Characteristics of Twenty-Nine Aerosol Samplers Tested at U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (2000-2006)

Kesavan, Jana; Schepers, Deborah; Bottiger, Jerold R.

doi:10.21236/ada540009

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ESP and Coriolis FR also showed reduced BSEs and PSEs for 1 μm aerosols, but the reductions were only moderate compared to those observed for the XMX-CV, SASS 2300 and BioCapture 650 (Figure 1). These results are in agreement with previous studies showing that the d 50 cutoff diameters are above 1 μm for XMX-CV, SASS 2300 and BioCapture 650, and below 1 μm for the BioSampler (Kesavan and Stuebing 2009;Kesavan et al 2011).…”

Section: Particle Sizesupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The BioSampler was chosen as a reference sampler because it has been shown to have sampling efficiencies ≥90% for the particle sizes involved in this study (Willeke et al 1998;Kesavan et al 2011). The BioSampler has also been shown to inflict limited sampling stress allowing retained cultivability of stress-sensitive airborne microorganisms (Lin et al , 2000.…”

Section: Air Sampler Suitability Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The well-characterized swirling liquid impinger (BioSampler) was used as a reference air sampler in this study (Willeke et al 1998;Lin et al , 2000Hermann et al 2006;Rule et al 2007;Fabian et al 2009;Van Droogenbroeck et al 2009;Chang et al 2010;Kesavan et al 2010b;Chang and Chou 2011;Kesavan et al 2011). Compared to the BioSampler, the available performance data for the rest of the involved air samplers were more limited; gelatin filters (Li 1999;Lin and Li 1999;Tseng and Li 2005;Burton et al 2007;Fabian et al 2009;Van Droogenbroeck et al 2009;Chang and Chou 2011;Estill et al 2011;Zhao et al 2011), Coriolis FR (or Coriolis μ and δ) (Carvalho et al 2008;Gómez-Domenech et al 2010;Ahmed et al 2013), XMX-CV (or XMX/2L-MIL and XMX/2A) (Cooper 2010;Black 2011;Kesavan et al 2011;Black and Cooper 2012;Enderby 2012), BioCapture 650 (Kesavan et al 2011;Enderby 2012), OMNI-3000 (Kesavan et al 2011;Zhao et al 2011), SASS 2300(or SASS 2000 (Kesavan and Stuebing 2009;Kesavan et al 2011), andSASS 3100 (Kesavan et al 2010b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Testing and Evaluation of Nine Different Air Samplers: End-to-End Sampling Efficiencies as Specific Performance Measurements for Bioaerosol Applications

Dybwad

Skogan

Blatny

2014

Aerosol Science and Technology

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate exposure assessments are needed to evaluate health hazards caused by airborne microorganisms and require air samplers that efficiently capture representative samples. This highlights the need for samplers with well-defined performance characteristics. While generic aerosol performance measurements are fundamental to evaluate/compare samplers, the added complexity caused by the diversity of microorganisms, especially in combination with cultivation-based analysis methods, may render such measurements inadequate to assess suitability for bioaerosols. Specific performance measurements that take into account the end-toend sampling process, targeted bioaerosol and analysis method could help guide selection of air samplers.Nine different samplers (impactors/impingers/cyclones/ electrostatic precipitators/filtration samplers) were subjected to comparative performance testing in this work. Their end-to-end cultivation-based biological sampling efficiencies (BSEs) and PCR-/microscopy-based physical sampling efficiencies (PSEs) relative to a reference sampler (BioSampler) were determined for gram-negative and gram-positive vegetative bacteria, bacterial spores, and viruses.Significant differences were revealed among the samplers and shown to depend on the bioaerosol's stress-sensitivity and particle size. Samplers employing dry collection had lower BSEs for stresssensitive bioaerosols than wet collection methods, while nonfilterbased samplers showed reduced PSEs for 1 μm compared to 4 μm bioaerosols. Several samplers were shown to underestimate bioaerosol concentration levels relative to the BioSampler due to having lower sampling efficiencies, although they generally obtained samples that were more concentrated due to having higher concentration factors.Our work may help increase user awareness about important performance criteria for bioaerosol sampling, which could contribute to methodological harmonization/standardization and result in more reliable exposure assessments for airborne pathogens and other bioaerosols of interest.

