Highly efficient collection of infectious pandemic influenza H1N1 virus (2009) through laminar-flow water based condensation

Lednicky, John A.; Pan, Maohua; Loeb, Julia C.; Hsieh, Hsin Pang; Eiguren-Fernandez, Arantzazu; Hering, Susanne V.; Fan, Z. Hugh; Wu, Chang‐Yu

doi:10.1080/02786826.2016.1179254

Cited by 63 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the SKC BioSampler was able to collect only 0.5-5% of atomized viruses. This percentage is comparable with the percentage reported by Hogan et al (2005) and Lednicky et al (2016) for the 20 mL SKC BioSampler. A low collection efficiency will be a concern in the clinical setting, especially for low virus concentrations.…”

Section: Experiments Iv: Comparison Of Different Samplers and Differensupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Despite theses studies that incorporate different samplers in their sampling portfolio, uncertainty remains regarding the percentage of the total aerosolized viruses, which are subsequently recovered. This percentage has been reported for the 20 mL SKC BioSampler with MS2 virus (Hogan et al, 2005;Lednicky et al, 2016); however, this percentage is still unknown for 5 mL SKC BioSampler with the real influenza virus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Further work and improvements are required to extrapolate the results in practical use for quantitatively measuring airborne viruses. The recently developed laminar-flow, water-based viable virus aerosol sampler (VIVAS) may be as a promising technology to improve the viable sampling efficiency (Lednicky et al, 2016;.…”

Section: Experiments Iv: Comparison Of Different Samplers and Differenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus

Leavey

Wang

et al. 2018

Journal of Aerosol Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TRespiratory viral diseases can be spread when a virus-containing particle (droplet) from one individual is aerosolized and subsequently comes into either direct or indirect contact with another individual. Increasing numbers of studies are examining the occupational risk to healthcare workers due to proximity to patients. Selecting the appropriate air sampling method is a critical factor in assuring the analytical performance characteristics of a clinical study. The objective of this study was to compare the physical collection efficiency and virus collection efficiency of a 5 mL compact SKC BioSampler ® , a gelatin filter, and a glass fiber filter, in a laboratory setting. The gelatin filter and the glass fiber filter were housed in a home-made filter holder. Submersion (with vortexing and subsequent centrifugation) was used for the gelatin and glass fiber filters. Swabbing method was also tested to retrieve the viruses from the glass fiber filter. Experiments were conducted using the H1N1 influenza A virus A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (IAV-PR8), and viral recovery was determined using culture and commercial real-time-PCR (BioFire and Xpert). An atomizer was used to aerosolize a solution of influenza virus in PBS for measurement, and two Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers were used to determine particle size distributions. The SKC BioSampler demonstrated a U-shaped physical collection efficiency, lowest for particles around 30-50 nm, and highest at 10 nm and 300-350 nm within the size range examined. The physical collection efficiency of the gelatin filter was strongly influenced by air flow and time: a stable collection across all particle sizes was only observed at 2 L/min for the 9 min sampling time, otherwise, degradation of the filter was observed. The glass fiber filter demonstrated the highest physical collection efficiency (100% for all sizes) of all tested samplers, however, its overall virus recovery efficiency fared the worst (too low to quantify). The highest viral collection efficiencies for the SKC BioSampler and gelatin filter were 5% and 1.5%, respectively. Overall, the SKC BioSampler outperformed the filters. It is important to consider the total concentration of viruses entering the sampler when interpreting the results.

show abstract

Section: Experiments Iv: Comparison Of Different Samplers and Differensupporting

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Experiments Iv: Comparison Of Different Samplers and Differenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus

Leavey

Wang

et al. 2018

Journal of Aerosol Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, caution should be exercised in further reduction in the flow rate, and research to determine the optimal flow rate for sampling airborne virus is warranted. Finally, the BioSampler's high centrifugal force also inactivates a significant fraction of influenza viruses (Fabian et al 2009;Lednicky et al 2016). Hence, new samplers for airborne viruses that allow for less violent but efficient sampling in the wide size range of virus-containing particles are in great need.…”

Section: Liquid Impingermentioning

confidence: 99%

Collection, particle sizing and detection of airborne viruses

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Viruses that affect humans, animals and plants are often dispersed and transmitted through airborne routes of infection. Due to current technological deficiencies, accurate determination of the presence of airborne viruses is challenging. This shortcoming limits our ability to evaluate the actual threat arising from inhalation or other relevant contact with aerosolized viruses. To improve our understanding of the mechanisms of airborne transmission of viruses, air sampling technologies that can detect the presence of aerosolized viruses, effectively collect them and maintain their viability, and determine their distribution in aerosol particles, are needed. The latest developments in sampling and detection methodologies for airborne viruses, their limitations, factors that can affect their performance and current research needs, are discussed in this review. Much more work is needed on the establishment of standard air sampling methods and their performance requirements. Sampling devices that can collect a wide size range of virus‐containing aerosols and maintain the viability of the collected viruses are needed. Ideally, the devices would be portable and technology‐enabled for on‐the‐spot detection and rapid identification of the viruses. Broad understanding of the airborne transmission of viruses is of seminal importance for the establishment of better infection control strategies.

show abstract

“…Several researchers showed that wet collection typically provides better viability maintenance (King and McFarland 2012;Li et al 1999;Wang et al 2001). Examples of methods for wet collection include impingers, such as the all-glass impinger (e.g., AGI or SKC BioSampler), cyclone or wet-walled cyclone (e.g., Coriolis sampler of Bertin Instruments), and, more recently, a viable condensation growth tube collector (Lednicky et al 2016;Walls et al 2016). Although each method prevents desiccation, there are still challenges that make them less than ideal for long-term sampling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term viable bioaerosol sampling using a temperature- and humidity-controlled filtration apparatus, a laboratory investigation using culturable E. coli.

Walls

Kim

Yaga

et al. 2017

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2017) Longterm viable bioaerosol sampling using a temperature-and humidity-controlled filtration apparatus, a laboratory investigation using culturable E.coli., Aerosol Science and Technology, 51:5, 576-586, ABSTRACT Sampling for culturable (e.g., viable) aerosolized microbes (bioaerosols) is a useful means to provide information for public health monitoring and studies. However, it is challenging to maintain microbe culturability when sampling at high flow rates (>12 L/min) and extended periods of time (4 h). We developed a first-generation, viable bioaerosol collection system (VBCS) utilizing temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH)-conditioned filtration at a flow rate of 25 L/min. A twostage system of tube-in-shell Nafion TM exchange units provides cooling to 10 C and RH conditioning to 80-95%. Aerosol particles are collected on a polyurethane nanofiber filter providing a physical collection efficiency of >95% for sizes 0.06-10 mm. The T and RH conditions at the collection filter are maintained, despite changes to ambient conditions. The initial testing of the VBCS was done under indoor, laboratory conditions with aerosolized, vegetative E. coli. A scenario of a 30-min challenge of bioaerosol followed by continued sampling of clean air for various times was used to judge culturability maintenance under extended-term sampling. An initial loss of culturability upon collection onto the filter was observed; 23 § 13% relative to 4-mm all-glass impinger. However once collected, 98% of culturability was maintained for an additional 4.5 h of sampling. An exponential decay in culturability was observed from 8 h to 15 h of sampling. Also, 24h cold storage of the filters collected was studied. The VBCS is based on the use of dry filter cassettes, needs minimal maintenance, and preserves culturability of vegetative bacteria for >4 h. EDITOR Tiina Reponen

show abstract

Highly efficient collection of infectious pandemic influenza H1N1 virus (2009) through laminar-flow water based condensation

Cited by 63 publications

References 16 publications

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus

Collection, particle sizing and detection of airborne viruses

Long-term viable bioaerosol sampling using a temperature- and humidity-controlled filtration apparatus, a laboratory investigation using culturable E. coli.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About