AbstractThe Yellow River may generate bioaerosols through water disturbance during its flow due to geological formations, climate change, and human activities. Such biological particles have the potential to carry pathogenic microorganisms, thereby posing health risks to local residents and visitors. This study used high-throughput sequencing to analyze the Yellow River bioaerosols in the southern North China Plain during 2023 and 2024. The results indicated that the mean concentrations of bacteria in bioaerosols for 2023 and 2024 were 226 ± 138 CFU/m3 and 456 ± 218 CFU/m3, respectively. Over the two-year period, the proportion of fine particulate bioaerosols (< 3.3 μm) consistently remained above 50%. Pathogenic bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Stenotrophomonas, and Lysinibacillus were detected at some sampling sites. The non-carcinogenic exposure risk of the Yellow River bioaerosols was within acceptable limits, but prolonged exposure might cause damage to human health. The Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFNN) was successfully employed to identify Enterobacteriaceae, Bacillus, and Micrococcaceae as significant risk biomarkers within bioaerosols. The HYSPLIT model showed that the maximum dispersion area of bioaerosols covered 417.86 km2. This study aimed to provide a scientific basis for ecological environmental protection and public health initiatives in the Yellow River Basin.
Graphical Abstract1. IntroductionThe Yellow River Basin (YRB) constitutes a significant economic zone and ecological barrier within China. As the second longest river in China, the YRB is known for its complex and unique natural conditions, which have posed a great challenge to river management [1]. Bioaerosols are a complex and heterogeneous group of airborne particles that encompass a variety of biological substances, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, pollen, and other organic matter [2]. These microbial components can adhere to various non-biological particles for long-distance travel [3] and enter living organisms through the respiratory tract and skin [4]. Bioaerosols can cause or increase the incidence of skin allergies, respiratory infections, asthma, cardiovascular disease, and some chronic lung diseases [5]. Consequently, the study of bioaerosol characteristics in the Yellow River holds significant implications for ecological environments and human health.
The concentration and particle size distribution of bioaerosols in ambient air have been thoroughly investigated by researchers worldwide [6, 7]. Airborne bacteria, as a predominant component of bioaerosols, actively engage in diverse atmospheric processes [8]. Xue showed that the concentration of bacteria at the land-sea transition points in southern China ranged from 9.17 × 103 to 1.37 × 105 CFU/m3, with an average of 3.36 × 104 CFU/m3 [9]. The bacterial abundance in bioaerosols at the junction of the South Yellow Sea and the East China Sea was strongly influenced by the propagation of the continental air masses, and the bacterial abundance in the coarse-grained (> 2.1 μm) samples was significantly higher than that in the fine-grained (< 2.1 μm) samples [10].
Concomitantly, the various characteristics of bioaerosols were subject to variation due to a multitude of factors, including weather conditions, seasonal changes, human activities, and environmental parameters [11]. A study on bioaerosols in Xi’an, China, demonstrated that the concentrations of cultivable bacteria and fungi during haze days was 2 to 5 times higher than on non-haze days [12]. Temperature could influence the viability of microorganisms within bioaerosols through the modulation of water evaporation [13], while an increase in relative humidity could provide a more conducive environment for their survival and proliferation [14]. In addition to this, human activity also affects the concentration of bioaerosols, with the concentration of human-sourced microorganisms in the air increasing in densely populated areas [15].
Currently, most studies on outdoor bioaerosols have been conducted in terrestrial environments, while research on aquatic environments has mainly focused on offshore areas [16]. The specific characteristics of bioaerosols above rivers and their environmental relationships remain poorly understood. River systems, often adjacent to densely populated areas, may pose greater health risks through bioaerosol dispersion. Therefore, targeted studies are needed to reveal the concentration characteristics, particle size distribution, species composition, influencing factors, and ecological significance of microbial communities in riverine bioaerosols.
This study focuses on bioaerosol samples collected from nine sampling points in the Zhengzhou section of the Yellow River. The objectives are to: (1) determine the concentration, particle size, and species composition characteristics of bacterial communities in the bioaerosols of the Zhengzhou section of the Yellow River, (2) analyze the impact of environmental factors on bacterial abundance and community composition, identify potential pathogenic bacterial genera, and evaluate the exposure risk of bioaerosols, and (3) provide a scientific basis for ecological environment protection and public health in the Yellow River to some extent.
2. Materials and Methods2.1. Sampling Site and CollectionThe nine sampling sites selected for this study encompassed typical river sections from upstream to downstream in the Zhengzhou segment of the Yellow River Basin (Fig. 1). Specifically, the sampling sites comprised natural ecological areas (TH, SD, HT), transportation hubs (HW), tourist hotspots (FS, JY, MD), and village neighborhoods (SL, HY). The selection of sampling sites took into account diverse hydrological characteristics and coastal geomorphology, reflecting the impacts of both human activities and natural ecosystems on bioaerosols. The descriptions of abbreviations used in this article are provided in Table S1. In this study, bioaerosols were collected on March 14 to 15, 2023, and March 9 to 10, 2024. This period coincided with spring, when intensive human activities enhanced bioaerosol production and the likelihood of human exposure. The meteorological condition parameters on the sampling site days were shown in Table S2.
