Comparative Testing and Evaluation of Nine Different Air Samplers: End-to-End Sampling Efficiencies as Specific Performance Measurements for Bioaerosol Applications

<div><p>Accurate exposure assessments are needed to evaluate health hazards caused by airborne microorganisms and require air samplers that efficiently capture representative samples. This highlights the need for samplers with well-defined performance characteristics. While generic aerosol performance measurements are fundamental to evaluate/compare samplers, the added complexity caused by the diversity of microorganisms, especially in combination with cultivation-based analysis methods, may render such measurements inadequate to assess suitability for bioaerosols. Specific performance measurements that take into account the end-to-end sampling process, targeted bioaerosol and analysis method could help guide selection of air samplers.</p> <p>Nine different samplers (impactors/impingers/cyclones/ electrostatic precipitators/filtration samplers) were subjected to comparative performance testing in this work. Their end-to-end cultivation-based biological sampling efficiencies (BSEs) and PCR-/microscopy-based physical sampling efficiencies (PSEs) relative to a reference sampler (BioSampler) were determined for gram-negative and gram-positive vegetative bacteria, bacterial spores, and viruses.</p> <p>Significant differences were revealed among the samplers and shown to depend on the bioaerosol's stress–sensitivity and particle size. Samplers employing dry collection had lower BSEs for stress-sensitive bioaerosols than wet collection methods, while nonfilter-based samplers showed reduced PSEs for 1 μm compared to 4 μm bioaerosols. Several samplers were shown to underestimate bioaerosol concentration levels relative to the BioSampler due to having lower sampling efficiencies, although they generally obtained samples that were more concentrated due to having higher concentration factors.</p> <p>Our work may help increase user awareness about important performance criteria for bioaerosol sampling, which could contribute to methodological harmonization/standardization and result in more reliable exposure assessments for airborne pathogens and other bioaerosols of interest.</p> <p>Copyright 2014 American Association for Aerosol Research</p> </div

Alternative Routes for Dissemination of <i>Legionella pneumophila</i> Causing Three Outbreaks in Norway

Three outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease were reported in the Fredrikstad/Sarpsborg community, Norway, in 2005 and 2008 caused by the L. pneumophila ST15 and ST462 strains determined by sequence based typing. In this retrospective study, we suggest that the aeration ponds, a part of the biological treatment plant at Borregaard Ind. Ltd., are the main amplifiers and primary disseminators of the outbreak L. pneumophila strains. This result is supported by the finding that the ST15 and ST462 strains were not able to survive in air scrubber liquid media more than two days of incubation at the scrubber’s operating conditions during the 2005 and 2008 outbreaks. In 2008, >1010 CFU/L of L. pneumophila ST462 were detected in the aeration ponds. ST15 and ST462 were also detected in the river Glomma in 2005 and 2008, respectively, downstream of the wastewater outlet from the treatment plant (105 CFU/L). These findings strongly suggest that the presence of L. pneumophila in the river is due to the release of wastewater from the industrial aeration ponds, demonstrating that the river Glomma may be an additional disseminator of L. pneumophila during the outbreaks. This work emphasizes the need for preventive actions against the release of wastewater containing human pathogens to the environment