INTRODUCTION: Multiple factors influence the viability of aerosolized bacteria. The delivery of aerosols is affected by chamber conditions (humidity, temperature, and pressure) and bioaerosol characteristics (particle number, particle size distribution, and viable aerosol concentration). Measurement of viable aerosol concentration and particle size is essential to optimize viability and lung delivery. The Madison chamber is widely used to expose small animals to infectious aerosols. METHODS: A multiplex sampling port was added to the Madison chamber to measure the chamber conditions and bioaerosol characteristics. Aerosols of three pathogens (Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis) were generated under constant conditions and their bioaerosol characteristics were analyzed. Airborne microbes were captured using an impinger or BioSampler. The particle size distribution of airborne microbes was determined using an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS). Viable aerosol concentration, spray factor (viable aerosol concentration/inoculum concentration), and dose presented to the mouse were calculated. Dose retention efficiency and viable aerosol retention rate were calculated from the sampler titers to determine the efficiency of microbe retention in lungs of mice. RESULTS: B. anthracis, Y. pestis, and M. tuberculosis aerosols were sampled through the port. The count mean aerodynamic sizes were 0.98, 0.77, and 0.78 μm with geometric standard deviations of 1.60, 1.90, and 2.37, and viable aerosol concentrations in the chamber were 211, 57, and 1 colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL, respectively. Based on the aerosol concentrations, the doses presented to mice for the three pathogens were 2.5e5, 2.2e4 and 464 CFU. DISCUSSION: Using the multiplex sampling port we determined whether the animals were challenged with an optimum bioaerosol based on dose presented and respirable particle size.
INTRODUCTION: Multiple factors influence the viability of aerosolized bacteria. The delivery of aerosols is affected by chamber conditions (humidity, temperature, and pressure) and bioaerosol characteristics (particle number, particle size distribution, and viable aerosol concentration). Measurement of viable aerosol concentration and particle size is essential to optimize viability and lung delivery. The Madison chamber is widely used to expose small animals to infectious aerosols. METHODS: A multiplex sampling port was added to the Madison chamber to measure the chamber conditions and bioaerosol characteristics. Aerosols of three pathogens (Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis) were generated under constant conditions and their bioaerosol characteristics were analyzed. Airborne microbes were captured using an impinger or BioSampler. The particle size distribution of airborne microbes was determined using an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS). Viable aerosol concentration, spray factor (viable aerosol concentration/inoculum concentration), and dose presented to the mouse were calculated. Dose retention efficiency and viable aerosol retention rate were calculated from the sampler titers to determine the efficiency of microbe retention in lungs of mice. RESULTS:B. anthracis, Y. pestis, and M. tuberculosis aerosols were sampled through the port. The count mean aerodynamic sizes were 0.98, 0.77, and 0.78 μm with geometric standard deviations of 1.60, 1.90, and 2.37, and viable aerosol concentrations in the chamber were 211, 57, and 1 colony-forming unit (CFU)/mL, respectively. Based on the aerosol concentrations, the doses presented to mice for the three pathogens were 2.5e5, 2.2e4 and 464 CFU. DISCUSSION: Using the multiplex sampling port we determined whether the animals were challenged with an optimum bioaerosol based on dose presented and respirable particle size.
Authors: Herbert J Tobias; Millie P Schafer; Maurice Pitesky; David P Fergenson; Joanne Horn; Matthias Frank; Eric E Gard Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: T V Inglesby; D A Henderson; J G Bartlett; M S Ascher; E Eitzen; A M Friedlander; J Hauer; J McDade; M T Osterholm; T O'Toole; G Parker; T M Perl; P K Russell; K Tonat Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-05-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stacy L Agar; Jian Sha; Sheri M Foltz; Tatiana E Erova; Kristin G Walberg; Todd E Parham; Wallace B Baze; Giovanni Suarez; Johnny W Peterson; Ashok K Chopra Journal: Microbiology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.777
Authors: Divey Saini; Gregory W Hopkins; Sarah A Seay; Ching-Ju Chen; Casey C Perley; Eva M Click; Richard Frothingham Journal: Tuberculosis (Edinb) Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 3.131
Authors: Jennifer D Bowling; Katherine J O'Malley; William B Klimstra; Amy L Hartman; Douglas S Reed Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Stephanie M Holmer; Kathy S Evans; Yohannes G Asfaw; Divey Saini; Wiley A Schell; Julie G Ledford; Richard Frothingham; Jo Rae Wright; Gregory D Sempowski; John R Perfect Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Matthew G Lackemeyer; Fabian de Kok-Mercado; Jiro Wada; Laura Bollinger; Jason Kindrachuk; Victoria Wahl-Jensen; Jens H Kuhn; Peter B Jahrling Journal: Viruses Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: E Stylianou; K L Griffiths; H C Poyntz; R Harrington-Kandt; M D Dicks; L Stockdale; G Betts; H McShane Journal: Vaccine Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Kristen L Jurcic Smith; Divey Saini; Svetoslav Bardarov; Michelle Larsen; Richard Frothingham; Neel R Gandhi; William R Jacobs; A Willem Sturm; Sunhee Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark R Cronan; Allison F Rosenberg; Stefan H Oehlers; Joseph W Saelens; Dana M Sisk; Kristen L Jurcic Smith; Sunhee Lee; David M Tobin Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 5.758