Advertisement

Aerosol Sampling Efficiency Evaluation Methods at the US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

  • Jana Kesavan
  • Edward Stuebing

Abstract

This chapter presents information on test aerosols, generation methods, and analysis techniques that are used in the Aerosol Sciences Laboratories, US Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) to quantitatively characterize the performance of aerosol samplers. The Sampling Efficiency results of three aerosol samplers characterized at ECBC are also presented in this chapter solely for the purpose of illustrating the application of these methods. Solid, liquid, and biological aerosols may have different transmission and collection efficiencies. Solid particles can bounce when they impact onto internal surfaces, or they can be re-entrained into the airflow after deposition; however, liquid particles are permanently captured upon impact. Biological particles fall in between solid and liquid particles with respect to their characteristics of bounce. Bioparticles may also be tacky and stick to tubing and walls which can seriously affect recovery by elution and aerosol sampler performance. Therefore, the test methodology should be carefully selected to answer the research question. In addition, Sampling Efficiency tests can be conducted either by filling a chamber with aerosols and conducting tests or by delivering the test aerosol to the inlet of the sampler and the reference filter using the Ink Jet Aerosol Generator (IJAG). Using the IJAG and delivering the aerosol to the inlet allows many tests to be conducted in a single day.

Keywords

Aerosol generation methods Aerosol sampling Aerosol samplers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aizenberg V, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Smith J and Baron PA (2000a) Performance characteristics of the button personal inhalable aerosol sampler. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 61, 398–404.Google Scholar
  2. Aizenberg V, Reponen T, Grinshpun SA and Willeke K (2000b) Performance of Air-O-Cell, Burkard, and button samplers for total enumeration of airborne spores. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 61, 855–864.Google Scholar
  3. Bottiger J and DeLuca P (1999) Low concentration aerosol generator. United States Patent Number 5, 918, 254. USA.Google Scholar
  4. Gao P, Dillon HK and Farthing WE (1997) Development and evaluation of an inhalable bioaerosol manifold sampler. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 58, 196–206.Google Scholar
  5. Hering S (1995). Impactors, Cyclones, and Other Inertial and Gravitational Collectors. In, Beverly C and Susanne H (eds.), Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants 279–322. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  6. Hinds WC (1999) Aerosol Technololgy: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Aerosol Particles. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen PA, Todd WF, Davis GN and Scarpino PV (1992) Evaluation of eight bioaerosol samplers challenged with aerosols of free bacteria. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 53, 660–667.Google Scholar
  8. John W, Kreisberg NM (1999) Calibration and testing of samplers with dry, polydisperse latex. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 31, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kesavan J and Doherty R (2001) Comparison of Sampler Collection Efficiency Measurements using a Polydisperse Solid Aerosol and a Monodisperse Liquid Aerosol. ECBC-TR-137. U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Edgewood, Maryland.Google Scholar
  10. Kesavan J, Doherty R, Wise D and McFarland AR (2001) Factors that Affect Fluorescein Analysis. ECBC-TR-208. U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Edgewood, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Kesavan J, Carlile D, Sutton T, Hottell KA, and Doherty RW (2002) Characteristics and Sampling Efficiency of PHTLAAS Air Sampler. ECBC-TR-267. U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Edgewood, Maryland.Google Scholar
  12. Kesavan J and Hottell KA. (2005) Characteristics and Sampling Efficiencies of BioBadge Aerosol Samplers. ECBC-TN-024. U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, Edgewood, Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Li CS, Hao ML, Lin WH, Chang CW and Wang CS (1999) Evaluation of microbial samplers for bacterial microorganisms. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 30, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li SN, Lundgren DA and Rovell-Rixx D (2000) Evaluation of six inhalable aerosol samplers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 61, 506–516.Google Scholar
  15. Lin X, Reponen T, Willeke K, and Wang Z (2000) Survival of airborne microorganisms during swirling aerosol collection. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 32, 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lippmann M (1995). Filters and Filter Holders. In Beverly C and Susanne H (eds.), Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants 247–278. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  17. Maynard AD (1999) Measurement of aerosol penetration through six personal thoracic samplers under calm air conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 30, 1227–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard AD, Kenny LC and Baldwin PEJ (1999) Development of a system to rapidly measure sampler penetration up to 20 um aerodynamic diameters in calm air, using the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer. J. Aerosol Sci. 30, 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McFarland AR, Bethel EL, Ortiz CA and Stanke JG (1991) A CAM sampler for collection and assessing α-emitting aerosol particles. Health Phys. 61, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olan-Figueroa E, McFarland AR and Ortiz CA (1982) Flattening coefficients for DOP and oleic acid droplets deposited on treated glass slides. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 43, 395–399.Google Scholar
  21. Rule A, Kesavan J, Schwab K and Buckley Timothy (2007) Application of flow cytometry for the assessment of preservation and recovery efficiency of bioaerosol samplers spiked with Pantoea agglomerans. Environ. Sci. Technol. Apr., 41(7), 2467–2472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swift D and Lippmann M (1995) Electrostatic and Thermal Precipitators. In Beverly C and Susanne H (eds.), Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants, 323–336. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  23. Willeke K, Lin X and Grinshpun SA (1998) Improved aerosol collection by combined impaction and centrifugal motion. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 28, 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Witschger O, Willeke K, Grinshpun SA, Aizenberg, V, Smith J and Baron PA (1998) Simplified method for testing personal inhalable aerosol samplers. J. Aerosol Sci. 29, 855–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US ARMY Edgewood Chemical Biological CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations