Evaluation of physical sampling efficiency for cyclone-based personal bioaerosol samplers in moving air environments

Abstract

The need to determine occupational exposure to bioaerosols has notably increased in the past decade, especially for microbiology-related workplaces and laboratories. Recently, two new cyclone-based personal bioaerosol samplers were developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the USA and the Research Center for Toxicology and Hygienic Regulation of Biopreparations (RCT & HRB) in Russia to monitor bioaerosol exposure in the workplace. Here, a series of wind tunnel experiments were carried out to evaluate the physical sampling performance of these two samplers in moving air conditions, which could provide information for personal biological monitoring in a moving air environment. The experiments were conducted in a small wind tunnel facility using three wind speeds (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 m s −1 ) and three sampling orientations (0°, 90°, and 180°) with respect to the wind direction. Monodispersed particles ranging from 0.5 to 10 μm were employed as the test aerosols. The evaluation of the physical sampling performance was focused on the aspiration efficiency and capture efficiency of the two samplers. The test results showed that the orientation-averaged aspiration efficiencies of the two samplers closely agreed with the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) inhalable convention within the particle sizes used in the evaluation tests, and the effect of the wind speed on the aspiration efficiency was found negligible. The capture efficiencies of these two samplers ranged from 70% to 80%. These data offer important information on the insight into the physical sampling characteristics of the two test samplers.

Determination of performance-parameter design and impact factors of sampling efficiency for bioaerosol cyclones

“…PSL particles ranging from 0.5 to 10 lm were used as the test aerosols for acquiring sampling efficiencies. They found that the capture (aerosol-to-hydrosol) efficiency was 70%-80% for aerosol particles larger than 5 lm [53]. In another study of a designed BWWC, the collection efficiency was 51% for 1 mm PSL and 55% for 3 mm PSL [18].…”

Bioaerosols and Transmission, a Diverse and Growing Community of Practice

“…Progress in the field has been stimulated by advances in other areas which have been applied to the study of infectious bioaerosols. These include: (a) enhanced detection by molecular methods, principally real-time and quantitative PCR, nextgeneration sequencing, metagenomics, and biosensors (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30), and (b) establishment of both conventional and novel infrastructure, such as small and large-scale wind tunnels, biocontained rotating drums for aging aerosols, and field-ready aerosol samplers (31)(32)(33). Ongoing research has also facilitated the development and dissemination of procedures and protocols for experimental work, including artificial aerosols, as well as animal models of transmission including the ferret model for influenza virus transmission and macaque model for Ebola virus transmission (34,35).…”

Re-aerosolization in liquid-based air samplers induces bias in bacterial diversity

“…These samplers use various capture flowrates and capture mechanisms including inertial impactors, impingers, cyclones, and filters. The choice of sampling device and strategy is mainly related to their intended applications and must consider the advantages and weaknesses associated with the sampling principles (Thorne et al 1992;Grinshpun et al 1997;Pahl et al 1997;Willeke, Lin, and Grinshpun 1998;Lin et al 1999;Lin et al 2000;Duchaine et al 2001;Agranovski et al 2002Agranovski et al , 2005Yao et al 2009;Zhen et al 2009;Coccia et al 2010;Kesavan, Schepers, and McFarland 2010;Griffin et al 2011;Springorum, Clauß, and Hartung 2011;Yamamoto et al 2011;Han and Mainelis 2012;Sanchez-Munoz et al 2012;Su et al 2012;Dybwad, Skogan, and Blatny 2014;Amato et al 2015;Kesavan and Sagripanti 2015;Wubulihairen et al 2015;Haig et al 2016;Yu et al 2016). For example, high flowrates used with a filterbased sampler could be inappropriate for culturebased approaches but might be effective for molecular-based studies.…”