# How Working Tasks Influence Biocontamination in an Animal Facility
## 3 Results
### Effect of the Working Activities  
One of our main questions was whether or not specific working tasks may cause an increased risk of biological exposure for personnel working in animal facilities. The hypothesis that the airborne concentration of biocontaminants could increase during the changing cages was tested. To point out the increase in level of (1,3)-\(\beta\)-d-glucan the time was considered a two-level factor: sampling during  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Workplace**} & **Mesophilic Bacteria** & **Fungi** & **Endotoxin** & **(1,3)-\(\beta\)-p-glucan** & **Rat n 1** & **Mus m 1** \\  & **(UFC/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(UFC/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(EU/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(ng/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(ng/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(ng/m\({}^{3}\))** \\ \hline Animal rooms & 130.7 \(\pm\) 207.5 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 304 & 5.9 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.3 \(\pm\) 11.0 \\ Room A (149) & 63.1 \(\pm\) 92.7 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 7.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 1.8 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Room B (494) & 122.9 \(\pm\) 110.2 & 2.0 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 7.2 \(\pm\) 4.2 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 6.1 \(\pm\) 9.9 \\ Room C (682) & 112.4 \(\pm\) 115.7 & 1.1 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 4.2 \\ Room D (613) & 64.8 \(\pm\) 83.5 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 27 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ Room E (155) & 317.0 \(\pm\) 427.0 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 5.3 & 7.3 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ Room F (723) & 66.7 \(\pm\) 75.8 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 11.1 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 20.6 \(\pm\) 24.1 \\ Room G (377) & 220.5 \(\pm\) 232.5 & 1.7 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 5.2 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline Washing area clean & 78.3 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 19.3 \(\pm\) 13.6 & 7.4 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.7 & & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Washing area dirty & 211.1 \(\pm\) 175.0 & 107.8 \(\pm\) 63.1 & 16.7 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.9 & & 61.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline Storage area \({}^{*}\) & 266.7 \(\pm\)36.1 & 112.5 \(\pm\) 76.4 & 124.2 \(\pm\) 102.8 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.7 & & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\ \hline Offices & 308.0 \(\pm\) 91.2 & 60.0 \(\pm\) 25.9 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 1.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Mean concentrations measured in the storage area refer to samplings performed the morning and in the afternoon.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Concentrations (mean value and standard deviation) of mesophilic bacteria, fungi, endotoxin, (1,3)-\(\beta\)-p-glucan, Rat n 1 and Mus m 1 by working areas (number of animals is indicated for each room).  
the changing cages was compared to the sampling before and after. The \(\beta\)-glucans concentration \"during\" increases on average by a factor of 1.3 with respect to the concentration \"before\" and \"after\" and the difference is statistically significant (\(p=0.04\)). For endotoxins, a mixed effect linear regression model was used in which animal room was introduced as a random effect variable. The concentrations increased on average by a factor of 1.8 with respect to the levels before or after (\(p=0.04\)). The highest mean concentrations of endotoxin (210.7 EU/m\({}^{3}\)) and (1,3)-\(\beta\)-n-glucan (4.3 ng/m\({}^{3}\)) were measured in the afternoon during the preparation of bedding and distribution of feed (storage area) (See Table 4).  
The allergenic concentration was treated as a continuous variable. As in the case of endotoxin, to increase the statistics, the time was considered a two-level factor and a mixed effect linear regression model was used with the animal room treated as a random effect variable. The concentration level of the mouse allergenic contaminant increases on average by a factor of 9.3 with respect to the levels before or after the changing cages (\(p=0.037\)).