Comparison of lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler with single stage viable impactor for identification of indoor airborne bacteria

Hyeong Rae Kim, Ji woon Park, Hyung Sun Kim, Dongeun Yong, Jungho Hwang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Impactor is a widely used air sampling device because of it is relatively inexpensive and easy to use for sampling bioaerosols. However, sensitive microorganisms may have significant mechanical stress by inertia impaction. Therefore, this sampling method can underestimate the concentration of airborne bioaerosols. Electrostatic sampling can be a good alternative method for bioaerosol sampling because of a less stressful collection technique and has been frequently used. However, it is well known that ions and ozone generated by corona discharge can also inactivate the bioaerosols. In this study, the performance of our lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was compared with that of a single stage viable impactor (TE-10–880, Tisch Environmental, USA). The flow rate of our electrostatic sampler was determined so that the number of aerosols collected using the electrostatic sampler would be same as that of aerosols collected using the impactor of which flow rate was 28.3 lpm. After counting the colony numbers of bacteria captured using two different samplers, each cultured colony was identified with Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) at indoor environment. The total number of identified bacterial genus was 17. Among 17 bacterial genuses, 15 genuses were identified when the electrostatic sampler was used while 9 genuses were identified when the impactor was used. In common, 7 genuses were detected from both samplers. 5.2 folds concentration of bacteria were cultured when the lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)190-197
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Aerosol Science
Volume115
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jan

Fingerprint

sampler
Electrostatics
Bacteria
bacterium
Sampling
Aerosols
sampling
Flow rate
aerosol
Ozone
air sampling
Microorganisms
Ionization
Mass spectrometry
comparison
impactor
Desorption
inertia
corona
desorption

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Pollution

Cite this

@article{f1579c6ab4ca44e0b26b257a6fef53e3,
title = "Comparison of lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler with single stage viable impactor for identification of indoor airborne bacteria",
abstract = "Impactor is a widely used air sampling device because of it is relatively inexpensive and easy to use for sampling bioaerosols. However, sensitive microorganisms may have significant mechanical stress by inertia impaction. Therefore, this sampling method can underestimate the concentration of airborne bioaerosols. Electrostatic sampling can be a good alternative method for bioaerosol sampling because of a less stressful collection technique and has been frequently used. However, it is well known that ions and ozone generated by corona discharge can also inactivate the bioaerosols. In this study, the performance of our lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was compared with that of a single stage viable impactor (TE-10–880, Tisch Environmental, USA). The flow rate of our electrostatic sampler was determined so that the number of aerosols collected using the electrostatic sampler would be same as that of aerosols collected using the impactor of which flow rate was 28.3 lpm. After counting the colony numbers of bacteria captured using two different samplers, each cultured colony was identified with Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) at indoor environment. The total number of identified bacterial genus was 17. Among 17 bacterial genuses, 15 genuses were identified when the electrostatic sampler was used while 9 genuses were identified when the impactor was used. In common, 7 genuses were detected from both samplers. 5.2 folds concentration of bacteria were cultured when the lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was used.",
author = "Kim, {Hyeong Rae} and Park, {Ji woon} and Kim, {Hyung Sun} and Dongeun Yong and Jungho Hwang",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.11.002",
language = "English",
volume = "115",
pages = "190--197",
journal = "Journal of Aerosol Science",
issn = "0021-8502",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Comparison of lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler with single stage viable impactor for identification of indoor airborne bacteria. / Kim, Hyeong Rae; Park, Ji woon; Kim, Hyung Sun; Yong, Dongeun; Hwang, Jungho.

In: Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 115, 01.2018, p. 190-197.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler with single stage viable impactor for identification of indoor airborne bacteria

AU - Kim, Hyeong Rae

AU - Park, Ji woon

AU - Kim, Hyung Sun

AU - Yong, Dongeun

AU - Hwang, Jungho

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - Impactor is a widely used air sampling device because of it is relatively inexpensive and easy to use for sampling bioaerosols. However, sensitive microorganisms may have significant mechanical stress by inertia impaction. Therefore, this sampling method can underestimate the concentration of airborne bioaerosols. Electrostatic sampling can be a good alternative method for bioaerosol sampling because of a less stressful collection technique and has been frequently used. However, it is well known that ions and ozone generated by corona discharge can also inactivate the bioaerosols. In this study, the performance of our lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was compared with that of a single stage viable impactor (TE-10–880, Tisch Environmental, USA). The flow rate of our electrostatic sampler was determined so that the number of aerosols collected using the electrostatic sampler would be same as that of aerosols collected using the impactor of which flow rate was 28.3 lpm. After counting the colony numbers of bacteria captured using two different samplers, each cultured colony was identified with Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) at indoor environment. The total number of identified bacterial genus was 17. Among 17 bacterial genuses, 15 genuses were identified when the electrostatic sampler was used while 9 genuses were identified when the impactor was used. In common, 7 genuses were detected from both samplers. 5.2 folds concentration of bacteria were cultured when the lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was used.

AB - Impactor is a widely used air sampling device because of it is relatively inexpensive and easy to use for sampling bioaerosols. However, sensitive microorganisms may have significant mechanical stress by inertia impaction. Therefore, this sampling method can underestimate the concentration of airborne bioaerosols. Electrostatic sampling can be a good alternative method for bioaerosol sampling because of a less stressful collection technique and has been frequently used. However, it is well known that ions and ozone generated by corona discharge can also inactivate the bioaerosols. In this study, the performance of our lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was compared with that of a single stage viable impactor (TE-10–880, Tisch Environmental, USA). The flow rate of our electrostatic sampler was determined so that the number of aerosols collected using the electrostatic sampler would be same as that of aerosols collected using the impactor of which flow rate was 28.3 lpm. After counting the colony numbers of bacteria captured using two different samplers, each cultured colony was identified with Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) at indoor environment. The total number of identified bacterial genus was 17. Among 17 bacterial genuses, 15 genuses were identified when the electrostatic sampler was used while 9 genuses were identified when the impactor was used. In common, 7 genuses were detected from both samplers. 5.2 folds concentration of bacteria were cultured when the lab-made electrostatic rod-type sampler was used.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033792515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033792515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.11.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85033792515

VL - 115

SP - 190

EP - 197

JO - Journal of Aerosol Science

JF - Journal of Aerosol Science

SN - 0021-8502

ER -