Comparison of high-volume air sampling equipment for viral aerosol sampling during emergency response.
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, highvolume sampling is essential for the low infective concentrations and large air volumes involved.


METHODS
Two high-volume air samplers (XMX/2LMIL and DFU-1000) were evaluated alongside a lowvolume 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.


METHODS
Aerosol test chamber.


METHODS
None.


METHODS
Collection media and flow rate were modified for the XMX/2L-MIL sampler for viable analysis.


METHODS
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.
19th Aerospace Medicine Squadron, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas.
Casey
C
Cooper
Assistant Professor, Department of Safety Sciences, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania.
Jeremy
J
Slagley
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, California.
James
J
Lohaus
United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Elizabeth
E
Escamilla
Dycor Technologies Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Christopher
C
Bliss
Dycor Technologies Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Diana
D
Semler
Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Daniel
D
Felker
Air Force Medical Support Agency, Rossyln, Virginia.
David
D
Smith
United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Darrin
D
Ott
D000336:Aerosols; D000391:Air Microbiology; D016902:Air Pollution, Indoor / Q000032:analysis; D001273:Atmosphere Exposure Chambers / Q000821:virology*; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000295:instrumentation*; D004867:Equipment Design; D017909:Levivirus / Q000254:growth & development / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D010316:Particle Size; D010948:Viral Plaque Assay
D000336:Aerosols