Literature DB >> 33507951

Comparison of samplers collecting airborne influenza viruses: 1. Primarily impingers and cyclones.

Peter C Raynor1, Adepeju Adesina1, Hamada A Aboubakr2, My Yang2, Montserrat Torremorell2, Sagar M Goyal2.   

Abstract

Researchers must be able to measure concentrations, sizes, and infectivity of virus-containing particles in animal agriculture facilities to know how far infectious virus-containing particles may travel through air, where they may deposit in the human or animal respiratory tract, and the most effective ways to limit exposures to them. The objective of this study was to evaluate a variety of impinger and cyclone aerosol or bioaerosol samplers to determine approaches most suitable for detecting and measuring concentrations of virus-containing particles in air. Six impinger/cyclone air samplers, a filter-based sampler, and a cascade impactor were used in separate tests to collect artificially generated aerosols of MS2 bacteriophage and swine and avian influenza viruses. Quantification of infectious MS2 coliphage was carried out using a double agar layer procedure. The influenza viruses were titrated in cell cultures to determine quantities of infectious virus. Viral RNA was extracted and used for quantitative real time RT-PCR, to provide total virus concentrations for all three viruses. The amounts of virus recovered and the measured airborne virus concentrations were calculated and compared among the samplers. Not surprisingly, high flow rate samplers generally collected greater quantities of virus than low flow samplers. However, low flow rate samplers generally measured higher, and likely more accurate, airborne concentrations of Infectious virus and viral RNA than high flow samplers. To assess airborne viruses in the field, a two-sampler approach may work well. A suitable high flow sampler may provide low limits of detection to determine if any virus is present in the air. If virus is detected, a suitable lower flow sampler may measure airborne virus concentrations accurately.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33507951      PMCID: PMC7842955          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244977

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  39 in total

1.  Risk of influenza A (H5N1) infection among poultry workers, Hong Kong, 1997-1998.

Authors:  Carolyn Buxton Bridges; Wilina Lim; Jean Hu-Primmer; Les Sims; Keiji Fukuda; K H Mak; Thomas Rowe; William W Thompson; Laura Conn; Xiuhua Lu; Nancy J Cox; Jacqueline M Katz
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 5.226

2.  Sampling methodologies and dosage assessment techniques for submicrometre and ultrafine virus aerosol particles.

Authors:  C J Hogan; E M Kettleson; M-H Lee; B Ramaswami; L T Angenent; P Biswas
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.772

3.  Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes.

Authors:  Wan Yang; Subbiah Elankumaran; Linsey C Marr
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Laboratory measurements of oil mist concentrations using filters and an electrostatic precipitator.

Authors:  D Leith; F A Leith; M G Boundy
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1996-12

Review 5.  The role of swine in the generation of novel influenza viruses.

Authors:  W Ma; K M Lager; A L Vincent; B H Janke; M R Gramer; J A Richt
Journal:  Zoonoses Public Health       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.702

6.  Characterization of Viral Load, Viability and Persistence of Influenza A Virus in Air and on Surfaces of Swine Production Facilities.

Authors:  Victor Neira; Peter Rabinowitz; Aaron Rendahl; Blanca Paccha; Shawn G Gibbs; Montserrat Torremorell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Real time reverse transcription (RRT)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for detection of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus and European swine influenza A virus infections in pigs.

Authors:  Marek J Slomka; Anstice L E Densham; Vivien J Coward; Steve Essen; Sharon M Brookes; Richard M Irvine; Erica Spackman; Jonathan Ridgeon; Rebecca Gardner; Amanda Hanna; David L Suarez; Ian H Brown
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.380

8.  The effect of different coating materials on the prevention of powder bounce in the next generation impactor.

Authors:  Shadi Farshbaf Khalili; Saeed Ghanbarzadeh; Ali Nokhodchi; Hamed Hamishehkar
Journal:  Res Pharm Sci       Date:  2018-06

9.  Development of methods to study the survival of airborne viruses.

Authors:  M K Ijaz; Y G Karim; S A Sattar; C M Johnson-Lussenburg
Journal:  J Virol Methods       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 2.014

10.  Concentration, Size Distribution, and Infectivity of Airborne Particles Carrying Swine Viruses.

Authors:  Carmen Alonso; Peter C Raynor; Peter R Davies; Montserrat Torremorell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Influenza viruses and coronaviruses: Knowns, unknowns, and common research challenges.

Authors:  Olivier Terrier; Mustapha Si-Tahar; Mariette Ducatez; Christophe Chevalier; Andrés Pizzorno; Ronan Le Goffic; Thibaut Crépin; Gaëlle Simon; Nadia Naffakh
Journal:  PLoS Pathog       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 6.823

2.  Dispersion of SARS-CoV-2 RNA across a wastewater treatment plant and its workers.

Authors:  Mirza Isanovic; Karlen E Correa Velez; R Sean Norman
Journal:  Water Environ J       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 1.977

Review 3.  SARS-CoV-2 air sampling: A systematic review on the methodologies for detection and infectivity.

Authors:  Priscilla G Silva; Pedro T B S Branco; Ruben R G Soares; João R Mesquita; Sofia I V Sousa
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 6.554

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.