International Journal of Biometeorology

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 1113–1121 | Cite as

On the efficiency and correction of vertically oriented blunt bioaerosol samplers in moving air

  • Dominik Michel
  • Mathias W. Rotach
  • Regula Gehrig
  • Roland Vogt
Original Paper

Abstract

The aspiration efficiency of vertical and wind-oriented Air-O-Cell samplers was investigated in a field study using the pollen of hazel, sweet chestnut and birch. Collected pollen numbers were compared to measurements of a Hirst-type Burkard spore trap. The discrepancy between pollen counts is substantial in the case of vertical orientation. The results indicate a strong influence of wind velocity and inlet orientation relative to the freestream on the aspiration efficiency. Various studies reported on inertial effects on aerosol motion as function of wind velocity. The measurements were compared to a physically based model for the limited case of vertical blunt samplers. Additionally, a simple linear model based on pollen counts and wind velocity was developed. Both correction models notably reduce the error of vertically oriented samplers, whereas only the physically based model can be used on independent datasets. The study also addressed the precision error of the instruments used, which was substantial for both sampler types.

Keywords

Burkard sampler Air-O-Cell sampler Orifice orientation Birch pollen Field measurement 

References

  1. Aizenberg V, Reponen T, Grinshpun S, Willeke K (2000) Performance of Air-O-Cell, Burkard and Button Samplers for total enumeration of airborne spores. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61:855–864Google Scholar
  2. Armbruster L, Breuer H (1982) Investigations into defining inhalable dust. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  3. Badzioch S (1959) Collection of gas-borne dust particles by means of an aspirated sampling nozzle. Br J Appl Phys 10:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belyaev S, Levin L (1974) Techniques for collection of representative aerosol samples. J Aerosol Sci 5:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birks H (1968) The identification of betula nana pollen. New Phytol 67:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucher E, Kofler V, Vorwohl G, Zieger E (2004) Das Pollenbild der Südtiroler Honige. Landesagentur für Umwelt und Arbeitsschutz, Biologisches LaborGoogle Scholar
  7. Cariñanos P, Emberlin J, Galán C, Domínguez-Vilches E (2000) Comparison of two pollen counting methods of slides from a hirst type volumetric trap. Aero 16:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comtois P, Alcazar P, Neron D (1999) Pollen counts statistics and its relevance to precision. Aerobiologia 15:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunnett S, Wen X, Zaripov S, Galeev R, Vanunina M (2006) A numerical study of calm air sampling with a blunt sampler. Aerosol Sci Technol 40:490–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durham M, Lundgren D (1980) Evaluation of aerosol aspiration efficiency as function of stokes number, velocity ratio and nozzle angle. J Aerosol Sci 11:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frenz D (1999) Comparing pollen and spore counts collected with the Rotorod sampler and Burkard spore trap. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 83:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottardini E, Cristofolini F, Cristofori A, Vannini A, Ferretti M (2009) Sampling bias and sampling errors in pollen counting in aerobiological monitoring in Italy. J Environ Monitor 11:751–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grinshpun S, Lipatov G (1990) Sampling errors in cylindrical nozzles. Aerosol Sci Technol 12:716–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grinshpun S, Chang CW, Nevalainen A, Willeke K (1994) Inlet characteristics of bioaerosol samplers. J Aerosol Sci 25(8):1503–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hangal S, Willeke K (1990a) Aspiration efficiency: unified model for all forward sampling angles. Environ Sci Technol 24:688–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hangal S, Willeke K (1990b) Overall efficiency of tubular inlets sampling at 0–90 degrees from horizontal aerosol flows. Atmos Environ 24A:2379–2386Google Scholar
  17. Hirst J (1952) An automatic volumetric spore trap. Ann Appl Biol 39:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levetin E (2004) Methods for aeroallergen sampling. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 4:376–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipatov G, Grinshpun S, Semenyuk T, Sutugin A (1988) Secondary aspiration of aerosol particles into thin-walled nozzles facing the wind. Atmos Environ 22:1721–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lundgren D, Durham M, Mason K (1978) Sampling of tangential flow streams. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:640644Google Scholar
  21. Mandrioli P, Comtois P, Levizzani V (1998) Methods in aerobiology. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Michel D, Gehrig R, Rotach M, Vogt R (2010) Micropoem: experimental investigation of birch pollen emission. In: 19th Symposium on Boundary Layer and Turbulence, 2–8 August, Keystone, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  23. Ogden T, Birkett J (1977) The human head as a dust sampler. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 93–105Google Scholar
  24. Ogden E, Raynor G, Hayes J, Lewis D, Haines J (1974) Manual for sampling airborne pollen. Hafner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Paik S, Vincent J (2002) Aspiration efficiency for thin-walled nozzles facing the wind and for very high velocity ratios. J Aerosol Sci 33:705720Google Scholar
  26. Tsai P, Vincent J (1993) Impaction model for the aspiration efficiencies of aerosol samplers at large angles with respect to the wind. J Aerosol Sci 24:919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vincent J (1989) Aerosol sampling: science and practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  28. Vincent J (2007) Aerosol sampling: science, standards, instrumentation and applications. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  29. Vincent J, Stevens D, Mark D, Marshall M, Smith T (1986) On the spiration characteristics of large-diameter, thin-walled aerosol sampling probes at yaw orientations with respect to the wind. J Aerosol Sci 17:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiener R, Okazaki K, Willeke (1988) Influence of turbulence on aerosol sampling efficiency. Atmos Environ 22:917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISB 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominik Michel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mathias W. Rotach
    • 2
    • 3
  • Regula Gehrig
    • 2
  • Roland Vogt
    • 1
  1. 1.Meteorology, Climatology and Remote SensingUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwissZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of Meteorology and GeophysicsUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations