Characteristics Sampling Efficiency and Battery Life of Smart Air Sampler System (SASS) 3000 and SASS 3100

Kesavan, Jana; Schepers, Deborah; Sutton, Tiffany; Deluca, Paul; Wise, Daniel G.

doi:10.21236/ada535252

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The electret filter technology has recently received increased attention [3,[23][24][25][26][27][28], and has also been used in aerosol microbiome studies utilizing direct SMS [14,16]. The technology relies on low pressure-drop microfibrous filters where each fiber has an electric field frozen into it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This induces a charge in aerosol particles passing through the filter, resulting in an electret capture mechanism. Air samplers based on electret filters provide a combination of equipment and sampling properties well suited for applications demanding a flexible and mobile platform, due to the high flowrate, small size, low weight, low power consumption, high sampling efficiency, and flexible sampling time including the possibility of long-duration continuous sampling [ 2 , 3 , 26 ]. The high flowrates and flexible sampling times support collection of high biomass yields, which are particularly important when combining low biomass air environments with analyses requiring high biomass inputs such as SMS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance evaluation of high-volume electret filter air samplers in aerosol microbiome research

Bøifot

Gohli

Skogan

et al. 2020

Environmental Microbiome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Reliable identification and quantification of bioaerosols is fundamental in aerosol microbiome research, highlighting the importance of using sampling equipment with well-defined performance characteristics. Following advances in sequencing technology, shotgun metagenomic sequencing (SMS) of environmental samples is now possible. However, SMS of air samples is challenging due to low biomass, but with the use of high-volume air samplers sufficient DNA yields can be obtained. Here we investigate the sampling performance and comparability of two hand-portable, battery-operated, high-volume electret filter air samplers, SASS 3100 and ACD-200 Bobcat, previously used in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research. Results: SASS and Bobcat consistently delivered end-to-end sampling efficiencies > 80% during the aerosol chamber evaluation, demonstrating both as effective high-volume air samplers capable of retaining quantitative associations. Filter recovery efficiencies were investigated with manual and sampler-specific semi-automated extraction procedures. Bobcat semiautomated extraction showed reduced efficiency compared to manual extraction. Bobcat tended towards higher sampling efficiencies compared to SASS when combined with manual extraction. To evaluate real-world sampling performance, side-byside SASS and Bobcat sampling was done in a semi-suburban outdoor environment and subway stations. SMS-based microbiome profiles revealed that highly abundant bacterial species had similar representation across samplers. While alpha diversity did not vary for the two samplers, beta diversity analyses showed significant within-pair variation in subway samples. Certain species were found to be captured only by one of the two samplers, particularly in subway samples. Conclusions: SASS and Bobcat were both found capable of collecting sufficient aerosol biomass amounts for SMS, even at sampling times down to 30 min. Bobcat semi-automated filter extraction was shown to be less effective than manual filter extraction. For the most abundant species the samplers were comparable, but systematic sampler-specific differences were observed at species level. This suggests that studies conducted with these highly similar air samplers can be compared in a meaningful way, but it would not be recommended to combine samples from the two samplers in joint analyses. The outcome of this work contributes to improved selection of sampling equipment for use in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research and highlights the importance of acknowledging bias introduced by sampling equipment and sample recovery procedures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of high-volume electret filter air samplers in aerosol microbiome research

Bøifot

Gohli

Skogan

et al. 2020

Environmental Microbiome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

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

“…As a high-volume aerosol collection tool, the Coriolis air sampler (Bertin Technologies, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) is also frequently used for comparison purposes (48)(49)(50). Very few studies included the high-airflow-rate liquid impingement SASS 2300 (Research International, Monroe, WA, USA) or the high-airflow-rate electrostatic filter SASS 3100 (Research International) in their comparisons (39,47,51). The objective of this study was to use environmental field samples to compare the efficiencies of three high-airflow-rate samplers for describing bioaerosol diversity using a next-generation sequencing approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioaerosol Sampler Choice Should Consider Efficiency and Ability of Samplers To Cover Microbial Diversity

Mbareche

Veillette

Bilodeau

et al. 2018

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioaerosol studies tend to describe the microbial content and understand the aerosolization processes linked to diseases. Air samplers are used to collect, identify and quantify bioaerosols. Studies comparing the performance of air samplers have typically used a culture approach or have targeted a specific microorganism in laboratory settings. The objective of this study was to use environmental field samples to compare the efficiency of 3 high airflow rate samplers for describing bioaerosol diversity using a next-generation sequencing approach. Two liquid cyclonic impactors and one electrostatic filter dry sampler were used in four wastewater treatment plants to target bacterial diversity and in five dairy farms to target fungal diversity. The dry electrostatic sampler was consistently more powerful in collecting more fungal and bacterial OTUs. Substantial differences in OTU abundance between liquid and dry sampling were revealed. The majority of the diversity revealed by dry electrostatic sampling was not identified using the cyclonic liquid impactors. The findings on this work suggest that the choice of a bioaerosol sampler should include information about the efficiency and ability of samplers to cover microbial diversity. Although these results suggest that electrostatic filters result in better coverage of the microbial diversity amongst the tested air samplers, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. While it is difficult to determine a single universally optimal air sampler, this work provides an in-depth look at some of the considerations that are essential when choosing an air sampler for studying the microbial ecology of bioaerosols. Associating bioaerosol exposure and health problems is challenging and adequate exposure monitoring is a priority for scientist in the field. Conclusions that can be drawn from bioaerosol exposure studies are highly dependent on the design of the study and the methodologies used. The air sampling strategy is the first methodological step leading to an accurate interpretation of what is present in the air. Applying new molecular approaches to evaluate the efficiency of the different types of samplers used in the field is a necessary work around the traditional approaches and the biases they introduce to such studies. The results and conclusions provided in this manuscript should be taken in considerations when conducting a bioaerosol study.

show abstract

Characteristics Sampling Efficiency and Battery Life of Smart Air Sampler System (SASS) 3000 and SASS 3100

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Performance evaluation of high-volume electret filter air samplers in aerosol microbiome research

Performance evaluation of high-volume electret filter air samplers in aerosol microbiome research

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

Bioaerosol Sampler Choice Should Consider Efficiency and Ability of Samplers To Cover Microbial Diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About