4.0 Article

Operative and Technical Modifications to the Coriolis® μ Air Sampler That Improve Sample Recovery and Biosafety During Microbiological Air Sampling

Journal

ANNALS OF WORK EXPOSURES AND HEALTH
Volume 64, Issue 8, Pages 852-865

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxaa053

Keywords

air sampling; biosafety; contamination; Coriolis; infectious aerosols

Funding

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1118552]
  2. Karolinska Innovations AB
  3. Karolinska Institutet
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1118552] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detecting infectious aerosols is central for gauging and countering airborne threats. In this regard, the Coriolis (R) mu cyclonic air sampler is a practical, commercial collector that can be used with various analysis methods to monitor pathogens in air. However, information on how to operate this unit under optimal sampling and biosafety conditions is limited. We investigated Coriolis performance in aerosol dispersal experiments with polystyrene microspheres and Bacillus globigii spores. We report inconsistent sample recovery from the collector cone due to loss of material when sampling continuously for more than 30 min. Introducing a new collector cone every 10 min improved this shortcoming. Moreover, we found that several surfaces on the device become contaminated during sampling. Adapting a high efficiency particulate air-filter system to the Coriolis prevented contamination without altering collection efficiency or tactical deployment. A Coriolis modified with these operative and technical improvements was used to collect aerosols carrying microspheres released inside a Biosafety Level-3 laboratory during simulations of microbiological spills and aerosol dispersals. In summary, we provide operative and technical solutions to the Coriolis that optimize microbiological air sampling and improve biosafety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available