RESEARCH PAPER
Relative efficiencies of the Burkard 7-Day, Rotorod and Burkard Personal samplers for Poaceae and Urticaceae pollen under field conditions
1
Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
2
National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK
3
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (present affiliation)
4
Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change (ENSPAC), Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2014;21(4):745-752
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
In aerobiological studies it is often necessary to compare concentration data recorded with different models of sampling instrument. Sampler efficiency typically varies from device to device, and depends on the target aerosol and local atmospheric conditions. To account for these differences inter-sampler correction factors may be applied, however for many pollen samplers and pollen taxa such correction factors do not exist and cannot be derived from existing published work.
Material and Methods:
In this study, the relative efficiencies of the Burkard 7-Day Recording Volumetric Spore Trap, the Sampling Technologies Rotorod Model 20, and the Burkard Personal Volumetric Air Sampler were evaluated for Urticaceae and Poaceae pollen under field conditions. The influence of wind speed and relative humidity on these efficiency relationships was also assessed. Data for the two pollen taxa were collected during 2010 and 2011–2012, respectively.
Results:
The three devices were found to record significantly different concentrations for both pollen taxa, with the exception of the 7-Day and Rotorod samplers for Poaceae pollen. Under the range of conditions present during the study, wind speed was found to only have a significant impact on inter-sampler relationships involving the vertically-orientated Burkard Personal sampler, while no interaction between relative efficiency and relative humidity was observed.
Conclusions:
Data collected with the three models of sampler should only be compared once the appropriate correction has been made, with wind speed taken into account where appropriate.
In aerobiological studies it is often necessary to compare concentration data recorded with different models of sampling instrument. Sampler efficiency typically varies from device to device, and depends on the target aerosol and local atmospheric conditions. To account for these differences inter-sampler correction factors may be applied, however for many pollen samplers and pollen taxa such correction factors do not exist and cannot be derived from existing published work.
Material and Methods:
In this study, the relative efficiencies of the Burkard 7-Day Recording Volumetric Spore Trap, the Sampling Technologies Rotorod Model 20, and the Burkard Personal Volumetric Air Sampler were evaluated for Urticaceae and Poaceae pollen under field conditions. The influence of wind speed and relative humidity on these efficiency relationships was also assessed. Data for the two pollen taxa were collected during 2010 and 2011–2012, respectively.
Results:
The three devices were found to record significantly different concentrations for both pollen taxa, with the exception of the 7-Day and Rotorod samplers for Poaceae pollen. Under the range of conditions present during the study, wind speed was found to only have a significant impact on inter-sampler relationships involving the vertically-orientated Burkard Personal sampler, while no interaction between relative efficiency and relative humidity was observed.
Conclusions:
Data collected with the three models of sampler should only be compared once the appropriate correction has been made, with wind speed taken into account where appropriate.
REFERENCES (44)
1.
Hirst JM. An automatic volumetric spore trap. Ann Appl Biol. 1952; 39(2): 257–265.
2.
Emberlin J, McCartney A. Monitoring atmospheric allergenicity – an alternative to pollen and spore counting. In: Emberlin J, Tariq SM, editors. Clinical Applications of Aerobiology. Braine-l’Alleud, D. Van Moerbeke for The UCB Institute of Allergy, 1996.p.57–67.
3.
Muilenberg ML. Sampling devices. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2003; 23: 337–355.
4.
Galán Soldevilla C, Cariñanos González P, Alcázar Teno P, Domínguez Vilches E. Spanish aerobiology network (REA): management and quality manual. Córdoba, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba, 2007.
5.
Solomon WR. How ill the wind? Issues in aeroallergen sampling. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003; 112(1): 3–8. Di-Giovanni F. A review of the sampling efficiency of rotating-arm impactors used in aerobiological studies. Grana 1998; 37(3): 164–171.
6.
Feliziani V, Marfisi R. Pollen aerobiological monitoring with the personal volumetric air sampler (PVAS). Correlation with a fixed Hirst type sampling station. Aerobiologia 1992; 8(3): 471–477.
7.
Mitakakis TZ, Tovey ER, Xuan W, Marks GB. Personal exposure to allergenic pollen and mould spores in inland New South Wales, Australia. Clin Exp Allergy. 2000; 30(12): 1733–1739.
8.
O’Meara TJ, Green BJ, Sercombe JK, Tovey ER. Interpretation of pollen exposure data. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004; 113(2): 62–63.
9.
O’Rourke MK, Lebowitz MD. A comparison of regional atmospheric pollen with pollen collected at and near homes. Grana 1984; 23(1): 55–64.
10.
Riediker M, Keller S, Wüthrich B, Koller T, Monn C. Personal pollen exposure compared to stationary measurements. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2000; 10(4): 200–203.
11.
Vincent JH. Aerosol sampling: science, standards, instrumentation and applications. 1st ed. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2007.
12.
Ogden EC, Raynor GS, Hayes JV, Lewis DM, Haines JH. Manual for sampling airborne pollen. 1st ed. New York, Hafner Press, 1974.
