Collection efficiency of liquid‐based samplers for fungi in indoor air

Abstract

This study assessed the collection efficiency (CE) of two popularly used sampling devices (BioSampler and Coriolis sampler) for fungal aerosols. Phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with or without surfactant (Tween‐20, Tween‐80, or Triton X‐100) and antifoam agent was prepared and used as collection liquids. The agar impactor (BioStage) was simultaneously operated with liquid‐based samplers to collect fungi from seven sites located at a university building, public library, and animal farming. Fungal concentrations determined by liquid samplers were divided by those by BioStage, and the ratio values represented CE. Results indicate that the CE of BioSampler was superior to that of Coriolis (P = 0.0001) and the PBS containing surfactant collected fungi better than that without surfactant (P < 0.0001), whereas antifoam agent showed no influence (P = 0.8). Moreover, fungal concentrations determined by BioSampler with surfactant‐added PBS were statistically indifferent from those by BioStage (P > 0.05) with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.81‐0.83 (P < 0.01). In addition to sampler and collection liquid, sampling location was also identified as a significant CE factor (P = 0.006), implying potential influences by fungal genera in the studied fields. Overall, BioSampler with surfactant‐supplemented PBS (eg, Triton X‐100) is recommended considering the great CE and compatibility with a variety of analytical assays.

Operative and Technical Modifications to the Coriolis® µ Air Sampler That Improve Sample Recovery and Biosafety During Microbiological Air Sampling

“…Liquid loss during air sampling is known to occur with traditional impingers ( Willeke et al , 1998 ; Han and Mainelis, 2012 ) and has also been reported for the Coriolis ( Carvalho et al , 2008 ; Chang et al , 2019 ). During impingement, liquid loss may be coupled to the escape and reaerosolization of material from the collection media ( Grinshpun et al , 1997 ; Riemenschneider et al , 2010 ; Han and Mainelis, 2012 ).…”

“…The Coriolis has tactical capacity and produces a sample that is amenable to different analytical methods. It is gaining ground as a tool for microbiological air sampling where it has been successfully used to detect toxins or microbial contaminants in the food industry ( Verreault et al , 2011 ; Viegas et al , 2012 , 2014 ; Ahmed et al , 2013 ; Chang et al , 2019 ), fungus and pollen in outdoor and indoor air ( Carvalho et al , 2008 ; Gómez-Domenech et al , 2010 ; Chang et al , 2019 ) and airborne pathogens in healthcare facilities ( Choukri et al , 2010 ; Bellanger et al , 2012 ; Le Gal et al , 2015 ; Montagna et al , 2017 ; Alsved et al , 2019 ; Montagna et al , 2019 ). In the above studies the Coriolis was used mainly in conjunction with culture and nucleic acid amplification methods, although microscopy and in some cases spoligotyping and sequencing were also performed.…”

Airborne contamination in the food industry: An update on monitoring and disinfection techniques of air

“…In these cases, microorganisms grow in a liquid medium, such as spilled product, rinse water or wastewater, which subsequently becomes aerosolized. Microorganisms may also be suspended as such in the air after dissipation or evaporation or as "passengers" on solid dust particles (e.g., hair, clothing fiber, skin), which are dispersed in a food processing unit (Chang, Ting, & Horng, 2019;Heo, Lim, Kee, & Lee, 2017). Microorganisms in the air may settle on food products, equipment, containers and other food contact surfaces during handling (Brandl et al, 2014).…”

“…The contribution of airborne microorganisms to food contamination has been addressed (Chang, et al, 2019;Chen et al, 2019;Shale & Lues, 2007). Burfoot and Brown (2004) reported that the ratio of microorganisms to total particles may range up to more than two orders of magnitude.…”

Relationships between Exposure to Bioaerosols, Moldy Surface and Symptoms in French Mold-Damaged Homes

“…In regards to the technical aspects, a recent study showed that the use of the Coriolis ® collector may underestimate the number of CFU for fungal spores [46]. This could mean that the fungal concentration recorded in our study may be below the real concentration of these fungal species in air.…”