Evaluation criteria for bioaerosol samplers.

Humans contract a variety of serious diseases through inhalation of infectious aerosols. Thus, the importance of monitoring air for microbial, toxic, or allergic content is recognized in clinical, occupational, and biodefense arenas. However, accurate monitoring of potentially contaminated environments can be hampered by selection of aerosol samplers with inadequate performance for the intended task. In this study, 29 aerosol samplers were evaluated based on their respective air flow, size, weight, power consumption, and efficiency in sampling particles in the respirable range. The resulting data demonstrates that sampling air flow and efficiency vary widely, and cannot be predicted from the physical characteristics of air samplers, and hence, that proper selection of air samplers should be more involved than shopping for a device based on the limited characteristics that are published by the manufacturers. The findings are summarized in an approach to rationally select bioaerosol samplers for use in infection control and environmental biomonitoring. The presented data demonstrates that inadequate selection of air samplers could result in a failure to collect particles of interest and thus, underestimate the risk and provide a false sense of security in contaminated health care settings and environments contaminated with infectious or toxic aerosols.

[1]  Ericka Stricklin-Parker,et al.  Ann , 2005 .

[2]  P. Görner,et al.  Site comparison of selected aerosol samplers in the wood industry. , 2010, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[3]  A. Mcfarland,et al.  Bioaerosol concentrator performance: comparative tests with viable and with solid and liquid nonviable particles , 2007, Journal of applied microbiology.

[4]  Michael Williamson,et al.  Characteristics Sampling Efficiency and Battery Life of Smart Air Sampler System (SASS) 3000 and SASS 3100 , 2010 .

[5]  E Kauffer,et al.  Thoracic size-selective sampling of fibres: performance of four types of thoracic sampler in laboratory tests. , 2005, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[6]  P Fabian,et al.  Airborne influenza virus detection with four aerosol samplers using molecular and infectivity assays: considerations for a new infectious virus aerosol sampler. , 2009, Indoor air.

[7]  T. Keefe,et al.  Field and wind tunnel comparison of four aerosol samplers using agricultural dusts. , 2009, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[8]  D. Sleeth,et al.  Performance study of personal inhalable aerosol samplers at ultra-low wind speeds. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[9]  J. Sagripanti,et al.  Difference between the spore sizes of Bacillus anthracis and other Bacillus species , 2007, Journal of applied microbiology.

[10]  A. Mcfarland,et al.  Sampling and Retention Efficiencies of Batch-Type Liquid-Based Bioaerosol Samplers , 2010 .

[11]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[12]  Alan Bensoussan,et al.  Traditional Chinese Medicine in Cancer Care: A Review of Controlled Clinical Studies Published in Chinese , 2013, PloS one.

[13]  Zhenqiang Xu,et al.  Analysis of Culturable Bacterial and Fungal Aerosol Diversity Obtained Using Different Samplers and Culturing Methods , 2011 .

[14]  Jean-Francois Fabries,et al.  Study of fifteen respirable aerosol samplers used in occupational hygiene , 2001 .

[15]  Characteristics of Twenty-Nine Aerosol Samplers Tested at U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (2000-2006) , 2011 .

[16]  M. L. Laucks,et al.  Aerosol Technology Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles , 2000 .

[17]  K. A. Hottell,et al.  Characteristics and Sampling Efficiencies of Two BioGuardian(Registered) 12.03 Aerosol Samplers , 2005 .