show abstract

Section: Particle Sizesupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Air Sampler Suitability Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Testing and Evaluation of Nine Different Air Samplers: End-to-End Sampling Efficiencies as Specific Performance Measurements for Bioaerosol Applications

Dybwad

Skogan

Blatny

2014

Aerosol Science and Technology

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It pre-concentrates the air stream by confining large number of particles either into a small volume of liquid, into a small air stream or onto a solid surface for delivery into sensor. BioCapture BT 500 air sampler is a modified version of BioVIC™ wherein airborne biological material is captured and concentrated into a liquid for subsequent analysis 73 .…”

Section: Virtual Impactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particles settled on the outer walls of the cyclone are collected by spraying water. The Interim Biological Agent Detector System (IBADS), personal cyclone sampler, the Smart Air Sampler System (SASS 2000) and SASS 2300 are a few examples of cyclone samplers 73,74 .…”

Section: Cyclone Samplersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Warfare Agents and their Detection and Monitoring Techniques (Review Paper)

Pal¹,

Sharma²,

Sharma³

et al. 2016

Def. Sc. Jl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, threat from biological warfare agents (BWAs) has emerged as the foremost national and global security challenge because of their simple and cheap production, easy dispersal, complicated detection, expensive protection and psychological, economical and social impact. Early detection and identification of BWAs during intentional biological event is essential to initiate corrective emergency responses for management of such incidents. Efforts are being made across the globe for development of state of the art technologies and systems for detection and identification of BWAs. However, till date there is no single system which can detect all the bio-threat agents. In the present review, we describe the currently available techniques and systems for detection and identification of these agents. The basic identification techniques including biological culture, immunological methods, nucleic acid based detection, MALDI-TOF MS, cellular fatty acid profiling and flow cytometry based detection are presented. Detection of BWAs with bio-sensors, surface plasmon resonance, biological detectors, and stand-off detection systems is also summarized. However, despite of availability of several techniques and tools, no full proof system is available for detection/identification of all the BWAs.

show abstract

Evaluation criteria for bioaerosol samplers

Kesavan

Sagripanti

2015

Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans contract a variety of serious diseases through inhalation of infectious aerosols. Thus, the importance of monitoring air for microbial, toxic, or allergic content is recognized in clinical, occupational, and biodefense arenas. However, accurate monitoring of potentially contaminated environments can be hampered by selection of aerosol samplers with inadequate performance for the intended task. In this study, 29 aerosol samplers were evaluated based on their respective air flow, size, weight, power consumption, and efficiency in sampling particles in the respirable range. The resulting data demonstrates that sampling air flow and efficiency vary widely, and cannot be predicted from the physical characteristics of air samplers, and hence, that proper selection of air samplers should be more involved than shopping for a device based on the limited characteristics that are published by the manufacturers. The findings are summarized in an approach to rationally select bioaerosol samplers for use in infection control and environmental biomonitoring. The presented data demonstrates that inadequate selection of air samplers could result in a failure to collect particles of interest and thus, underestimate the risk and provide a false sense of security in contaminated health care settings and environments contaminated with infectious or toxic aerosols.

show abstract

Characteristics of Twenty-Nine Aerosol Samplers Tested at U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (2000-2006)

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Comparative Testing and Evaluation of Nine Different Air Samplers: End-to-End Sampling Efficiencies as Specific Performance Measurements for Bioaerosol Applications

Comparative Testing and Evaluation of Nine Different Air Samplers: End-to-End Sampling Efficiencies as Specific Performance Measurements for Bioaerosol Applications

Biological Warfare Agents and their Detection and Monitoring Techniques (Review Paper)

Evaluation criteria for bioaerosol samplers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About