Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorDybwad, Marius
dc.contributor.authorSkogan, Gunnar
dc.contributor.authorBlatny, Janet Martha
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-13T12:30:32Z
dc.date.available2017-11-13T12:30:32Z
dc.date.created2014-04-01T10:47:45Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationAerosol Science and Technology. 2014, 48 (3), 282-295.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0278-6826
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2465817
dc.description.abstractAccurate exposure assessments are needed to evaluate health hazards caused by airborne microorganisms and require air samplers that efficiently capture representative samples. This highlights the need for samplers with well-defined performance characteristics. While generic aerosol performance measurements are fundamental to evaluate/compare samplers, the added complexity caused by the diversity of microorganisms, especially in combination with cultivation-based analysis methods, may render such measurements inadequate to assess suitability for bioaerosols. Specific performance measurements that take into account the end-to-end sampling process, targeted bioaerosol and analysis method could help guide selection of air samplers. Nine different samplers (impactors/impingers/cyclones/ electrostatic precipitators/filtration samplers) were subjected to comparative performance testing in this work. Their end-to-end cultivation-based biological sampling efficiencies (BSEs) and PCR-/microscopy-based physical sampling efficiencies (PSEs) relative to a reference sampler (BioSampler) were determined for gram-negative and gram-positive vegetative bacteria, bacterial spores, and viruses. Significant differences were revealed among the samplers and shown to depend on the bioaerosol's stress–sensitivity and particle size. Samplers employing dry collection had lower BSEs for stress-sensitive bioaerosols than wet collection methods, while nonfilter-based samplers showed reduced PSEs for 1 μm compared to 4 μm bioaerosols. Several samplers were shown to underestimate bioaerosol concentration levels relative to the BioSampler due to having lower sampling efficiencies, although they generally obtained samples that were more concentrated due to having higher concentration factors. Our work may help increase user awareness about important performance criteria for bioaerosol sampling, which could contribute to methodological harmonization/standardization and result in more reliable exposure assessments for airborne pathogens and other bioaerosols of interest.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.titleComparative testing and evaluation of nine different air samplers: End-to-end sampling efficiencies as specific performance measurements for bioaerosol applicationsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber282-295nb_NO
dc.source.volume48nb_NO
dc.source.journalAerosol Science and Technologynb_NO
dc.source.issue3nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/02786826.2013.871501
dc.identifier.cristin1126298
dc.relation.projectForsvarets forskningsinstitutt: 1326nb_NO
dc.description.localcodeThis article will not be available due to copyright restrictions (c) 2013 by Taylor & Francisnb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,66,15,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for bioteknologi og matvitenskap
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel