Dataset Information

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus.

ABSTRACT: Respiratory 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.

SUBMITTER: Li J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7125700 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus.

Li Jiayu J Leavey Anna A Wang Yang Y O'Neil Caroline C Wallace Meghan A MA Burnham Carey-Ann D CD Boon Adrianus Cm AC Babcock Hilary H Biswas Pratim P

Journal of aerosol science 20170824

Respiratory 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 t ...[more]

PMID: 32287370

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBioaerosol sampling devices are necessary for the characterization of infectious bioaerosols emitted by naturally-infected hosts with acute respiratory virus infections. Assessment of these devices under multiple experimental conditions will provide insight for device use.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to assess and compare bioaerosol sampling devices using a) an in vitro, environmentally-controlled artificial bioaerosol system at a range of different RH conditions and b) an in vivo bioaerosol system of influenza virus-infected ferrets under controlled environmental conditions. Secondarily, we also sought to examine the impact of NSAIDs on bioaerosol emission in influenza virus-infected ferrets to address its potential as a determinant of bioaerosol emission.MethodsWe examined the performance of low and moderate volume bioaerosol samplers for the collection of viral RNA and infectious influenza virus in vitroand in vivo using artificial bioaerosols and the ferret model of influenza virus infection. The following samplers were tested: the polytetrafluoroethylene filter (PTFE filter), the 2-stage National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health cyclone sampler (NIOSH cyclone sampler) and the 6-stage viable Andersen impactor (Andersen impactor).ResultsThe PTFE filter and NIOSH cyclone sampler collected similar amounts of viral RNA and infectious virus from artificially-generated aerosols under a range of relative humidities (RH). Using the ferret model, the PTFE filter, NIOSH cyclone sampler and the Andersen impactor collected up to 3.66 log10 copies of RNA/L air, 3.84 log10 copies of RNA/L air and 6.09 log10 copies of RNA/L air respectively at peak recovery. Infectious virus was recovered from the PTFE filter and NIOSH cyclone samplers on the peak day of viral RNA recovery.ConclusionThe PTFE filter and NIOSH cyclone sampler are useful for influenza virus RNA and infectious virus collection and may be considered for clinical and environmental settings.

Project description:Bioaerosol studies aim to describe the microbial content and increase understanding of the aerosolization processes linked to diseases. Air samplers are used to collect, identify, and quantify bioaerosols. Studies comparing the performances of air samplers have typically used a culture approach or have targeted a specific microorganism in laboratory settings. The objective of this study was to use environmental field samples to compare the efficiencies of 3 high-airflow-rate samplers for describing bioaerosol diversity using a next-generation sequencing approach. Two liquid cyclonic impactors and one electrostatic filter dry sampler were used in four wastewater treatment plants to target bacterial diversity and in five dairy farms to target fungal diversity. The dry electrostatic sampler was consistently more powerful in collecting more fungal and bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Substantial differences in OTU abundances between liquid and dry sampling were revealed. The majority of the diversity revealed by dry electrostatic sampling was not identified using the cyclonic liquid impactors. The findings from this work suggest that the choice of a bioaerosol sampler should include information about the efficiency and ability of samplers to cover microbial diversity. Although these results suggest that electrostatic filters result in better coverage of the microbial diversity among the tested air samplers, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. While it is difficult to determine a single universally optimal air sampler, this work provides an in-depth look at some of the considerations that are essential when choosing an air sampler for studying the microbial ecology of bioaerosols.IMPORTANCE Associating bioaerosol exposure and health problems is challenging, and adequate exposure monitoring is a priority for scientists in the field. Conclusions that can be drawn from bioaerosol exposure studies are highly dependent on the design of the study and the methodologies used. The air sampling strategy is the first methodological step leading to an accurate interpretation of what is present in the air. Applying new molecular approaches to evaluate the efficiencies of the different types of samplers used in the field is necessary in order to circumvent traditional approaches and the biases they introduce to such studies. The results and conclusions provided in this paper should be taken in consideration when conducting a bioaerosol study.

Dataset Information

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus.

Publications

Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets