ABSTRACT
Sampling points at a material reclamation facility (MRF) were monitored over three months for the presence of Legionella spp. A number of different Legionellae were isolated and typed to identify L. pneumophila serogroup 1, the serotype which is the most common human pathogen. Phenotypic methods resulted in a total of 61 presumptive isolates of Legionella spp. Using latex agglutination, 26 out of the 61 were identified as L. pneumophila serogroup 1, 23 as L. pneumophila serogroups 2-14, and the remaining 12 were Legionella spp. However, on typing using pulse field gel electrophoresis, the 26 L. pneumophila serotype 1 isolates were a diverse group of 25 PFGE types with none persisting in the environment over time. This diversity suggests that there are a number of contamination sources for this important human pathogen in the MRF environment which constitute a risk to health for operatives in these facilities.
Subject(s)
Legionella pneumophila/isolation & purification , Legionnaires' Disease/microbiology , Water Microbiology , Water Pollutants/isolation & purification , Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field , Genetic Variation/genetics , Humans , Legionella pneumophila/classification , Legionella pneumophila/immunology , Legionnaires' Disease/epidemiology , Phenotype , Risk Assessment , Serotyping , Time Factors , United KingdomABSTRACT
The greatest risk factor for lung cancer is smoking, the second largest factor being raised radon levels at home. Initiatives to stop smoking and reduce domestic radon levels have met with some success, but in both cases a significant proportion of those affected have not taken action. The two risk factors combine, so that those who smoke and live in a house with high radon levels are at higher risk than if exposed to only one of the two threats. There is the potential for combined public health campaigns to better target those affected. Using postal questionnaires, we collected demographic information of those in Northamptonshire, UK, a radon Affected Area, who participated in Smoking Cessation Programmes, and compared these to a recent study by our group of those who had taken action to reduce radon. The comparison suggests that these two groups are significantly different, and in some cases differ from the general population. In addition, those who continue to quit smoking at 1 year were more likely to have children under 18 at home, and live with a parent or partner compared to those who had relapsed after the previous assessment at 4 weeks. There is merit in extending Smoking Cessation Programmes to include advice on reducing the risks from radon.