Robert G Peel1, Roy Kennedy2, Matt Smith3, Ole Hertel4. 1. Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK. 2. National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK. 3. National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (present affiliation). 4. Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change (ENSPAC), Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In aerobiological studies it is often necessary to compare concentration data recorded with different models of sampling instrument. Sampler efficiency typically varies from device to device, and depends on the target aerosol and local atmospheric conditions. To account for these differences inter-sampler correction factors may be applied, however for many pollen samplers and pollen taxa such correction factors do not exist and cannot be derived from existing published work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the relative efficiencies of the Burkard 7-Day Recording Volumetric Spore Trap, the Sampling Technologies Rotorod Model 20, and the Burkard Personal Volumetric Air Sampler were evaluated for Urticaceae and Poaceae pollen under field conditions. The influence of wind speed and relative humidity on these efficiency relationships was also assessed. Data for the two pollen taxa were collected during 2010 and 2011-2012, respectively. RESULTS: The three devices were found to record significantly different concentrations for both pollen taxa, with the exception of the 7-Day and Rotorod samplers for Poaceae pollen. Under the range of conditions present during the study, wind speed was found to only have a significant impact on inter-sampler relationships involving the vertically-orientated Burkard Personal sampler, while no interaction between relative efficiency and relative humidity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected with the three models of sampler should only be compared once the appropriate correction has been made, with wind speed taken into account where appropriate.
INTRODUCTION: In aerobiological studies it is often necessary to compare concentration data recorded with different models of sampling instrument. Sampler efficiency typically varies from device to device, and depends on the target aerosol and local atmospheric conditions. To account for these differences inter-sampler correction factors may be applied, however for many pollen samplers and pollen taxa such correction factors do not exist and cannot be derived from existing published work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, the relative efficiencies of the Burkard 7-Day Recording Volumetric Spore Trap, the Sampling Technologies Rotorod Model 20, and the Burkard Personal Volumetric Air Sampler were evaluated for Urticaceae and Poaceae pollen under field conditions. The influence of wind speed and relative humidity on these efficiency relationships was also assessed. Data for the two pollen taxa were collected during 2010 and 2011-2012, respectively. RESULTS: The three devices were found to record significantly different concentrations for both pollen taxa, with the exception of the 7-Day and Rotorod samplers for Poaceae pollen. Under the range of conditions present during the study, wind speed was found to only have a significant impact on inter-sampler relationships involving the vertically-orientated Burkard Personal sampler, while no interaction between relative efficiency and relative humidity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected with the three models of sampler should only be compared once the appropriate correction has been made, with wind speed taken into account where appropriate.
Authors: Danielle E Medek; Paul J Beggs; Bircan Erbas; Alison K Jaggard; Bradley C Campbell; Don Vicendese; Fay H Johnston; Ian Godwin; Alfredo R Huete; Brett J Green; Pamela K Burton; David M J S Bowman; Rewi M Newnham; Constance H Katelaris; Simon G Haberle; Ed Newbigin; Janet M Davies Journal: Aerobiologia (Bologna) Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.410
Authors: Kira M Hughes; Dwan Price; Angel A J Torriero; Matthew R E Symonds; Cenk Suphioglu Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 6.208