Increased survivability of coronavirus and H1N1 influenza virus under electrostatic aerosol-to-hydrosol sampling

Abstract

Airborne virus susceptibility is an underlying cause of severe respiratory diseases, raising pandemic alerts worldwide. Following the first reports of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in 2019 and its rapid spread worldwide and the outbreak of a new highly variable strain of influenza A virus (H1N1) in 2009, developing quick, accurate monitoring and diagnostic approaches for emerging infections is considered critical. Efficient air sampling of coronaviruses and the H1N1 virus allows swift, real-time identification, triggering early adjuvant interventions. Electrostatic precipitation is an efficient method for sampling bio-aerosols as hydrosols; however, sampling conditions critically impact this method. Corona discharge ionizes surrounding air, generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), which may impair virus structural components, leading to RNA and/or protein damage and preventing virus detection. Herein, ascorbic acid (AA) dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was used as the sampling solution of an electrostatic sampler to counteract virus particle impairment, increasing virus survivability throughout sampling. The findings of this study indicate that the use of PBS+AA is effective in reducing the ROS damage of viral RNA by 95%, viral protein by 45% and virus yield by 60%.

Biosensor detection of airborne respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2

“…Bold references will also be discussed in the next section on biosensors for bioaerosol detection. (a) Sample collection techniques Technique Advantages Disadvantages References Collected onto solid Impactor, pump Wide flow-rate range (10-1200 L/min) Fast collection time Shear forces damage particle viability Lower collection efficiency Liu et al [17] , Razzini et al [46] , Stern et al [47] , Moreno et al [48] , Chirizzi et al [49] , Rodriguez et al [50] , Dumont-Leblond et al [51] , Jin et al [52] , Barbieri et al [27] , Stern et al [53] Centrifugal sampler Higher collection efficiency Higher flow volume High shear forces Schuit et al [54] Cyclone Higher collection efficiency Higher flow volume High shear forces Chia et al [42] , Hirota [55] Electrostatic Low-flow rate Increased particle attraction No shear force affecting particle viability High collection efficiency Charge may damage particle viability Slow collection time Kim et al [56] , Piri et al [57] Swabbing Does not require aerosol sampling Convenient Low-cost May have higher concentration than in aerosol format Does not accurately represent airborne concentration Deposited samples may no longer be viable Moreno et al [48] , Rodriguez et al [50] , Nissen et al [58] , Moitra et al [59] , Maestre et al [60] Passive sampling (no induced air sampling) Simple setup (no electricity, battery, etc.) Portable Typically used with culturing methods …”

Recent advancements in the measurement of pathogenic airborne viruses

“…Electrostatic virus collectors were also used to extract the RNAs of the coronavirus 229E and influenza viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) using PCR at 4–10 LPM ( Kim et al, 2020b ); these collectors were further developed to work at higher flow rates of up to 100 LPM and collection efficiencies of 70–80% at -10 kV using a larger collection area ( Kim et al, 2021 ). Ascorbic acid added into sampling media was observed to reduce virus damage caused by electrostatic sampling ( Piri et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Recently, many techniques have been proposed to compensate for the problems of each sampler. For example, when collecting airborne viruses electrostatically, the ROS adversely affecting the viability and rapid detection capability of airborne viruses was reduced by adding ascorbic acid into a sampling medium ( Bhardwaj et al, 2020 , Piri et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, since the number of viruses in the air is very small, and there exist many non-target particles such as particulate matter, collected viruses should be purified and/or enriched prior to measurement to reduce false measurements.…”

Direct capture and smartphone quantification of airborne SARS-CoV-2 on a paper microfluidic chip

“…Very few papers have been published to detect the COVID-19 aerosols from the air directly. In the small number of such published works, droplets/aerosols were collected using the traditional air samplers for a long time, and conventional laboratory analyses were used, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) ( Piri et al, 2021 ; Su et al, 2020 ). These methods are not easy to be implemented in the field and cannot rapidly provide results.…”