Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Comparison of high-volume air sampling equipment for viral aerosol sampling during emergency response

Casey Cooper, MS, MBA, CIH, Jeremy Slagley, PhD, CIH, CSP, James Lohaus Jr, PhD, Elizabeth Escamilla, MS, Christopher Bliss, BSc, MSc, Diana Semler, MSc, Daniel Felker, PhD, David Smith, PhD, Darrin Ott, PhD, CIH

Abstract


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.


Keywords


bioaerosol sampling, bacteriophage, virtual impactor, bioterrorism

Full Text:

PDF

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.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2014.0170

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Journal of Emergency Management