A field comparison of four samplers for enumerating fungal aerosols I. Sampling characteristics
Lee, K. S., Bartlett, K. H., Brauer, M., Stephens, G. M., Black, W. A. and Teschke, K.
2004
Indoor Air, 14(5): 360-366
Lee, K. S., Bartlett, K. H., Brauer, M., Stephens, G. M., Black, W. A. and Teschke, K., (2004), "A field comparison of four samplers for enumerating fungal aerosols I. Sampling characteristics", Indoor Air, 14(5): 360-366.
| Abstract: |
| This study compared the performance of four bioaerosol samplers, the Reuter Centrifugal Air Sampler, the Andersen N6 single stage, the Surface Air System 90, and the Air-o-Cell, in measurements for airborne fungal propagules collected in 75 public building sites without prior knowledge of water damage or mold problems in British Columbia, Canada. The samplers had differences in detection limits, reproducibility, and overall yield. However, high and significant correlations between samplers (indoor samples: Pearson r = 0.60-0.85, P < 0.001) suggest that relative performances between samplers were reasonably consistent. These results indicate that fungal airborne concentration data are dependent on the methods used for assessment, and introduce additional variability in exposure assessment studies.
Practical Implications
In the absence of a standard protocol for sampling bioaerosols, the interpretation of aerosol data reported in indoor air quality studies is entirely dependent on an appreciation of the sampling characteristics of commonly used instrumentation. Although a number of comparative studies have been undertaken in the laboratory, only a few studies have made reported comparison data under field conditions. This study compared three culturable sampling devices, the Andersen N6, SAS 90, and RCS, and one particulate sampling device, the Air-o-Cell, in offices and public areas in a variety of buildings, under conditions of forced air or natural ventilation. The concentrations of fungal aerosols collected during simultaneous sample collection were highly correlated, yet varied by orders of magnitude. The performance of these devices must be carefully considered before a standard protocol can be promulgated.
http://www.cher.ubc.ca/PDFs/EvaluationBAsamplers.pdf |
|
|
This publication in whole or part might be found online. Check the sources on the related article below. Or use search engines on the web.
|
Related Concepts
|
|