Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Aerosol particle analyzer.

Applied optics·2010
Same author

Morbus moniliformis lichenoides; variant types.

Archives of dermatology and syphilology·2010
Same author

Measurement of polarized light interactions via the Mueller matrix: errata.

Applied optics·2010
Same author

Measurement of polarized light interactions via the Mueller matrix.

Applied optics·2010
Same author

Observations and calculations of light scattering from clusters of spheres.

Applied optics·2008
Same author

Differential absorption mueller matrix spectroscopy and the infrared detection of crystalline organics.

Applied optics·2008

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Detection of Viruses from Bioaerosols Using Anion Exchange Resin
06:10

Detection of Viruses from Bioaerosols Using Anion Exchange Resin

Published on: August 22, 2018

Bioaerosol concentrator performance: comparative tests with viable and with solid and liquid nonviable particles.

J Kesavan1, J R Bottiger, A R McFarland

  • 1Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, US ARMY ECBC-RT-TA E5951, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Aberdeen, MD 21010, USA. jana.kesavan@us.army.mil

Journal of Applied Microbiology
|October 10, 2007
PubMed
Summary

Comparing nonbiological and biological particles for aerosol concentrator testing, this study found particle type significantly impacts larger size efficiency. While nonbiological tests offer a broad range, biological tests remain essential for accurate performance assessment.

More Related Videos

Assessment of the Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Airborne Particles by Exposing Cultivated Human Lung Cells at the Air-Liquid Interface
10:10

Assessment of the Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Airborne Particles by Exposing Cultivated Human Lung Cells at the Air-Liquid Interface

Published on: February 23, 2020

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions
05:45

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Published on: January 7, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Detection of Viruses from Bioaerosols Using Anion Exchange Resin
06:10

Detection of Viruses from Bioaerosols Using Anion Exchange Resin

Published on: August 22, 2018

Assessment of the Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Airborne Particles by Exposing Cultivated Human Lung Cells at the Air-Liquid Interface
10:10

Assessment of the Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Airborne Particles by Exposing Cultivated Human Lung Cells at the Air-Liquid Interface

Published on: February 23, 2020

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions
05:45

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Published on: January 7, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Science
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Aerosol Science

Background:

  • Bioaerosol concentrator systems are crucial for environmental monitoring and health studies.
  • Characterizing these systems efficiently is key to reliable data collection.
  • Nonbiological particle testing is often a preliminary step before bioaerosol evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of aerosol sampling systems using various particle types and sizes.
  • To evaluate the suitability of nonbiological particles for characterizing concentrator performance.
  • To provide insights into data quality for different bioaerosol test methodologies.

Main Methods:

  • Five different aerosol concentrator systems were tested.
  • Performance was evaluated using five types of nonviable and viable laboratory aerosols.
  • Particle efficiencies were measured across various sizes, including those less than and greater than 6 micrometers aerodynamic diameter.

Main Results:

  • Similar sampling efficiencies were observed for all particle types at sizes below approximately 6 micrometers aerodynamic diameter.
  • Significant differences in efficiency were noted between liquid and dry particles for sizes larger than 6 micrometers.
  • Aluminium oxide particles offered broad size range testing but lacked reproducibility.
  • Polystyrene spheres and oleic acid droplets provided accurate system representation but are not a complete substitute for biological tests.

Conclusions:

  • Nonbiological particle testing provides valuable preliminary data but does not fully replicate bioaerosol behavior.
  • Accurate characterization of bioaerosol concentrators requires eventual testing with biological particles.
  • Some current bioaerosol concentrator devices exhibit poor performance, highlighting the need for improved technology in the 1-10 micrometer aerodynamic diameter range.