Next Article in Journal
Initial Results of Meteor Wind with Langfang Medium Frequency Radar
Previous Article in Journal
Estimations of the Mexicali Valley (Mexico) Mixing Height
Previous Article in Special Issue
Generation of Viable Bacterial and Fungal Aerosols during Biomass Combustion
Open AccessArticle

Performance of Two Different Techniques to Concentrate Samples for Bioaerosol Quantification

Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2020, 11(5), 504; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11050504
Received: 2 April 2020 / Revised: 9 May 2020 / Accepted: 12 May 2020 / Published: 14 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Detection and Monitoring of Bioaerosols)
We evaluated two concentrating techniques that could be used to improve bioaerosol detection and quantification: A BioChromato Smart Evaporator C1 (BioChromato, Inc.) and two Concentrating Pipette (CP) models (CP-150 and CP-Select) (InnovaPrep, LLC). We determined the concentration factor (CF) (the concentration of particles in the final solution compared to the concentration in the initial solution) and the particle losses when processing the samples with polystyrene latex (PSL) beads and different species of bacteria. When processing total particles, regardless of the culturability status, the losses for the Evaporator were 3.70–23.89%; for the CP-models, the losses ranged from 0.20% to 67.22%. For the culturable particles processed with the CP devices, the losses ranged from 42.85% to 90.19% and were higher for Gram-negative pseudomonads compared to Gram-positive B. subtilis. Despite the loss of particles, both devices yielded more concentrated final solutions. The CF for the Evaporator was 3.59–10.92; the CF values for the CP devices ranged from 55.77 to 184.64 for total particles and from 6.29 to 96.52 for culturable bacteria. This higher CF was mainly achieved due to lower final suspension volumes. The study demonstrated that the two concentrators can improve particle detection, but that one should take particle losses into account. View Full-Text
Keywords: concentrator; liquid-based bioaerosol; bioaerosol quantification; culture-based analysis concentrator; liquid-based bioaerosol; bioaerosol quantification; culture-based analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Oh, H.-J.; Han, T.T.; Mainelis, G. Performance of Two Different Techniques to Concentrate Samples for Bioaerosol Quantification. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 504.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop