Comparison of high-volume air sampling equipment for viral aerosol sampling during emergency response.

Objective: This study compared the performance of two high-volume bioaerosol air samplers for viable virus to an accepted standard low-volume sampler. In typical bioaerosol emergency response scenarios, highvolume sampling is essential for the low infective concentrations and large air volumes involved.

Design: Two high-volume air samplers (XMX/2LMIL and DFU-1000) were evaluated alongside a lowvolume sample (BioSampler). Low and high concentrations (9.3-93.2 agent containing particles per liter of air [ACPLA]) of male-specific coliphage 2 (MS2) virus were released into a 12 m3 aerosol test chamber and collected using the air samplers. The collection media from the samplers were then processed and viable virus was assessed via plaque assay.

Setting: Aerosol test chamber.

Subjects, Participants: None.

Interventions: Collection media and flow rate were modified for the XMX/2L-MIL sampler for viable analysis.

Main Outcome Measures: Concentration estimates in units of plaque forming units per liter of air (PFU/liter) assessed by the samplers as compared to the levels inside the chamber as evaluated with a slit to agar plate in units of ACPLA. Comparison was made via one-way analysis of variance.

Results: Both the XMX/2L-MIL and DFU-1000 achieved collection effectiveness equal to or greater than the low-volume air sampler for the evaluated MS2 concentrations. The XMX/2L-MIL reliably collected quantifiable low concentrations of MS2, but the DFU-1000 was unable to do so.

Conclusions: For emergency response to suspected bioaerosols, the evaluated high-volume samplers are as effective as the standard low-flow sampler and should be considered in conducting a health risk assessment. If low concentrations are expected, then high-flow samplers using liquid collection are preferred.