The Andersen eight-stage microbial air sampler (PSW-8) was employed for the collection of bioaerosols. The size range of particles collected at each stage is detailed in Table S3. The sampler was decontaminated using alcohol-soaked cotton before sampling. Throughout the sampling process, the sampler’s flow rate was maintained at 28.3 L/min, with three consecutive 3-minute collections performed at each sampling site., The collected microorganisms were subsequently stored under low-temperature and light-protected conditions. Environmental parameters, including temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and light intensity, were recorded concurrently using a dew point thermohygrometer (WD-35612, OAKTON, USA), a portable anemometer (HD2303, Delta OHM, Italy), and an irradiance meter (HD2302.0, DeltaOHM). Air samples were collected, sealed, and immediately transported to the laboratory for analysis. The air-exposed petri dishes were incubated at 37°C for 48 hours to assess bacterial growth. The average number of bacteria collected at each sampling point was determined and used in Eq. (1) to calculate the bioaerosol concentration.
where Ci is the airborne bacterial concentrations in CFU/m3, Ni is the effective number of bacteria on Petri dishes in CFU, t is the sampling time in minutes, and Q is the gas flow rate during sampling in L/min.
Water samples were collected utilizing a plexiglass water collector (CSQ, Henan, China). Under sterile conditions, the samples were serially diluted, plated on appropriate agar media, and incubated for bacterial growth. The number of bacterial colonies formed was then used to calculate the concentration of culturable bacteria in the water.
2.2. High-Throughput SequencingAfter incubation at 37 °C for 48 hours, colonies were collected in PBS buffer for sequencing. DNA was extracted and the V4–V5 regions of 16S rDNA were amplified by PCR. Products were purified and checked by agarose gel electrophoresis. Qualified products were sequenced using Illumina MiSeq and processed with Trimmomatic, Cutadapt, and FLASH for quality control. Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) were clustered at 97% sequence similarity using UPARSE, and taxonomic classification was performed using the RDP Classifier against the SILVA database with a confidence threshold of 70% [17]. Feature sequences were annotated using the SILVA database with a Bayesian classifier to assign taxonomic information. Community compositions were analyzed at multiple taxonomic levels (phylum to species) using QIIME2 (version 2020.6) and the results were visualized using R.
Random forest analysis (RFA), renowned for its accuracy and stability in assessing group differences, was used to evaluate species contributions to sample classification. Plots were generated using R (version 3.1.1) with the Random Forest package (version 4.6–10). The ecological functions of microorganisms were predicted using FAPROTAX, while their potential pathogenicity was assessed using BugBase.
2.3. Exposure Risk AssessmentIn this study, exposure and risk were assessed using a model developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and parameters from the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 2011). The model assumes inhalation and dermal contact as the primary exposure routes, with constant exposure frequency and duration. To adapt the model to the Yellow River context, parameters were adjusted based on Chinese population data and local surveys. Exposure levels were calculated as the average daily dose (ADD). The respiratory inhalation dose and skin absorption dose of bioaerosols were calculated using Eq. (2), (3), respectively.
For specific symbol meanings and parameter details, refer to Table S4, S5. For non-carcinogenic risk assessment, the ADD was compared to the chronic reference dose (RfD) to evaluate potential health risks. The risk of a non-carcinogenic pollutant was expressed as a hazard quotient (HQ). An HQ value exceeding 1 indicates a potentially significant risk [18]. The assessment of HQ was calculated using Eq. (4).
2.4. Proliferation Risk AssessmentIn this study, we employed the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model, developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to calculate and analyze the dispersion trajectories of the Yellow River bioaerosols. The HYSPLIT model is a comprehensive system for simulating transport, dispersion, and deposition processes, covering a wide range of physical processes and emission sources. The model tracks the directional movement of airborne particles or gases, offering critical insights into the atmospheric transport and dispersion of pollutants [19].
2.5. Radial Basis Function Neyral NetworkRadial Basis Function Neural Networks (RBFNN), a type of feedforward neural network, are widely used for function approximation, pattern recognition, and classification. Specifically, the nonlinear relationship between bacterial biological characteristics and risk indicators can be effectively modeled by RBFNN using radial basis functions in its hidden layer [20]. Moreover, the local receptive field characteristic of RBFNN incorporates the concept of distance in decision-making, which facilitates the consideration of similarities or differences between samples during the recognition process. This feature enhances the network’s ability to identify characteristic bacteria with higher interpretability of HQ. In this study, RBFNN is employed to identify risk marker bacterial genera in the Yellow River bioaerosols.
2.6. Data AnalysisStatistical analyses, including normality and chi-square tests, were performed using SPSS version 27.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level was set at α = 0.05. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed in R (version 3.1.1) with the ggplot2 package. Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) was carried out in R using the vegan package (version 2.3.0).
3. Results3.1. Concentration of Bacteria in Bioaerosols and Water Samples
Fig. 2a illustrates the culturable bacterial concentrations in bioaerosol samples collected from multiple sites along the Yellow River. In 2023, the concentrations ranged from 96 to 519 CFU/m3, with a mean of 226 ± 138 CFU/m3. Concentrations of culturable bacteria in bioaerosols reached a maximum at the TH (519 CFU/m3) in 2023. In 2024, the range was broader, from 153 to 908 CFU/m3, and the mean concentration increased to 456 ± 218 CFU/m3. The highest concentration was reached at HY (908 CFU/m3) in 2024. A paired-sample t-test indicated a statistically significant difference in bacterial concentrations of bioaerosols between 2023 and 2024 with a strong effect size (p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 1.037). Notably, the mean concentration in 2024 was approximately double the value recorded in 2023.
The culturable bacterial concentrations (Fig. 2b) in water samples varied across sampling points. In 2023, the concentrations ranged from 1.15×102 to 3.25×104 CFU/ml, with an average concentration of 5.89×103 ± 1.08×104 CFU/ml. In 2024, the range was 3.5×102 to 1.62×104 CFU/ml, and the average concentration was 5.37×103 ± 5.95×103 CFU/ml. Paired-sample t-tests revealed no statistically significant difference in bacterial concentrations of water samples between 2023 and 2024 (p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.041). The presence of enteric bacteria was identified in water samples collected in both years (Fig. 2c).
3.2. Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of BioaerosolsThe particle size distribution of bioaerosols exhibits variations across different sampling times and locations (Fig. 2d, 2e). In this study, a cutoff of 3.3 μm was used to categorize bioaerosol particles with diameters less than 3.3 μm as fine particle bioaerosols (FPB) [21]. In 2023, the percentage of FPB at each sampling point ranged from 16% to 89%, with an average of 47% (Fig. 2f). In 2024, the range was from 7% to 75%, with the average percentage increasing to 50% (Fig. 2g). In 2023, the highest FPB percentages were observed at HW (89%), SD (69%), and TH (52%). For 2024, the highest percentages were found at HT and HW (both 75%), followed by HY (73%).
3.3. Microbial Community Analysis of Bioaerosols3.3.1. Alpha diversity analysisThe sparse curves (Fig. S1) stabilized at approximately 30,000 and 35,000 effective sequences, respectively. The Shannon index (Fig. S1) showed a higher diversity of microbial species at FS in both 2023 (1.64) and 2024 (3.54) compared to the other sampling sites. Species evenness, as shown in Fig. S1, was highest at MD in 2023 and at SL in 2024. The species relative abundance cumulative curves (Fig. S1) revealed that the results for both 2023 and 2024 stabilized at a sample size of 8.
3.3.2. Microbial community distributionThe species composition of bioaerosols (Fig. 3a, 3b), determined by high-throughput sequencing, varied across sampling sites and years. In 2023, bioaerosols at SL were predominantly composed of Bacillus (79%), at TH were Stenotrophomonas (72%), at HW were Enterobacter (69%), at HY were Lysinibacillus (68%), and at MD were Pseudomonas (52%). In 2024, the relative abundance of Bacillus was higher (60% to 93%) than the other genera at all nine sampling sites. Based on the pathogen database GlobalRPH, Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, and Enterobacter were identified as the main potential pathogens in 2023, while Muribaculaceae and Lysinibacillus were the primary potential pathogens in 2024.
3.3.3. Beta diversity analysisThe PCA results (Fig. S2) showed that in 2023, air samples from JY, FS, and HT were closely related, forming a distinct cluster. Similarly, in 2024, samples from HT and HW showed clustering. Further analysis (Fig. 3c, 3d) highlighted discernible distinctions in bioaerosol species composition among SL, HT, and MD in 2023, and between FS, SL, and HT in 2024. These distinctions underscored the heterogeneity in microbial assemblages across different locales and temporal periods.
3.3.4. Analysis of differences between groupsBased on the results of PCA, the samples from nine locations were grouped, and the differences between groups were analyzed using RFA. The results (Fig. 3e, 3f) indicated large inter-sample differences between Bacillus and Microbacterium in 2023. In 2024, Steroidobacteraceae, Bacterium, and Truepera exhibited substantial variability among samples. The 2023 results (Fig. 3g) demonstrated that the phylum Actinobacteriota was more abundant in the bioaerosols collected at FS compared to other locations. In contrast, the results for 2024 (Fig. 3h) showed that the species abundance at HT was relatively lower than that at SL and FS.
3.4. Relationship Between Bioaerosols and Environmental FactorsCanonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) revealed that wind speed did not significantly influence the distribution of bacterial communities (p > 0.05) (Fig. 4). Humidity and temperature were identified as the primary factors shaping the microbial community structure. However, their interaction exhibited a negative effect. In contrast, humidity demonstrated a synergistic relationship with microbial concentrations in water. The CCA biplot (Fig. 4) further indicated that meteorological conditions likely play a dominant role in regulating bioaerosol community dynamics, while microbial inputs from the water column had a secondary influence. Specifically, Bacillus and Enterobacter showed positive correlations with humidity and water microbial concentrations but were negatively associated with temperature. Additionally, Lysinibacillus was positively correlated with temperature, whereas Pseudomonas exhibited a negative correlation with light intensity.
3.5. Functional Gene Prediction for BioaerosolsFAPROTAX analysis (Fig. 5a, 5b) indicated that the dominant functional genes in bioaerosols during 2024 were primarily associated with chemoheterotrophy, aerobic chemoheterotrophy, and fermentation. Additionally, bioaerosol samples collected from FS, TH, and JY in 2023 were found to harbor a significant number of human pathogens. Phenotypic predictions using BugBase (Fig. 5c, 5d) revealed that bioaerosol samples collected in 2024 exhibited a higher overall potential for generalized pathogenicity compared to 2023. In 2023, bioaerosol samples from HW, TH, and HT exhibited higher potential pathogenicity than those from other sites. In 2024, samples from FS, SD, SL, and MD showed higher potential pathogenicity than those from other sites.
3.6. Exposure Risk Assessment of BioaerosolsBased on the average daily dose results (Fig. 5e, 5f), the inhalation hazard quotient (HQinhalation) in 2024 (HQmale: 4.21 × 10−2; HQfemale: 3.36 × 10−2) was higher than in 2023 (HQmale: 2.09 × 10−2; HQfemale: 1.67 × 10−2). Similarly, the dermal contact hazard quotient (HQskin) in 2024 (HQmale: 5.10 × 10−7; HQfemale: 4.76 × 10−7) was also greater than that in 2023 (HQmale: 2.53 × 10−7; HQfemale: 2.36 × 10−7). Overall, the risk assessment results indicated a trend of increased respiratory and dermal exposure risks in 2024 compared to 2023. Additionally, the risk of bioaerosol exposure was consistently higher in males than in females. Although the hazard quotient at each sampling site remained below 1, prolonged exposure may pose health risks to humans.
3.7. Identification of Inhalation Risk BiomarkersIn this study, a RBFNN model was constructed with bacterial genus concentrations as covariates and the HQinhalation as the dependent variable. The model was utilized to identify high-risk marker bacteria based on the importance of independent variables (Fig. 5g). The results revealed a hidden layer consisting of six nodes, designated as H(1) through H(6). Notably, the weight associated with H(6) was 2.655, the highest among all weights from the hidden layer to the output layer. This indicates that variations in the activation of H(6) are likely to have a substantial impact on the predicted value of HQinhalation. The importance of the independent variables was evaluated, with Enterobacteriaceae identified as the most significant contributor (0.415), followed by Bacillus (0.175) and Micrococcaceae (0.166). These findings imply that Enterobacteriaceae may serve as a high-risk biomarker within the bioaerosols of the Yellow River.
3.8. Proliferation Risk AnalysisThe HYSPLIT analysis showed that bioaerosol samples from nine sampling sites in the Zhengzhou section of the Yellow River were substantially influenced by riverine air mass transport (Fig. 6). After one hour of simulated dispersion, bioaerosols at all sampling sites exhibited an elliptical distribution extending towards the downwind direction. The microbial dispersal area was the largest at HY (417.86 km2) and the smallest at TH (39.02 km2). The microbial concentration at the dispersion source of each sampling site exceeded a threshold of 1.0 × 10−6 mg/m3, with the maximum concentration observed at TH (3.0 × 10−6 mg/m3). The microbial concentration was lower in the area farther away from the source point of dispersal.
4. Discussion4.1. Characterization of Microbial Concentration DistributionThis study revealed a mean culturable bacterial concentration of 318 ± 208 CFU/m3 in bioaerosols over the Yellow River. This concentration range aligns with levels reported in marine bioaerosols from the Qingdao coastal area (25 to 561 CFU/m3) but is markedly lower than the bacterial concentrations observed in urban bioaerosols from Lanzhou (2 × 105 to 1.1 × 106 CFU/m3) [6, 22]. These disparities likely reflect the distinct environmental conditions and pollution levels between aquatic and urban ecosystems. For instance, the elevated concentrations in Lanzhou may be attributed to frequent dust events and stagnant meteorological conditions, whereas the lower levels in Qingdao could stem from dilution effects driven by marine climates [23, 24]. Notably, comparative analysis of the two-year dataset demonstrated an upward trend in bacterial concentrations in both air and water samples from the Yellow River in 2024, potentially linked to increased tourism activity and agricultural operations following the relaxation of pandemic-related restrictions [25].
4.2. Bioaerosol Particle Size AnalysisStudies have demonstrated that bioaerosols are predominantly concentrated in the coarse mode (> 3.3 μm) at a large scale. For example, in the coastal region of Qingdao, the bioaerosol concentration peaks in the size fraction > 7.0 μm [6]. In contrast, the particle size distribution observed in this study reveals that fine particles constitute nearly 50% of the total bioaerosols. High humidity and sea salt particles in coastal regions are more conducive to the formation and suspension of coarse particles, whereas the dry climate and frequent sand activities in the Yellow River region may result in a higher proportion of fine particles [26]. Previous research has indicated that bioaerosol particles, being small in volume and light in mass, can enter biological bodies through the skin, mucous membranes, and respiratory tract [27]. Size and shape differences lead to distinct penetration and deposition mechanisms of bioaerosols in different parts of the human respiratory system. Particles smaller than 2.5 μm could more easily pass through the human pharynx to the trachea and alveoli and other tissues, causing serious harm to the human body [28]. Additionally, small-sized bioaerosol particles can travel long distances in the wind, posing a risk to large surrounding populations [15]. Therefore, analyzing the small-sized particulate matter of bioaerosols was of great practical significance. The percentage of fine particle bioaerosols exceeded 70% at both the 2023 HW (88.79%) and 2024 HT (75.00%). Severe soil erosion and overcrowding were the main causes of this phenomenon [29]. This suggested that the surrounding population may be exposed to significant bioaerosol inhalation risk.
4.3. Analysis of the Microbial Composition of BioaerosolsAs an important component of atmospheric ecosystems, changes in the species composition and functional genes of bioaerosols significantly influence the cycling of matter and energy flow in ecosystems [30]. Functional prediction analysis revealed that chemotaxis-associated heterotrophic functional genes dominated the bioaerosol communities in the Yellow River, a pattern potentially linked to the high salinity and severe pollution pressures characteristic of this environment. These genetic traits confer heightened adaptability and metabolic versatility to the microbial communities [31]. High-throughput sequencing results showed that Bacillus was detected at all sampling sites, and its spore-forming mechanism may help it survive and dominate the extreme environment in the Yellow River region [32]. In addition, differences in dominant genera were observed between sampling sites, potentially reflecting the differentiation of ecological functions under distinct environmental conditions. For instance, Enterobacter harbors diverse functional genes enabling organic pollutant degradation [33], while Stenotrophomonas exhibits plant growth-promoting traits that enhance host tolerance to environmental adversities [34].
Phenotypic prediction using BugBase indicated that bioaerosol samples collected in 2024 exhibited a broader pathogenic potential compared to those from 2023. Elevated bioaerosol concentrations may increase the exposure dose of pathogenic bacteria, thereby heightening the risk of infection [35]. Furthermore, the presence of toxin genes in Bacillus further amplifies this pathogenic risk [36]. In this study, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Stenotrophomonas, and Lysinibacillus were identified as potential pathogens. Pseudomonas, an opportunistic pathogen, can invade multiple organ systems, causing respiratory, gastrointestinal, urinary tract, and skin infections [37]. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa has become a major public health concern worldwide due to its escalating prevalence [38]. Enterobacter can directly invade the lower respiratory tract through inhalation, leading to community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia [39]. Recent studies have also highlighted its role in urinary tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, and intra-abdominal infections [40]. Stenotrophomonas, a well-documented pathogen, is associated with various infections, including respiratory, urinary tract, and bloodstream infections [41]. In immunocompromised populations, Lysinibacillus may colonize the respiratory tract and trigger inflammatory responses, resulting in symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and dyspnea [42]. Given these risks, regular monitoring of bioaerosols in the Yellow River Basin, coupled with enhanced personal protection and public health education, is essential to improve regional ecological and public health conditions.
4.4. Influence of Bioaerosols by Environmental FactorsThe weather conditions exerted an influence on the production, release, dispersal, and deposition of microorganisms, as well as on the diversity and abundance of airborne biological particles [43, 44]. The negative interactive effect between temperature and humidity in our results may indicate a characteristic climatic contradiction during spring in the Yellow River Basin. Rising temperatures intensify soil moisture evaporation, thereby causing a decline in air humidity [45]. This phenomenon would likely inhibit the aerosolization process of water bodies, while facilitating the dust-mediated dispersal of xerotolerant spore-forming microorganisms [32].
This study found that Stenotrophomonas was directly proportional to temperature, a relationship that has been reported in numerous studies [46]. In contrast, Enterobacter exhibited an inverse relationship with temperature. Some studies have shown [47] that cold air may promote the release and transportation of bacteria. Therefore, the effect of temperature on different microorganisms was not consistent [48]. The combined effect of humidity and temperature is likely to produce a more pronounced impact on these microbial characteristics [49]. Most Gram-negative bacteria in bioaerosols have a longer survival time under lower relative humidity conditions. In contrast, Gram-positive bacteria were more likely to survive at higher relative humidity levels [50]. Different microorganisms responded differently to humidity, and even some did not respond [51]. Although this study showed that the correlation between wind speed and the survival of dominant strains in bioaerosols was not significant, it was likely due to the small differences in wind speeds at the sampling sites and the insufficient sample size. Numerous studies have demonstrated that wind is a driving force for atmospheric microbial production and dispersal [52, 53]. In the present study, it was found that Bacillus had an inverse relationship with light exposure. Studies [54] have shown that microbial inactivation is directly proportional to the intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
Our analysis indicated that both bioaerosol and riverine bacterial concentrations were elevated at TH. It is hypothesized that riverine bacteria, acting as a source of bioaerosols during river flow, are dispersed into the atmosphere [55]. Simultaneously, atmospheric bioaerosols may influence bacterial concentrations in the water through the alteration of the water cycle [56, 57]. This reciprocal relationship underscores the complex interactions between the atmospheric and aquatic ecosystems, highlighting the potential for bioaerosols to serve as vectors for microbial exchange between these environments.
4.5. Exposure Risk Assessment and Proliferation Risk AnalysisIn this study, it was found that men had a higher respiratory exposure risk and dermal contact risk to bioaerosols compared to women, which was similar to previous research findings [58, 59]. This was primarily attributed to men’s generally larger lung capacity and breathing rate, as well as their preference for outdoor activities [60]. Although this study indicated that the non-carcinogenic exposure risk of bioaerosols surrounding the Yellow River was within an acceptable range, the intake of pathogenic bacteria may still lead to the onset and exacerbation of diseases, given the potential for prolonged exposure among local residents [61].
Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility and potential of RBFNN in identifying biomarkers and assessing health risks [62]. For instance, Xie et al. reported that RBFNN achieved a significantly higher accuracy (97.62%) in detecting biomarkers for food adulteration compared to Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis and Linear Discriminant Analysis [63]. Similarly, R S Aswal developed a predictive model to assess the hazards of potentially toxic elements in groundwater, revealing that RBFNN outperformed Multilayer Perceptron models, with coefficient of determination (R2) values ranging from 0.912 to 0.976 [64]. These findings collectively highlight the superior capability of RBFNN in complex pattern recognition and high-precision prediction tasks. In this study, the established model successfully identified Enterobacteriaceae as a high-risk indicator (weight = 0.415). Unlike deep learning models such as Convolutional Neural Networks, the hidden layer weights of RBFNN can be directly linked to the ecological and health risk contributions of bacterial genera, providing a transparent basis for developing targeted intervention strategies [65].
Most bioaerosols exist in the atmosphere in the form of attachment to particulate matter and are transported among different regions through the diffusion and transport of air masses [2]. Cáliz employed HYSPLIT to track air mass trajectories, thereby identifying potential source regions for microbial communities transported to receptor sites [66]. Based on wind direction data from each sampling site and the population distribution along the riverbank, it was observed that there were residential villages downwind of SL. Moreover, the downwind areas of HY and SD were tourist attractions frequented by many visitors. Consequently, at several sampling sites, the potential risks of bioaerosols to human health must be approached with caution.
5. ConclusionsIn this study, we employed high-throughput sequencing technology to analyze the microbial characteristics of bioaerosols in the Yellow River Basin and identified high-risk biomarkers using a RBFNN model. During 2023 and 2024, the average concentration of bioaerosols in the Yellow River (318 ± 208 CFU/m3) was comparable to levels observed in coastal regions (25 to 561 CFU/m3). Fine biological particles accounted for approximately 50% of the total, and their inhalation may pose significant respiratory health risks to local populations. Meteorological conditions were identified as the primary driver of community dynamics in bioaerosols, while microbial inputs from water bodies played a secondary role. Bacillus appeared to be the dominant bacterial genus, and potential pathogens such as Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Stenotrophomonas, and Lysinibacillus were detected at several sampling sites. Although the hazard quotient at each sampling site remained below 1, prolonged exposure may pose health risks to humans. The RBFNN model was successfully applied to identify high-risk biomarkers, particularly Enterobacteriaceae. Spatial risk assessment indicated that downstream areas, including Sanliuzhai, Huayuankou, and Wetland Park, are likely high-risk zones for bioaerosol exposure.
Although this study has certain limitations, such as potential sampling errors and data accuracy limited by complex environmental constraints, our findings still provide a scientific basis for ecological conservation and public health initiatives in the Yellow River Basin. Future research should focus on implementing long-term continuous sampling and collaborating with meteorological agencies to establish a real-time bioaerosol monitoring network, which will help capture seasonal trends in bioaerosols and assess the dynamic impacts of climate change.
NotesAcknowledgment This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52200134) and the Key Scientific and Technological Project of Henan Province, China (242102321074). Author Contributions Y.W. (Associate Professor) conducted conceptualization and methodology. J.L. (Master student) performed formal analysis and wrote the original draft. C.H. (Professor) and Y.L. (Professor) supervised the study and managed project administration. H.Z. (Master student), Y.L. (Master student), B.L. (Master student), and Y.L. (Master student) contributed to data curation and investigation. References1. Liu L, Zeng J, Wu X, et al. Review on eco-environment research in the Yellow River Basin: A bibliometric perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:11986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191911986
2. Xie W, Li Y, Bai W, et al. The source and transport of bioaerosols in the air: A review. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021;15:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1336-8
3. Bryan NC, Christner BC, Guzik TG, et al. Abundance and survival of microbial aerosols in the troposphere and stratosphere. ISME J. 2019;13:2789–2799. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0474-0
4. Man WH, de Steenhuijsen Piters WAA, Bogaert D. The microbiota of the respiratory tract: Gatekeeper to respiratory health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017;15:259–270. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.14
5. Humbal C, Gautam S, Trivedi U. A review on recent progress in observations, and health effects of bioaerosols. Environ. Int. 2018;118:189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.053
6. Li M, Qi J, Zhang H, et al. Concentration and size distribution of bioaerosols in an outdoor environment in the Qingdao coastal region. Sci. Total Environ. 2011;409:3812–3819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.001
7. Ruiz-Gil T, Acuña JJ, Fujiyoshi S, et al. Airborne bacterial communities of outdoor environments and their associated influencing factors. Environ. Int. 2020;145:106156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106156
8. Zhang D, Murata K, Hu W, et al. Concentration and viability of bacterial aerosols associated with weather in Asian continental outflow: Current understanding. Aerosol Sci. Eng. 2017;1:66–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41810-017-0008-y
9. Xue F, Yang Y, Zou S, et al. Characterization of airborne bacteria and fungi at a land-sea transition site in Southern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022;849:157786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157786
10. Zhang B, Zhen Y, Mi T, et al. Characterization of bacterial communities in aerosols over Northern Chinese Marginal Seas and the Northwestern Pacific Ocean in autumn. J. Ocean Univ. China. 2023;22:136–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11802-023-5243-z
11. Wang Y, Qi J, Han C, et al. Microbial characteristics of culturable fungi and bacteria in aerosol particles of a coastal region. Aerobiologia. 2020;36:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10453-020-09648-6
12. Li Y, Fu H, Wang W, et al. Characteristics of bacterial and fungal aerosols during the autumn haze days in Xi’an, China. Atmos. Environ. 2015;122:439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.09.070
13. Jabeen R, Kizhisseri MI, Mayanaik SN, et al. Bioaerosol assessment in indoor and outdoor environments: A case study from India. Sci. Rep. 2023;13:18066. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44315-z
14. Li Y, Lu R, Li W, et al. Concentrations and size distributions of viable bioaerosols under various weather conditions in a typical semi-arid city of Northwest China. J. Aerosol Sci. 2017;106:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.01.007
15. Zhai Y, Li X, Wang T, et al. A review on airborne microorganisms in particulate matters: Composition, characteristics and influence factors. Environ. Int. 2018;113:74–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.01.007
16. Ma M, Zhen Y, Mi T. Characterization of bacterial communities in bioaerosols over Northern Chinese Marginal Seas and the Northwestern Pacific Ocean in spring. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2019;58:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0142.1
17. Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019;37:852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9
18. Kalogerakis N, Paschali D, Lekaditis V, et al. Indoor air quality- bioaerosol measurements in domestic and office premises. J. Aerosol Sci. 2005;36:751–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2005.02.004
19. Rolph G, Stein A, Stunder B. Real-time Environmental Applications and Display sYstem: READY. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017;95:210–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.025
20. Luo G, Min H, Yang Z. Identification of nonlinear dynamical system based on adaptive radial basis function neural networks. Neural Comput. Applic. 2024;36:15617–15629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-09794-9
21. Azuma T, Katagiri M, Sekizuka T, et al. Inactivation of bacteria and residual antimicrobials in hospital wastewater by ozone treatment. Antibiotics. 2022;11:862. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11070862
22. Sharma Ghimire P, Joshi DR, Tripathee L, et al. Seasonal taxonomic composition of microbial communal shaping the bioaerosols milieu of the urban city of Lanzhou. Arch. Microbiol. 2022;204:222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-022-02832-x
23. Cao C, Jiang W, Wang B, et al. Inhalable microorganisms in Beijing’s PM2.5 and PM10 pollutants during a severe smog event. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014;48:1499–1507. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4048472
24. Mayol E, Arrieta JM, Jiménez MA, et al. Long-range transport of airborne microbes over the global tropical and subtropical ocean. Nat. Commun. 2017;8:201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00110-9
25. Santana C, Botta F, Barbosa H, et al. COVID-19 is linked to changes in the time-space dimension of human mobility. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2023;7:1729–1739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01660-3
26. Wang Z, Li J, Qian L, et al. Composition and distribution analysis of bioaerosols under different environmental conditions. J Vis Exp. 2019;https://doi.org/10.3791/58795
27. Xie WW, Lu R, Mu FF, et al. Characteristics and sources of microbial aerosols in urban and mountainous areas in autumn and winter in Xi’an, China. Huan Jing Ke Xue. 2020;41:2044–2049. https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.201911010
28. Brągoszewska E, Pastuszka JS. Influence of meteorological factors on the level and characteristics of culturable bacteria in the air in Gliwice, Upper Silesia (Poland). Aerobiologia. 2018;34:241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10453-018-9510-1
29. Zhang D, Li Z, Wu H, et al. Analysis of aerosol particle number size distribution and source attribution at three megacities in China. Atmos. Environ. 2022;279:119114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119114
30. Fröhlich-Nowoisky J, Kampf CJ, Weber B, et al. Bioaerosols in the earth system: Climate, health, and ecosystem interactions. Atmos. Res. 2016;182:346–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.07.018
31. Colarusso AV, Goodchild-Michelman I, Rayle M, et al. Computational modeling of metabolism in microbial communities on a genome-scale. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 2021;26:46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coisb.2021.04.001
32. Bressuire-Isoard C, Broussolle V, Carlin F. Sporulation environment influences spore properties in Bacillus: Evidence and insights on underlying molecular and physiological mechanisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2018;42:614–626. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuy021
33. Eevers N, Van Hamme JD, Bottos EM, et al. Draft genome sequence of Enterobacter aerogenes, a DDE-degrading and plant growth-promoting strain isolated from Cucurbita pepo. Genome Announc. 2015;3:e00317–15. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00317-15
34. Ulrich K, Kube M, Becker R, et al. Genomic analysis of the endophytic Stenotrophomonas strain 169 reveals features related to plant-growth promotion and stress tolerance. Front. Microbiol. 2021;12:687463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.687463
35. Chen YH, Yan C, Yang YF, et al. Quantitative microbial risk assessment and sensitivity analysis for workers exposed to pathogenic bacterial bioaerosols under various aeration modes in two wastewater treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;755:142615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142615
36. Kim SA, Park HJ, Cho TJ, et al. Toxic potential of Bacillus cereus isolated from fermented alcoholic beverages. Food Res. Int. 2020;137:109361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109361
37. Bentzmann S, Plésiat P. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa opportunistic pathogen and human infections. Environ. Microbiol. 2011;13:1655–1665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02469.x
38. Horcajada JP, Montero M, Oliver A, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019;32:e00031–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00031-19
39. Hennigs JK, Baumann HJ, Schmiedel S, et al. Characterization of Enterobacter cloacae pneumonia: A single-center retrospective analysis. Lung. 2011;189:475–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-011-9323-2
40. Lupia T, Roberto G, Scaglione L, et al. Clinical and microbiological characteristics of bloodstream infections caused by Enterococcus spp. within internal medicine wards: A two-year single-centre experience. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2022;17:1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-02926-w
41. Insuwanno W, Kiratisin P, Jitmuang A. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections: Clinical characteristics and factors associated with mortality of hospitalized patients. Infect. Drug Resist. 2020;13:1559–1566. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S253949
42. Youngs J, Arnold A. Infections in the immunocompromised host: Secondary immunodeficiency disorders. Medicine. 2021;49:611–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpmed.2021.07.003
43. Li Y, Lu R, Li W, et al. Concentrations and size distributions of viable bioaerosols under various weather conditions in a typical semi-arid city of northwest China. J. Aerosol Sci. 2017;106:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.01.007
44. Nezis I, Biskos G, Eleftheriadis K, et al. Indoor and outdoor air quality in street corner kiosks in a large metropolitan area. Heliyon. 2024;10:e31340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31340
45. Zhang Z, Chen X, Jiang K, et al. Dynamics and interactions of soil moisture and temperature in semi-arid regions of northern China. J. Arid Environ. 2025;227:105327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2025.105327
46. Smets W, Moretti S, Denys S, et al. Airborne bacteria in the atmosphere: Presence, purpose, and potential. Atmos. Environ. 2016;139:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.05.038
47. Fröhlich-Nowoisky J, Ruzene Nespoli C, Pickersgill DA, et al. Diversity and seasonal dynamics of airborne archaea. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:6067–6079. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6067-2014
48. Lee BU, Lee G, Heo KJ. Concentration of culturable bioaerosols during winter. J. Aerosol Sci. 2016;94:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.12.002
49. Yan D, Zhang T, Su J, et al. Diversity and composition of airborne fungal community associated with particulate matters in Beijing during haze and non-haze days. Front. Microbiol. 2016;7:487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00487
50. Islam MA, Ikeguchi A, Naide T. Concentrations of aerosol numbers and airborne bacteria, and temperature and relative humidity, and their interrelationships in a tie-stall dairy barn. Animals. 2019;9:1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121023
51. Knudsen SM, Gunnarsen L, Madsen AM. Airborne fungal species associated with mouldy and non-mouldy buildings - effects of air change rates, humidity, and air velocity. Build. Environ. 2017;122:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.017
52. Jones AM, Harrison RM. The effects of meteorological factors on atmospheric bioaerosol concentrations-a review. Sci. Total Environ. 2004;326:151–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.11.021
53. Ma L, Yabo SD, Lu L, et al. Seasonal variation characteristics of inhalable bacteria in bioaerosols and antibiotic resistance genes in Harbin. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023;446:130597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130597
54. Pan YL, Kalume A, Wang C, et al. Atmospheric aging processes of bioaerosols under laboratory-controlled conditions: A review. J. Aerosol Sci. 2021;155:105767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105767
55. Zheng Y, Li J, Chen H, et al. Bioaerosol research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2018;63:878–894. https://doi.org/10.1360/N972018-00121
56. Pratt KA, DeMott PJ, French JR, et al. In situ detection of biological particles in cloud ice-crystals. Nat. Geosci. 2009;2:398–401. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo521
57. Šantl-Temkiv T, Lange R, Beddows D, et al. Biogenic sources of ice nucleating particles at the high Arctic site Villum Research Station. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019;53:10580–10590. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00991
58. Kurata M, Takahashi K, Hibiki A. Gender differences in associations of household and ambient air pollution with child health: Evidence from household and satellite-based data in Bangladesh. World Dev. 2020;128:104779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104779
59. Zou ML, Huang HC, Chen YH, et al. Sex-differences in the effects of indoor air pollutants and household environment on preschool child cognitive development. Sci. Total Environ. 2023;860:160365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160365
60. Molgat-Seon Y, Peters CM, Sheel AW. Sex-differences in the human respiratory system and their impact on resting pulmonary function and the integrative response to exercise. Curr. Opin. Physiol. 2018;6:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2018.03.007
61. Shen F, Yao M. Bioaerosol nexus of air quality, climate system and human health. Natl Sci Open. 2023;2. https://doi.org/10.1360/nso/20220050
62. Ho CS, Jean N, Hogan CA, et al. Rapid identification of pathogenic bacteria using Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Nat. Commun. 2019;10:4927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12898-9
63. Xie L, Ye X, Liu D, et al. Application of principal component- radial basis function neural networks (PC-RBFNN) for the detection of water-adulterated bayberry juice by near-infrared spectroscopy. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 2008;9:982–989. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B0820057
64. Aswal RS, Prasad M, Singh J, et al. Spatial analysis and soft computational modeling for hazard assessment of potential toxic elements in potable groundwater. Sci. Rep. 2024;14:25473. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76147-w
65. Ghannam RB, Techtmann SM. Machine learning applications in microbial ecology, human microbiome studies, and environmental monitoring. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2021;19:1092–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.01.028
66. Cáliz J, Triadó-Margarit X, Camarero L, et al. A long-term survey unveils strong seasonal patterns in the airborne microbiome coupled to general and regional atmospheric circulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018;115:12229–12234. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812826115
Fig. 1Spatial distribution of sampling points in the Zhengzhou Section of the Yellow River Basin (TH: Taohuayu Park; HW: Huiwu Bridge; TH: Yellow River Beach; SD: Zhengzhou Yellow River Wetland Park; HY: Garden Entrance; FS: Release Platform; MD: Madu Scenic Area; JY: Zhengzhou Yellow River Memory; SL: Sanliuzhai Viewing Platform). Fig. 2Concentration and particle size characteristics of bioaerosols. (a) The concentration of culturable bacteria in bioaerosols, (b) The concentration of culturable bacteria in water samples, (c) The concentration of enteric bacteria in water samples, (d) The percentage of particle sizes in 2023, (e) The percentage of particle sizes in 2024, (f) The percentage of fine particle bioaerosols in 2023, (g) The percentage of fine particle bioaerosols in 2024. Fig. 3Comparison of species composition and community structure of bioaerosols. (a) Relative abundance of the top 10 bacterial genera in 2023; (b) Relative abundance of the top 10 bacterial genera in 2024; (c) Heatmap of species clustering in 2023; (d) Heatmap of species clustering in 2024; (e) Random forest analysis of intergroup differences in 2023; (f) Random forest analysis of intergroup differences in 2024; (g) Ternary phase diagrams for SL, HT, and MD in 2023; (h) Ternary phase diagrams for SL, HT, and MD in 2024. Fig. 4Correspondence analysis between dominant bacterial genera and environmental factors (TEM: temperature; HU: humidity; E: light intensity; WS: wind speed; WLB: bacteria concentration in water samples; WMAC: enteric bacteria concentration in water samples). Fig. 5Risk prediction and exposure assessment of bioaerosols. (a) Predicted ecological functions in 2023; (b) Predicted ecological functions in 2024; (c) Predicted phenotypes in 2023; (d) Predicted phenotypes in 2024; (e) Respiratory exposure risk assessment; (f) The risk of direct dermal exposure; (g) Identification of risk-associated bacterial genera using a radial basis function neural network. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||