S.D.; Smith, J.K.; Scott, H.M.; et al. Comprehensive Analysis of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Fugitive Bioaerosols from Cattle Feedyards. Appl. Microbiol. 2025, 5, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063

AMA Style

Leon IM, Auvermann BW, Bush KJ, Casey KD, Pinchak WE, Levent G, Vinasco J, Lawhon SD, Smith JK, Scott HM, et al. Comprehensive Analysis of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Fugitive Bioaerosols from Cattle Feedyards. Applied Microbiology. 2025; 5(3):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leon, Ingrid M., Brent W. Auvermann, K. Jack Bush, Kenneth D. Casey, William E. Pinchak, Gizem Levent, Javier Vinasco, Sara D. Lawhon, Jason K. Smith, H. Morgan Scott, and et al. 2025. "Comprehensive Analysis of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Fugitive Bioaerosols from Cattle Feedyards" Applied Microbiology 5, no. 3: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063

APA Style

Leon, I. M., Auvermann, B. W., Bush, K. J., Casey, K. D., Pinchak, W. E., Levent, G., Vinasco, J., Lawhon, S. D., Smith, J. K., Scott, H. M., & Norman, K. N. (2025). Comprehensive Analysis of E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, and Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants in Fugitive Bioaerosols from Cattle Feedyards. Applied Microbiology, 5(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol5030063

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop