Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2021 Oct 18;11:20575. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00197-7

Effect of formaldehyde exposure on bacterial communities in simulating indoor environments

Jianguo Guo 1,2, Yi Xiong 3, Taisheng Kang 1,2, Hua Zhu 1,2, Qiwen Yang 4, Chuan Qin 1,2,
PMCID: PMC8523742  PMID: 34663860

Abstract

Indoor formaldehyde (CH2O) exceeding the recommended level is a severe threat to human health. Few studies have investigated its effect on indoor surface bacterial communities, affecting habitants' health. This study used 20-L glass containers to mimic the indoor environment with bacterial inputs from human oral respiration. The behavior of bacterial communities responding to CH2O varied among the different CH2O levels. The bacterial community structure significantly changed over time in the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group, which varied from the 0.1 mg·m−3 and 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O groups. The Chao1 and Shannon index significantly increased in the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group at 6 week, while they remained unchanged in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group. At 12 week, the Chao1 significantly increased in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group, while it remained unchanged in the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group. Only a few Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) significantly correlated with the CH2O concentration. CH2O-induced OTUs mainly belong to the Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. Furthermore, bacterial communities formed at 6 or 12 weeks differed significantly among different CH2O levels. Functional analysis of bacterial communities showed that inferred genes related to chemical degradation and diseases were the highest in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group at 12 weeks. The development of nematodes fed with bacteria collected at 12 weeks was applied to evaluate the bacterial community's hazards. This showed significantly impaired growth in the 0.1 mg·m−3 and 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O groups. These findings confirmed that CH2O concentration and exposure time could affect the indoor bacterial community and formed bacterial communities with a possibly more significant hazard to human health after long-term exposure to high CH2O levels.

Subject terms: Air microbiology, Occupational health, Environmental impact

Introduction

People spend most of their time indoors, which is up to 90% in industrialized countries1,2. The indoor environment is closely related to human health. There are different air pollutants, including particulate matter3, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)4,5, microbial contaminants6,7, which could affect the morbidity of pneumonia8, asthma9,10, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)3. The interaction among different kinds of air pollutants could not be overlooked, especially between VOCs and microbes. Microbes could produce various VOCs11, affecting microbiota serving as carbon sources convinced in plant–microbe interactions research12,13. However, indoor VOCs mainly come from types of building materials and furnishings. Few studies have focused on the effect of indoor VOCs on indoor bacterial communities.

Formaldehyde (CH2O) is a harmful VOC pollutant in the indoor environment, emitted from various materials, such as CH2O-related adhesives14, paints, and insulation materials15, classified as carcinogenic for humans16. A summary of CH2O levels for > 2000 residential buildings across 22 cities in China showed that at many locations, the CH2O level exceeded the average 30-min level of 100 μg/m3 recommended by the World Health Organization17. Monitors of CH2O positioned at public places also showed that many sampling sites exceeded this level18. In our daily life, we perform ventilation to refresh indoor air. However, the microbes attached to the indoor surface could not be easily removed, exposed to high (closed for hours)-low (after ventilation) concentration cycles. These microbes may enter the indoor air by human activity and be inhaled by them. Evidence has shown bacterial community type could affect the morbidity of respiratory diseases19. Thus, whether CH2O could impact the indoor microbial community and whether CH2O could change the microbial community's health risk are major issues. This study aimed to explore the bacterial community succession and evaluate bacterial communities' health risks exposed to high and long gaseous CH2O concentration within the scope of monitored concentration in Chinese dwellings17.

In this study, we mimicked the indoor environment using 20-L glass containers and human microbial inputs by occupants via oral respiration, which brings in a much higher number of taxa than via nasal respiration (700 vs. 100 taxa)20,21 (Fig. 1a). These containers were exposed to three CH2O levels and samples were taken at different times (Fig. 1b). Then, the variation of bacterial communities with time among different CH2O levels and the bacterial community structure exposed to different CH2O levels at 6 or 12 weeks were compared. Finally, the exposed bacterial community's health risk using functional prediction analysis and nematode development experiment was evaluated. This study is valuable for studying the interaction between various VOCs/VOCs complex and indoor bacterial communities.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Containers used for simulation of the indoor environment (a). Sterile clean 90-mm dishes (without agar) were placed inside each container through the hole T. Hole A for CH2O injection, hole B for human input, hole C for simulating nature ventilation, and hole D for sampling. Schematic of experimental operation and grouping (b).

Results

Variation of bacterial communities among different CH2O levels

Comparing the bacterial communities in the containers before CH2O exposure and input of human oral bacteria showed no significant difference; thus, confirming the bacterial community consistency among these groups (Supplementary Table S1). Principal coordinates analysis based on the Bray–Curtis distance of OTU matrix showed experiment time (PERMANOVA, R2 = 0.172, P = 0.045) and CH2O level (PERMANOVA, R2 = 0.176, P = 0.021) both significantly affected the bacterial community structure (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Principal coordinates analysis of bacterial communities based on the Bray–Curtis distance. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance were conducted according to experiment time and CH2O levels, respectively. The values of R2 and P were shown in the figure.

We analyzed the temporal variation of bacterial communities among different exposed CH2O levels. The indoor bacterial community responded differently to CH2O exposure and human oral bacteria (Fig. 3a1). The bacterial community of the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group significantly changed at 6 (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.192, P = 0.029) and 12 weeks (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.198, P = 0.026), but that of the 0.1 mg·m−3 group did not change at these periods and 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group obviously changed at 12 weeks (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.156, P = 0.055) (Fig. 3a1 and Supplementary Table S2). The bacterial diversity index also showed different trends in the different CH2O levels (Fig. 3a2,a3). The Chao1 value increased after 6 weeks in the 0.054 mg·m−3 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) and 0.1 mg·m−3 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.1) CH2O groups, yet did not change in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group (Fig. 3a2). However, it showed no change in the 0.054 mg·m−3 and 0.1 mg·m−3 CH2O groups but significantly increased in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group after 12 weeks (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3a2). The Shannon index significantly changed in the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group after 6 weeks (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05), unlike in the other groups (Fig. 3a3). Then, we determined the patterns of bacterial communities at 6 and 12 weeks. We found that the formed bacterial communities were significantly different at both 6 (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.197, P = 0.005) and 12 weeks (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.223, P = 0.008) according to the CH2O levels (Fig. 3b1 and Supplementary Table S1). The Chao1 was significantly less in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group than the 0.054 and 0.1 mg·m−3 CH2O groups at 6 weeks (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05), while the Shannon index was significantly less in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group than the 0.054 mg·m−3 CH2O group (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3b). Interestingly, all the bacterial diversity indices became consistent at 12 weeks (Fig. 3b). The quite different taxonomic category of the indicated OTUs among different CH2O levels at 6 and 12 weeks also confirmed differed patterns of bacterial community (Supplementary Fig. S1 and S2).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Variations of bacterial communities exposed to different CH2O levels. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance of the bacterial community according to exposure time based on Bray–Curtis distances (a1), trends of Chao1 (a2), and Shannon index (a3); Permutational multivariate analysis of variance of the bacterial community according to CH2O levels at six and 12 weeks based on Bray–Curtis distances (b1), comparation of Chao1 (b2) and Shannon index (b3) among different CH2O levels at six and 12 weeks. Mann–Whitney U test was performed. N no difference, ·P < 0.1, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Mean ± std were shown in (a2), (a3), (b2), (b3).

Changes of OTUs responding to CH2O exposure

Humans are an important source of indoor airborne microbes owing to human breath. Here, the bacterial composition at the class level (relative abundance > 1%) was quite different between the human oral and environmental background bacteria formed in an empty room over 3 months (Fig. 4a). Bacteroidia and Clostridia were significantly higher in human oral microbiota (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.01). In contrast, Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Bacilli, Sphingobacteriia, Actinobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Epsilonproteobacteria, and Mollicutes were significantly higher in the environmental microbiota (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) (Fig. 4a). The number of specific OTUs in the human oral cavity and environmental background were 196 and 12, respectively; 3924 OTUs were common (Fig. 4b). We obtained 28 OTUs significantly correlated with CH2O concentration by the Spearman’s analysis (Table 1): four belonged to the human oral cavity, one to the environmental background (Fig. 4b). Thus, the behavior of bacteria from humans was affected by CH2O exposure. There were 12 inhibited OTUs and 16 induced OTUs (Table 1). We found that inhibited OTUs belong to Proteobacteria (50% of all inhibited OTUs). In comparison, induced OTUs mainly belong to Proteobacteria (50% of all induced OTUs) and Firmicutes (31% of all induced OTUs) (Fig. 4c). Thus, CH2O may often induce Firmicutes except for Proteobacteria.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Behaviors of OTUs responding to different gaseous formaldehyde (CH2O) levels. The bacterial composition of environmental background and human oral cavity at the class level (a); the number of specific OTUs in the environmental background and human cavity (b); the proportion of classes that CH2O inhibited and induced OTUs belonging to (c). Numbers in red represent OTUs, which were significantly correlated with CH2O concentration. Mann–Whitney U test and Spearman’s analysis were performed. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

Table 1.

Information of gaseous formaldehyde inhibited and induced OTUs.

OTU ID rho p value Mean of relative abundance Phylum Genus Source
Inhibited OTUs
OTU216 − 0.47 0.004 0.0010 Proteobacteria Acinetobacter Common
OTU174 − 0.44 0.008 0.0059 Proteobacteria Pseudomonas Common
OTU482 − 0.43 0.008 0.0007 Firmicutes Peptoclostridium Common
OTU225 − 0.41 0.013 0.0020 Proteobacteria Paracocccus Common
OTU122 − 0.39 0.018 0.0079 Armatimonadetes Environment
OTU1416 − 0.38 0.024 0.0002 Bacteroidetes Terrimonas Common
OTU118 − 0.37 0.026 0.0005 Proteobacteria Vibrio Human
OTU531 − 0.36 0.029 0.0016 Proteobacteria Ralstonia Common
OTU1001 − 0.36 0.032 0.0005 Bacteroidetes Mucilaginibacter Common
OTU1281 − 0.35 0.034 0.0001 Proteobacteria Rhizomicrobium Common
OTU768 − 0.35 0.036 0.0003 Actinobacteria Common
OTU880 − 0.35 0.038 0.0001 Actinobacteria Pseudonocardia Common
Induced OTUs
OTU1582 0.33 0.050 0.0003 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136_group Common
OTU358 0.33 0.049 0.0007 Fusobacteria Fusobacterium Human
OTU616 0.33 0.047 0.0001 Proteobacteria Common
OTU1643 0.34 0.040 0.0003 Firmicutes Dorea Common
OTU3379 0.35 0.037 0.0001 Proteobacteria Sphingobium Common
OTU26 0.36 0.030 0.0019 Proteobacteria uncultured Common
OTU718 0.36 0.029 0.0001 Proteobacteria Craurococcus Common
OTU107 0.38 0.024 0.0017 Proteobacteria Acinetobacter Common
OTU112 0.38 0.021 0.0003 Firmicutes Human
OTU530 0.39 0.020 0.0007 Proteobacteria Enterobacter Human
OTU875 0.40 0.017 0.0012 Firmicutes Lactococcus Common
OTU3993 0.40 0.015 0.0002 Proteobacteria Roseateles Common
OTU2366 0.40 0.014 0.0003 Firmicutes Granulicatella Common
OTU1592 0.41 0.014 0.0006 Bacteroidetes Common
OTU1555 0.43 0.009 0.0002 Bacteroidetes Porphyromonas Common
OTU603 0.44 0.007 0.0009 Proteobacteria Methylobacterium Common

Spearman analysis was carried out.

The hazard of CH2O shaped bacterial communities

Function forecast results showed that the inferred genes of pathways related to chemical degradation increased at 12 weeks in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.1, P < 0.05) compared with the baseline (0.054 mg·m−3 at 0 week and 6 week) and were more than those in the 0.054 mg·m−3 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.1) and 0.1 mg·m−3 CH2O groups (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) at 12 weeks (Fig. 5a). Similarly, the inferred genes of pathways related to disease increased at 12 weeks in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.1, P < 0.05) compared with the baseline (0.054 mg·m−3 at 0 week and 6 week) and were significantly more than those in the 0.054 mg·m−3 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) and 0.1 mg·m−3 CH2O groups (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) at 12 weeks (Fig. 5b). Detailed KEGG data showed that a higher CH2O level could result in a more active chemical degradation pathway (B.1 vs. B.3 and C.1 vs. C.3; Fig. 5c). Additionally, more prolonged exposure may contribute to bladder cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and other diseases (Fig. 5d). So far, to our knowledge, there was no effective way to evaluate the hazard of one bacterial community type except by functional inferences. Thus, we attempted to use the interaction between bacteria and Caenorhabditis elegans to evaluate its hazard. We explored the development of Caenorhabditis elegans fed with bacteria collected at 12 weeks. It was found that after 32 h of exposure, 80% of nematodes were already in the young adult stage when exposed to Escherichia coli OP50 and C.1. In contrast, all nematodes were in the stage before L4 larva when exposed to C.2 and C.3. Similar results were observed after exposure for 52 h (Fig. 6). This finding showed that the development of Caenorhabditis elegans was substantially suppressed in the 0.1 mg·m−3 and 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O groups, indicating a higher hazard of bacterial communities exposed to a higher CH2O level.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Analysis of the bacterial community's function in different formaldehyde (CH2O) groups using the phylogenetic investigation of communities by reconstruction of unobserved states. Inferred genes of pathways related to the degradation of substance with C=O in different CH2O groups at different time points (a); inferred genes of pathways related to disease at different time points (b); heat map of inferred genes of pathways related to the degradation of substance with C=O in different CH2O groups at different time points (c); heat map of inferred genes of pathways related to disease in different CH2O groups at different time points (d).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Development of Caenorhabditis elegans fed with bacteria collected at 12 weeks. Picture of Caenorhabditis elegans development (a); comparation of development rate fed with bacteria from differed source (b). Mann–Whitney U test was performed. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Discussion

China's rapid modernization and urbanization have led to changes in daily living patterns and more time indoors. The issue of indoor pollution has attracted increasing attention. Many ubiquitous indoor pollutants exceed the recommended levels, including formaldehyde, benzene, other VOCs, and particulate matter17. Although indoor pollutants can arise from chemical, physical, and biological sources, few studies have considered the interactions among different pollutants. CH2O is an important precursor of many chemical compounds but poses a significant threat to human health due to its widespread use, toxicity, and volatility. Thus, we analyzed the community composition of live bacteria exposed to different CH2O levels.

There was a distinct difference between human respiratory gas and environmental background (Fig. 4a), suggesting inhabitant was an important source of indoor bacteria22,23. A significant increase of 0.054 mg·m−3 group in Chao1 at 6 weeks (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3a2) also convinced the newer OTUs into the indoor environment after the addition of respiratory bacteria. The distinctly different bacteria between human respiratory gas and environmental background also resulted in a significant increase in the Shannon indexes (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3a3). Gaseous formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacteria and B-subtilis spores at high concentration24. The toxin of gaseous formaldehyde in the 0.254 mg·m−3 concentration may explain the significantly lower value of Chao1(Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05), and Shannon index (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.05) at 6 week compared with 0.054 mg·m−3 concentration (Fig. 3b2,b3). Meanwhile, the indoor bacterial community structure significantly changed at 6 weeks (PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distance, R2 = 0.192, P = 0.029) (Fig. 3b1 and Supplementary Table S2). The diversity indices and the relative abundance of the most abundant genera are influenced by temporal and spatial axes25. In this study, the exposure period is an important factor. Thus, we also monitored the bacterial community at 12 week. Interestingly, the value of Chao1 in the 0.254 mg·m−3 concentration increased at 12 week (Fig. 3b2). This was possibly due to some taxa's adaption to higher CH2O levels. So far, many formaldehyde-resistant bacteria were identified in seawater26, river sediment27, including Pseudomonas putida28, Paracoccus sp. FD329, Bacillus sp. BZ-001H30, Rhodobacter sphaeroides31, acetic acid bacteria32, Escherichia coli VU369533, Halomonas sp. MAC33, Methylobacterium sp.34, and Sphingomonas sp.35. Indicated OTUs belonging to Methylobacterium in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group at 12 week might explain some bacteria's formaldehyde-resistant characteristic (Supplementary Fig. S1).

The CH2O injection did not change the total DNA content of samples (Supplementary Fig. S3), possibly due to limited mass propagation nutrients. The bactericidal action of CH2O is not as apparent as in a solution. The bacterial community structure was examined, and 16 CH2O induced OTUs were found. CH2O-induced OTUs mostly came from the indoor environment (13/16) (Table 1), which showed that some indoor bacteria had a strong plasticity response to gaseous CH2O exposure. The bacteria's response from the human to gaseous CH2O exposure could also affect the indoor bacterial composition (3/16) (Table 1). Unfortunately, the function of most OTUs was unclear. Remarkably, CH2O-induced OTU603 belongs to Methylobacterium (Table 1). Microorganisms belonging to Methylobacterium are ubiquitous facultative methylotrophic Gram-negative rods that can degrade CH2O34. CH2O-induced OTU3993 belongs to the Roseateles. Although there was no evidence showing Roseateles could degrade CH2O, its degradation of aliphatic and aliphatic–aromatic copolyesters has been proved36,37, which possibly indicates its ability to degrade CH2O. OTU603 and OTU3993 may be considered to monitor indoor long-term CH2O pollution. Meanwhile, they would perhaps be used to evaluate the bacterial community's health risk in CH2O pollution due to its significant positive correlation with many disease processes (Supplementary Table S3).

Indoor CH2O pollution is a severe issue that can result in various diseases. We can decrease the indoor level of CH2O by increasing ventilation in our daily lives. However, this cannot eliminate the bacteria attached to indoor surfaces, forming bacterial communities in a polluted indoor environment. The remaining bacterial communities in the room may enter the air accompanied by human activities. Bacteria enter the intestinal tract and lungs through ingestion and respiration. Many studies have shown that an imbalance in the bacterial community in these organs correlates with type 1 diabetes3840. Here PICRUSt2 was used to infer the function of bacterial communities in each sample. The inferred genes of pathways related to chemical degradation increased in the 0.25 mg·m−3 CH2O group at 12 weeks. This was possible because CH2O acts as a carbon source for bacteria and enrichment of degradation-related pathways. The function forecast and test of the development of Caenorhabditis elegans fed with bacteria collected at 12 weeks emphasized the more significant hazard of the bacterial community in higher CH2O level conditions with 12 weeks of exposure (Fig. 6). Studies showed a positive correlation between CH2O exposure and the development of leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia41,42. However, despite studies investigating the molecular mechanism of CH2O toxicity in animals and cell lines, the underlying mechanism remains unclear4347. Furthermore, several inhalation studies have not detected DNA adducts outside the nasal tissues of rats or monkeys48. This study revealed a strong relationship between CH2O exposure and the indoor bacterial community. CH2O and indoor microbes possibly work together in disease development.

The indoor environment fluctuates with the outdoor environment and inhabitants' activities4952, which can mask the relationship of interest. Therefore, we eliminated the outdoor environment's effects and human activity in our experimental design, retaining only the human bacterial input from one person. Our findings demonstrate that the interaction between CH2O and indoor bacteria (including the human input) could not be neglected when studying the indoor environment. CH2O levels and exposure time were vital factors shaping the indoor bacterial community. The indoor environment is complex and disturbed by the outdoor environment, human behavior, pets, and more VOCs. Thus, further research is required to explore the relationship between indoor pollutants, indoor microorganisms, and human health. This study provides a basis for future research on the interaction between indoor pollutants and the bacterial community structure, which will improve our understanding of the effects of indoor pollution on human health.

Limitations of this study

The indoor microbes are complex, comprised of bacteria, fungi, archaea. Here, we only explored the variation of bacteria exposed to CH2O. Although the most abundant microbes are bacteria, there may be a possible effect of CH2O on other microbes. Meanwhile, indoor bacterial communities are affected by many human activities, including breathing, cough, walking, and source from the human nasal cavity, skin, oral cavity, hair, fomites. Human microbiota varies among humans, making the indoor source of microbes more complex. There are many indoor VOCs, and different emitting characteristics make the indoor environment more complex. Our experiments simplified the indoor environment and building structure, which was different from the actual indoor environment. Furthermore, the limited containers and sampling time points made us come to a relatively conservative conclusion. The size of the experimental chambers in this study is far smaller than the actual living space and we ignored the effect of ventilation and airflow on formaldehyde diffusion and bacterial distribution. A simulation cabin with precise control of temperature, humidity, light, airflow, and microorganism input would be useful to explore the complex interaction in the indoor environment.

Conclusion

This study used individual containers to mimic daily living conditions, allowing us to investigate the relationship between gaseous CH2O and indoor bacteria. CH2O levels and exposure time affected the bacterial community structure. The trend of Chao1, and Shannon index were different among varied CH2O levels. CH2O-induced OTUs coming from the indoor environment and humans mainly belong to the Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. Longer and higher CH2O exposure environments may form bacterial communities with a greater hazard to human health.

Methods

Indoor microbial environment formation in containers

In this study, 20-L glass containers were used to simulate the indoor environment (Fig. 1a). Each container had four holes on the top (two with a 24-mm diameter and two with a 40-mm diameter) and one hole in the front (hole T: 15-cm diameter). The background reading of formaldehyde was about 0.02 mg·m−3. The room is located on the top floor of one three-floor building surrounding residential buildings. The selected empty room was used as an office room with one person staying in it for three days (3–6 h/day) a week for 2 months. Then, the room stood empty for a month without habitation until the research started. We placed 15 containers disinfected with 75% ethanol in the room marked as 12 W (Fig. 1b). All containers were placed on one side of the room to avoid sunlight. Three sterile clean 90-mm Petri-dishes (without agar) were placed inside each container through the hole T. All holes were opened, and the containers were left open for 3 months to replicate the normal indoor environment. Indoor microbial sources varied, including outdoor air and soil. Thus, within 3 months, one window was left open to permit natural ventilation to make the container's internal environment comprised various microorganisms and environmental substances similar to the indoor environment without occupants. After 3 months, we entered the room wearing lab gowns, masks, and gloves to perform the first sampling by smearing a 3 × 3 cm area on one 90-mm dish in the container using sterile swabs dipped in 100 μL of sterile normal saline.

CH2O exposure operation

Then, we blocked all holes [one for CH2O injection (hole A), one for human input (hole B), one for ventilation (hole C), and one for sampling (hole D)] to ensure minimum contamination (Fig. 1a). Hole C, which was intended to simulate natural ventilation, was blocked with sterile cotton to prevent microbial circulation, and hole B for human input was blocked with a glass valve that could maintain the passage of the human respiratory gas by adjustment. When oral microbes were added by oral respiration, the glass valve was switched on. Hole A and D were blocked with stoppers and opened during the exposure procedure. Hole T was covered with powder-free latex gloves to ease inflation and keep the container airtight when respiratory gas was imported. Hole T was blocked until the research ended. We began the exposure experiment after blocking all holes. On the first day, the breath of a person about 2–3 L respiratory gas was blown into each container at 08:00 h, and 0.5–1 L of respiratory gas was blown into 30-mL sterilized saline water in a tube. Then, the collection tube was stored at 4 °C. On the same day, different volumes of CH2O were injected at 17:00 h to obtain final CH2O levels of 0.054, 0.1, and 0.25 mg·m−3, confirmed by Interscan 4160-1999b (Interscan, USA) 1 h after injection in a separate trial (Supplementary Fig. S4a). Hole C was covered with a preservative film to maintain impermeability on the first day. The preservative film was removed on the second day and absorbent cotton was placed in hole C at 08:00 h to allow CH2O release to simulate natural indoor ventilation. On the third day, an operation identical to that performed on the first day was conducted. This exposure cycle was repeated every two days (Supplementary Fig. S5). Samples were collected at 6 and 12 weeks by smearing a 3 × 3 cm area on unsampled 90-mm dishes, respectively, using sterile swabs dipped in 100 μL of sterile normal saline, then storing these in individual sterile 2-mL tubes. Fifteen containers were used in this research (five containers for each CH2O level). One was a human oral bacterial source to exclude person-to-person differences. Further, 0.5–1 L of respiratory gas was blown into a 50-mL collection tube with 30 mL sterilized saline was used to collect the oral bacteria after oral bacterial input. Collections for 4 weeks were combined as one human oral bacterial sample. Three human oral bacterial samples were obtained for analysis. We conducted a separate trial to monitor the CH2O level in the container for 24 h after removing the preservative film in hole C and keeping absorbent cotton after CH2O injection by Interscan 4160-1999b (Interscan). It was confirmed that 24-h volatilization was long enough to recover the CH2O level to baseline (Supplementary Fig. S4b).

Final sampling

When the experiment ended, 50-mL sterile saline water was used to wash the container, and the solution was collected. The solution was centrifuged at 10,000×g for 15 min; the supernatant was discharged and 10-mL sterile saline water was used to resuspend the pellet; centrifuged at 10,000×g for 15 min; discharged the supernatant and added 2-mL sterile saline water to resuspend the pellet to make a final solution. Next, a 200-µL solution was used to coat the surface of normal nematode growth medium (NGM) plates to feed wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans N2 nematodes to monitor its development.

We conducted three exposed CH2O levels, and the experimental operation and grouping are shown in Fig. 1b and Supplementary Table S4. In the experiment, the container's air disturbance occurred in the operation of human bacterial input and the discharge of CH2O, facilitating an exchange of microbes between air and surface. Thus, we used surface samples on behalf of airborne microbes. The temperature scale and relative humidity during the experiment (0–12 week) were 20.5–36.5 °C and 14–63%, respectively. The experiments were conducted under the approval of the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) (approval nos. JS-2548). All the methods were performed following relevant guidelines and regulations of PUMC. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and next-generation sequencing

PMAxx (Biotium, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA) was used to determine the bacterial community structure of live bacteria. PMAxx is a photoreactive dye that binds to dsDNA with a high affinity. Upon photolysis with visible light, the PMAxx dye becomes covalently attached to dsDNA. The PMAxx-modified dsDNA cannot be amplified by PCR. Thus, in a population of live and dead cells, only dead cells are susceptible to DNA modification due to compromised cell membranes. This unique feature makes PMAxx highly useful in the selective detection of live bacteria5355. Upon completion of sampling, 500-μL sterile normal saline was added to each tube, and the sample was vortexed for 10 min. Then, the swab was discarded, and 5 μL of a 2.5 mM working solution of PMAxx dye was added to the 500-μL sample. The tubes were incubated in the dark for 5–10 min at room temperature and then exposed to light (465–475 nm) for 30 min to crosslink PMAxx with DNA. This photoreactive dye becomes covalently attached to the double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) with a high affinity upon photolysis with visible light. The resulting PMAxx-modified dsDNA cannot be amplified. Because only dead cells are susceptible to this DNA modification due to their compromised cell membranes, PMAxx is highly useful for the selective detection of live bacteria5355. Precipitates were obtained by centrifugation at 12,000×g for DNA extraction using the PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (MO BIO Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The extracted DNA was diluted to 1 ng/μL and stored at − 20 °C until further processing. 16S metagenomic sequencing library was prepared according to the protocol of Illumina. The diluted DNA was used as a template for PCR amplification (26 cycles: 94 °C 30 s, 56 °C 30 s, and 72 °C 30 s) of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene with the V3–4 variable regions universal primers 343F (TACGGRAGGCAGCAG) and 798R (AGGGTATCTAATCCT) linked with overhand adapter56,57 and the HiFi Hot Start Ready Mix (KAPA, Roche, USA). Negative control was used in the same amplification system using sterile deionized water as the template. Amplicon quality was visualized using gel electrophoresis. The amplicons were purified using the AxyPrep DNA Gel Extraction Kit (Axygen Biosciences, Union City, CA, USA). The purified amplicons were attached indices and Illumina sequencing adapters by amplified with primers of overhang adapters (7 cycles), and purified again with AMPure XP beads. The batch with no visible 400-bp band of negative control was treated using the following steps. The final amplicon level was then quantified using the Qubit dsDNA Assay Kit (Promega, USA). An equal number of the purified amplicons was pooled for subsequent sequencing using the MiSeq Sequencing System (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).

Sequence processing

Raw sequencing data were stored in FASTQ format. Paired-end reads were preprocessed using the Trimmomatic software58 to detect and cut off ambiguous bases (N) and low-quality sequences with an average quality score of < 20 using the sliding window-trimming approach. After trimming, paired-end reads were assembled using the FLASH software59. The assembly had the following parameters: 10 bp of minimal overlap, 200 bp of maximum overlap, and 20% maximum mismatch rate. Further denoizing of the sequences involved (1) abandoning reads that had ambiguous, homologous sequences or were < 200 bp, but retaining reads with 75% of bases above Q20, and (2) for detecting and removing any chimeric reads using the QIIME software (v.1.8.0)60.

Clean reads were subjected to primer sequence removal and clustering to generate operational taxonomic units (OTUs) using the UPARSE software with a 97% similarity cutoff61. The representative read of each OTU was then selected using the QIIME package. All representative reads were annotated and blasted against the Silva database v.123 (16S rDNA) using the ribosomal database classifier (confidence threshold = 70%)62. Forty-five samples were collected from different containers at 0, 6, and 12 weeks. Any abnormal samples that had been disturbed during the experiment were disposed of, leaving 36 environmental samples and three human samples (Supplementary Table S4). The dataset comprised 32,734 ± 3231 (mean ± standard deviation) valid reads per sample, clustered into 4132 different OTUs. Each sample was rarefied to 25,740 sequences, and the coverage of the samples was > 0.99 (Supplementary Fig. S6). The Chao1 richness estimator and Shannon index were calculated using the QIIME package. The phylogenetic investigation of communities by reconstruction of unobserved states 2 (PICRUSt2) was used to predict the KEGG category based on 16Sr DNA of samples63.

Caenorhabditis elegans strains: maintenance and development assay

Indoor airborne bacteria directly affect the function of respiratory epithelial cells. We selected wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans N2 nematode fed with bacteria as our animal model to evaluate bacteria's health risk. Nematodes were maintained on NGM plates seeded with Escherichia coli OP50 as a food source at 25 °C as described previously64. Gravid nematodes were lysed with a bleaching mixture (0.45 M NaOH and 2% HOCl) to separate eggs from animals. The collected eggs were allowed to develop into synchronous L1 larvae. Aged synchronous L1 larvae were transferred to NGM plates containing Escherichia coli OP50 or bacterial samples collected from groups C.1, C.2, and C.3 at 12 weeks and raised for 52 h at 25 °C. Each group comprised three replicates with 30 synchronous L1 larvae each. Visual scoring of nematode development was performed after feeding for 36 and 52 h.

Statistical analyses

In this experiment, group A.1, A.2, and A.3 were considered environmental backgrounds without occupants. Latex gloves blocked the front hole of the container. During exposure, broken latex gloves disturbed indoor air composition. Thus, disturbed samples were removed. Further, the Chao1 value of samples in each group was analyzed by a boxplot. A sample with an outlier (< Q1–1.5 interquartile range or > Q3 + 1.5 interquartile range) was eliminated to ensure the exclusion of potential bacterial contamination during CH2O exposure. PcoA analysis were conducted based on Bray–Curtis distance. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was performed to compare bacterial community differences between the two groups based on Bray–Curtis distance using the package “Vegan”65 in R. Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to compare the abundance of OTUs, classes, and diversity index between different groups using the package “State”66 in R. P-values of < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference for PERMANOVA and Mann–Whitney U test. The significantly higher OTUs in the environmental background samples were regarded as environment-specific OTUs; the significantly higher OTUs in human samples were considered human-specific OTUs. Spearman analysis was used to explore the correlations. The correlations between the abundance of OTUs and CH2O exposure concentration were analyzed. The significantly negatively correlated OTUs were inhibited OTUs, and significantly positively correlated OTUs were induced OTUs. The correlations between the abundance of induced OTUs and matched reads related to degradation and disease pathways were also analyzed. A heatmap was generated using the package “Pheatmap”67 in R environment using raw data.

Nucleotide sequence accession number

All bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences generated in this study are deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Sequence Read Archive (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra) under the accession number SRP158743.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information. (646.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (General Program, 82070103), CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Science (CIFMS, 2018-I2M-1-001, 2016-I2M-2-006, 2017-I2M-2-005), the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC0702800). We are grateful for the sequencing service provided by the Oebiotech Company in Shanghai. The authors would like to thank Enago (http://www.enago.cn) for the English language review.

Author contributions

J.G. and C.Q. designed the study; J.G., Y.X., T.K. and Q. Y. performed experiments; J.G. and H.Z. analyzed data; J.G. wrote the manuscript with input from all the coauthors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-021-00197-7.

References

  • 1.Hoppe P, Martinac I. Indoor climate and air quality—Review of current and future topics in the field of ISB study group 10. Int. J. Biometeorol. 1998;42:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s004840050075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Klepeis NE, et al. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001;11:231–252. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pathak U, Gupta NC, Suri JC. Risk of COPD due to indoor air pollution from biomass cooking fuel: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2020;30:75–88. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2019.1575951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tsai W-T. An overview of health hazards of volatile organic compounds regulated as indoor air pollutants. Rev. Environ. Health. 2019;34:81–89. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2018-0046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wallace LA. Human exposure to volatile organic pollutants: Implications for indoor air studies. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2001;26:269–301. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.269. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.An-le Z, Yu-ming GUO, Xiao-chuan PAN. Research advance in indoor microbial contamination and health impact. J. Environ. Health. 2009;26:82–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blei M. Detection of mould fungi in indoor areas. Allergologie. 2019;42:352–366. doi: 10.5414/atx02335. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Adaji EE, Ekezie W, Clifford M, Phalkey R. Understanding the effect of indoor air pollution on pneumonia in children under 5 in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019;26:3208–3225. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-3769-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hulin M, Caillaud D, Annesi-Maesano I. Indoor air pollution and childhood asthma: Variations between urban and rural areas. Indoor Air. 2010;20:502–514. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00673.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Park DW, Kim SH, Yoon HJ. The impact of indoor air pollution on asthma. Allergy Asthma Respir. Dis. 2017;5:312–319. doi: 10.4168/aard.2017.5.6.312. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Veselova MA, Plyuta VA, Khmel IA. Volatile compounds of bacterial origin: Structure, biosynthesis, and biological activity. Microbiology. 2019;88:272–287. doi: 10.1134/s0026365619030169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Junker RR, Tholl D. Volatile organic compound mediated interactions at the plant–microbe interface. J. Chem. Ecol. 2013;39:810–825. doi: 10.1007/s10886-013-0325-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Farre-Armengol G, Filella I, Llusia J, Penuelas J. Bidirectional interaction between phyllospheric microbiotas and plant volatile emissions. Trends Plant Sci. 2016;21:854–860. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2016.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen WH, Mendell M, Li N, Kumagai K. Formaldehyde emissions from seams and cut edges of laminate flooring: Implications for emission testing protocols and exposure estimation. Build. Environ. 2018;143:652–660. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rovira J, Roig N, Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Human health risks of formaldehyde indoor levels: An issue of concern. J Environ Sci Health Part A Toxic/Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2016;51:357–363. doi: 10.1080/10934529.2015.1109411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Leso V, Macrini MC, Russo F, Iavicoli I. Formaldehyde exposure and epigenetic effects: A systematic review. Appl. Sci. Basel. 2020 doi: 10.3390/app10072319. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ye W, et al. Indoor air pollutants, ventilation rate determinants and potential control strategies in Chinese dwellings: A literature review. Sci. Total Environ. 2017;586:696–729. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hong W, et al. Investigation of the pollution level and affecting factors of formaldehyde in typical public places in Guangxi, China. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2017;17:2816–2828. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2017.08.0272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guo J, et al. Characteristics of airborne bacterial communities in indoor and outdoor environments during continuous haze events in Beijing: Implications for health care. Environ. Int. 2020;139:105721. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Krishnan K, Chen T, Paster BJ. A practical guide to the oral microbiome and its relation to health and disease. Oral Dis. 2017;23:276–286. doi: 10.1111/odi.12509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Depner M, et al. Bacterial microbiota of the upper respiratory tract and childhood asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017;139:826–834 e813. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.05.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kembel SW, et al. Architectural design drives the biogeography of indoor bacterial communities. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87093. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lax S, et al. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science. 2014;345:1048–1052. doi: 10.1126/science.1254529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nystrom B. Inactivation of b-subtilis spores with subatmospheric steam and gaseous formaldehyde. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. Sect. B Microbiol. Immunol. B. 1972;80:341. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moroenyane I, Tremblay J, Yergeau E. Temporal and spatial interactions modulate the soybean microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021 doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yamazaki T, Tsugawa W, Sode K. Biodegradation of formaldehyde by a formaldehyde-resistant bacterium isolated from seawater. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2001;91–3:213–217. doi: 10.1385/abab:91-93:1-9:213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kim, Y.-M., Lim, E.-S., 김수정 & 이명숙. Characterization of Formaldehyde-degrading Bacteria Isolated from River Sediment. Korean J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.41, 84–88 (2008).
  • 28.Zvulunov Y, Ben-Barak-Zelas Z, Fishman A, Radian A. A self-regenerating clay-polymer-bacteria composite for formaldehyde removal from water. Chem. Eng. J. 2019;374:1275–1285. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.06.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhao H, Geng Y, Fan J, Tao K, Hou T. Isolation and identification of Paracoccus sp FD3 and evaluation of its formaldehyde degradation kinetics. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2013;18:300–305. doi: 10.1007/s12257-012-0449-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xiao B, et al. Isolation and characterization of Bacillus sp BZ-001H capable of biodegrading formaldehyde at high concentration. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2015;32:824–830. doi: 10.1089/ees.2014.0530. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wilson SM, Gleisten MP, Donohue TJ. Identification of proteins involved in formaldehyde metabolism by Rhodobactersphaeroides. Microbiology-Sgm. 2008;154:296–305. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.2007/011346-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shinagawa E, et al. Formaldehyde elimination with formaldehyde and formate oxidase in membrane of acetic acid bacteria. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2008;105:292–295. doi: 10.1263/jbb.105.292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Azachi M, Henis Y, Shapira R, Oren A. The role of the outer membrane in formaldehyde tolerance in Escherichiacoli VU3695 and Halomonas sp MAC. Microbiology-UK. 1996;142:1249–1254. doi: 10.1099/13500872-142-5-1249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhong WH, et al. Isolation, identification and degrading conditions of a formaldehyde-degrading bacterium. J. Zhejiang Univ. Technol. 2013;41:25–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xie WJ, Wang J, Sun PS, Zou P. Isolation and identification of bacterial strains efficient degrading formaldehyde and their degrading characteristics. Microbiology China. 2011;38:1626–1631. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shah AA, et al. Degradation of aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic co-polyesters by depolymerases from Roseateles depolymerans strain TB-87 and analysis of degradation products by LC-MS. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013;98:2722–2729. doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ahmad A, et al. Gene structure and comparative study of two different plastic-degrading esterases from Roseateles depolymerans strain TB-87. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019;164:109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lyon J. The lung microbiome: Key to respiratory ills? JAMA. 2017;317:1713–1714. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.3023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rosser EC, Mauri C. A clinical update on the significance of the gut microbiota in systemic autoimmunity. J. Autoimmun. 2016;74:85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2016.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Needell JC, Zipris D. The role of the intestinal microbiome in type 1 diabetes pathogenesis. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 2016;16:89. doi: 10.1007/s11892-016-0781-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang L, et al. Formaldehyde and leukemia: Epidemiology, potential mechanisms, and implications for risk assessment. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2010;51:181–191. doi: 10.1002/em.20534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang L, Steinmaus C, Eastmond DA, Xin XK, Smith MT. Formaldehyde exposure and leukemia: A new meta-analysis and potential mechanisms. Mutat. Res. 2009;681:150–168. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Edrissi B, et al. N-6-Formyllysine as a biomarker of formaldehyde exposure: Formation and loss of N-6-formyllysine in nasal epithelium in long term, low-dose inhalation studies in rats. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2017;30:1572–1576. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.7b00075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen DQ, et al. Regulation of chromatin assembly and cell transformation by formaldehyde exposure in human cells. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017 doi: 10.1289/ehp1275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhao Y, et al. Formaldehyde-induced paxillin-tyrosine phosphorylation and paxillin and P53 downexpression in Hela cells. Toxicol. Mech. Methods. 2016;26:75–81. doi: 10.3109/15376516.2015.1082001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ji ZY, et al. Induction of centrosome amplification by formaldehyde, but not hydroquinone, in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2015;56:535–544. doi: 10.1002/em.21947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang X, et al. Differential health effects of constant versus intermittent exposure to formaldehyde in mice: Implications for building ventilation strategies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018;52:1551–1560. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nielsen GD, Larsen ST, Wolkoff P. Recent trend in risk assessment of formaldehyde exposures from indoor air. Arch. Toxicol. 2013;87:73–98. doi: 10.1007/s00204-012-0975-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hospodsky D, et al. Human occupancy as a source of indoor airborne bacteria. PLoS One. 2012;7:10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fujiyoshi S, Tanaka D, Maruyama F. Transmission of airborne bacteria across built environments and its measurement standards: A review. Front. Microbiol. 2017;8:10. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Adams RI, Bateman AC, Bik HM, Meadow JF. Microbiota of the indoor environment: A meta-analysis. Microbiome. 2015;3:18. doi: 10.1186/s40168-015-0108-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Han Y, et al. Influences of ambient air PM2.5 concentration and meteorological condition on the indoor PM2.5 concentrations in a residential apartment in Beijing using a new approach. Environ. Pollut. 2015;205:307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Randazzo W, Piqueras J, Rodriguez-Diaz J, Aznar R, Sanchez G. Improving efficiency of viability-qPCR for selective detection of infectious HAV in food and water samples. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018;124:958–964. doi: 10.1111/jam.13519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Randazzo W, Lopez-Galvez F, Allende A, Aznar R, Sanchez G. Evaluation of viability PCR performance for assessing norovirus infectivity in fresh-cut vegetables and irrigation water. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016;229:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Garcia-Fontana C, et al. A new physiological role for the DNA molecule as a protector against drying stress in desiccation-tolerant microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2016;7:2066. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Song Y, et al. Zero-valent iron activated persulfate remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: An in situ pilot-scale study. Chem. Eng. J. 2019;355:65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.126. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Nossa CW, et al. Design of 16S rRNA gene primers for 454 pyrosequencing of the human foregut microbiome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010;16:4135–4144. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Reyon D, et al. FLASH assembly of TALENs for high-throughput genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012;30:460–465. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Caporaso JG, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods. 2010;7:335–336. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Edgar RC. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods. 2013;10:996–998. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:5261–5267. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Douglas GM, et al. PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020;38:685–688. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0548-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Brenner SJG. THE genetics of Caenorhabditiselegans. Genetics. 1974;77:71. doi: 10.1093/genetics/77.1.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 2003;14:927–930. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02228.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Team, R. C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  • 67.Kolde, R. pheatmap: Pretty Heatmaps. R package version 1.0.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pheatmap (2019).

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Information. (646.5KB, docx)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES