Comparison of high-volume air sampling equipment for viral aerosol sampling during emergency response
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2014.0170Keywords:
bioaerosol sampling, bacteriophage, virtual impactor, bioterrorismAbstract
Objective: This study compared the performance of two high-volume bioaerosol air samplers for viable virus to an accepted standard low-volume sampler. In typical bioaerosol emergency response scenarios, high-volume sampling is essential for the low infective concentrations and large air volumes involved.
Design: Two high-volume air samplers (XMX/2LMIL and DFU-1000) were evaluated alongside a low-volume sample (BioSampler). Low and high concentrations (9.3-93.2 agent containing particles per liter of air [ACPLA]) of male-specific coliphage 2 (MS2) virus were released into a 12 m3 aerosol test chamber and collected using the air samplers. The collection media from the samplers were then processed and viable virus was assessed via plaque assay.
Setting: Aerosol test chamber.
Subjects, participants: None.
Interventions: Collection media and flow rate were modified for the XMX/2L-MIL sampler for viable analysis.
Main outcome measures: Concentration estimates in units of plaque forming units per liter of air (PFU/liter) assessed by the samplers as compared to the levels inside the chamber as evaluated with a slit to agar plate in units of ACPLA. Comparison was made via one-way analysis of variance.
Results: Both the XMX/2L-MIL and DFU-1000 achieved collection effectiveness equal to or greater than the low-volume air sampler for the evaluated MS2 concentrations. The XMX/2L-MIL reliably collected quantifiable low concentrations of MS2, but the DFU-1000 was unable to do so.
Conclusions: For emergency response to suspected bioaerosols, the evaluated high-volume samplers are as effective as the standard low-flow sampler and should be considered in conducting a health risk assessment. If low concentrations are expected, then high-flow samplers using liquid collection are preferred.
References
Darling RG, Catlett CL, Huebner KD, et al.: Threats in bioterrorism I: CDC category A agents. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2002; 20: 273-309.
Peters CJ: Many viruses are potential agents of bioterrorism. ASM News. 2002; 68: 168-173.
Cole L: Bioterrorism, still a threat to the United States. CTC Sentinel. 2012; 5(1): 8-12.
Hermann JR, Hoff SJ,Yoon KJ, et al.: Optimization of a sampling system for recovery and detection of airborne porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and swine influenza virus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006; 72: 4811-4818.
Verreault D, Moineau S, Duchaine C: Methods of sampling for airborne viruses. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2008; 72: 413-444.
Schofield L, Ho J, Kournikakis B, et al.: Avian Influenza Aerosol Sampling Campaign in the British Columbia Fraser Valley, 9–19 April 2004: Sampling of Rare Biological Events. DRDC Suffield TR 2005-032. Suffield: Defense Research and Development Canada, 2005.
Russell KL, Broderick MP, Franklin SE, et al.: Transmission dynamics and prospective environmental sampling of adenovirus in a military recruit setting. J Infect Dis. 2006; 194: 877-885.
Foarde KK, Hanley JT, Ensor DS, et al.: Development of a method for measuring single-pass bioaerosol removal efficiencies of a room air cleaner. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1999; 30: 223-234.
Fatah AA, Arcilesi RD, Chekol T, et al.: Guide for the Selection of Biological Agent Detection Equipment for Emergency First Responders. Guide 101-06, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2007: 52.
Dycor Technologies, Ltd.: XMX/2L-MIL Technical Data Sheet. Available at www.dycor.com/Products/DefenseSecurity/AerosolCollectors/XMX2LMIL.aspx. Accessed February 28, 2014.
Willeke K, Xuejun L, Grinshpun SA: Improved aerosol collection by combined impaction and centrifugal motion. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1998; 28: 439-456.
Cock I, Kalt FR: A modified MS2 bacteriophage plaque reduction assay for the rapid screening of antiviral plant extracts. Pharmacognosy Res. 2010; 2(4): 221-228.
Langlois R: Rapid field detection of biological agents [online]. Science and Technology Review. January/February 2002. Available at https://www.llnl.gov/str/JanFeb02/Langlois.html. Accessed February 28, 2014.
Utrup LJ, Frey AH: Fate of bioterrorism-relevant viruses and bacteria, including spores, aerosolized into an indoor air environment. Exp Biol Med. 2004; 229: 345-350.
Fedorak PM, Westlake DW: Airborne bacterial densities at an activated sludge treatment plant.Water Pollut Control Fed J. 1980; 52(8): 2185-2192.
Adams MH: Bacteriophages. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1959.
Nicas M, Hubbard AE, Jones RM, et al.: The infectious dose of Variola (Smallpox) virus. Appl Biosaf. 2004; 9(3): 118-127.
Downie AW, Meiklejohn M, St. Vincent L, et al.: The recovery of Smallpox virus from patients and their environment in a Smallpox hospital. Bull World Health Org. 1965; 33: 615-622.
Tseng CC, Li CS: Collection efficiencies of aerosol samplers for virus-containing aerosols. J Aerosol Sci. 2005; 36: 593-607.
US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine: Interinstrument variability and validation study for the XMX/2L-MIL biological air sampler. AFRL-SA-WP-CL-2012-0059, July 13, 2012.
Bergman W, Shinn J, Lochner R, et al.: High air flow, low pressure drop, bio-aerosol collector using a multi-slit virtual impactor. J Aerosol Sci. 2005; 36: 619-638.
Black J: Evaluation of XMX/2L-MIL Virtual Impactor Performance and Capture and Retention of Aerosol Particles in Two Different Collection Media AFIT/GIH/ENV/11-M01 [master’s thesis]. Ft. Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center, 2011: 81-85.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright 2007-2023, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC and Journal of Emergency Management. All Rights Reserved
