4.6 Article

Comparison of three air samplers for the collection of four nebulized respiratory viruses - Collection of respiratory viruses from air -

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 1874-1885

Publisher

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12875

Keywords

air sampling; collection efficiency; electrostatic precipitator; impactor; impinger

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  3. Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimization of air sampling techniques for infectious respiratory viruses showed different efficiencies in collecting viruses, with BioSampler and cascade impactor collecting high amounts while electrostatic precipitator collecting low amounts. Depending on the research question, either BioSampler or cascade impactor can be applied for gaining more insight into the transmission routes of respiratory viruses in laboratory and field settings.
Viral respiratory tract infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Unfortunately, the transmission routes and shedding kinetics of respiratory viruses remain poorly understood. Air sampling techniques to quantify infectious viruses in the air are indispensable to improve intervention strategies to control and prevent spreading of respiratory viruses. Here, the collection of infectious virus with the six-stage Andersen cascade impactor was optimized with semi-solid gelatin as collection surface. Subsequently, the collection efficiency of the cascade impactor, the SKC BioSampler, and an in-house developed electrostatic precipitator was compared. In an in vitro set-up, influenza A virus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus type 3, and respiratory syncytial virus were nebulized and the amount of collected infectious virus and viral RNA was quantified with each air sampler. Whereas only low amounts of virus were collected using the electrostatic precipitator, high amounts were collected with the BioSampler and cascade impactor. The BioSampler allowed straight-forward sampling in liquid medium, whereas the more laborious cascade impactor allowed size fractionation of virus-containing particles. Depending on the research question, either the BioSampler or the cascade impactor can be applied in laboratory and field settings, such as hospitals to gain more insight into the transmission routes of respiratory viruses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available