13.
Frenz DA. The effect of windspeed on pollen and spore counts collected with the Rotorod Sampler and Burkard spore trap. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000; 85(5): 392–394.
14.
Aylor DE. Relative collection efficiency of Rotorod and Burkard spore samplers for airborne Venturia inaequalis ascospores. Phytopathology. 1993; 83(10): 1116–1119.
15.
May KR, Pomeroy NP, Hibbs S. Sampling techniques for large windborne particles. J Aerosol Sci. 1976; 7(1): 53–62.
16.
D’Amato G, Cecchi L, Bonini S, Nunes C, Annesi-Maesano I, Behrendt H, et al. Allergenic pollen and pollen allergy in Europe. Allergy 2007; 62(9): 976–990.
17.
Aylor DE. Settling speed of corn (Zea mays) pollen. J Aerosol Sci. 2002; 33(11): 1601–1607.
18.
Aylor DE. Rate of dehydration of corn (Zea mays L.) pollen in the air. J Exp Bot. 2003; 54(391): 2307–2312.
19.
Durham OC. The volumetric incidence of atmospheric allergens I: specific gravity of pollen grains. J Allergy. 1943; 14(6): 455–461.
20.
British Aerobiology Federation. Airborne pollens and spores: a guide to trapping and counting. British Aerobiology Federation, 1994.
21.
Fiorina A, Scordamaglia A, Mincarini M, Fregonese L, Canonica GW. Aerobiologic particle sampling by a new personal collector (Partrap FA52) in comparison to the Hirst (Burkard) sampler. Allergy 1997; 52(10): 1026–1030.
22.
Levetin E, Rogers CA, Hall SA. Comparison of pollen sampling with a Burkard spore trap and a Tauber trap in a warm temperate climate. Grana 2000; 39(6): 294–302.
23.
Solomon WR, Burge HA, Boise JR, Becker M. Comparative particle recoveries by the Retracting Rotorod, Rotoslide and Burkard spore trap sampling in a compact array. Int J Biometeorol. 1980; 24(2): 107–116.
24.
Alcázar P, Comtois P. The influence of sampler height and orientation on airborne Ambrosia pollen counts in Montreal. Grana 2000; 39(6): 303–307.
25.
Levetin E, Shaughnessy R, Fisher E, Ligman B, Harrison J, Brennan T. Indoor air quality in schools: exposure to fungal allergens. Aerobiologia 1995; 11(1): 27–34.
26.
Hugg T, Valtonen A, Rantio-Lehtimäki A. Pollen concentrations inside private cars during the Poaceae and Artemisia spp. pollen season – a case study. Grana 2007; 46(2): 110–117.
27.
Jantunen J, Saarinen K. Intrusion of airborne pollen through open windows and doors. Aerobiologia. 2009; 25(3): 193–201.
28.
Sterling DA, Lewis RD. Pollen and fungal spores indoor and outdoor of mobile homes. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998; 80(3): 279–285.
29.
Sampling Technologies. Operating instructions for the Rotorod sampler. Minnetonka, MN, Sampling Technologies Inc., 1998.
30.
Warner FE, McCartney HA, Emberlin J. Wind tunnel comparison of the collection efficiency of three Hirst-type volumetric sampler drum coatings. Aerobiologia. 2000; 16(1): 25–28.
31.
Leng L, Zhang T, Kleinman L, Zhu W. Ordinary least square regression, orthogonal regression, geometric mean regression and their applications in aerosol science. J Phys Conf Ser. 2007; 78: 01284.
32.
MATLAB. MATLAB version 7.7.0.471 (R2008b). Natick, MA, The MathWorks, Inc., 2008.
33.
Mandrioli P. Introduction to biological particles. In: Mandrioli P, Comtois P, Levizzani V (Eds.). Methods in aerobiology. 1st ed. Bologna, Pitagora Editrice 1998.p.1–12.
34.
Wodehouse RP. Pollen grains: their structure, identification and significance in science and medicine. Facsimile of 1st ed. New York, Hafner Publishing Company, 1965.
35.
Hyde HA, Adams KF. An atlas of airborne pollen grains. 1st ed. London, Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1958.
36.
Morrow Brown H, Irving KR. The size and weight of common allergenic pollens. Acta Allergol. 1973; 28: 132–137.
37.
Durham OC. The volumetric incidence of atmospheric allergens: III. Rate of fall of pollen grains in still air. J Allergy. 1946; 17(2): 70–78.
38.
Aizenberg V, Reponen T, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K. Performance of Air-O-Cell, Burkard, and Button samplers for total enumeration of airborne spores. AIHAJ. 2000; 61: 855–864.
39.
Buttner MP, Willeke K, Grinshpun SA. Sampling and analysis of airborne microorganisms. In: Hurst CJ, Knudsen GR, McInerney MJ, Stetzenbach LD, Walter MV (Eds.). Manual of Environmental Microbiology. 1st ed. Washington DC, ASM Press 1997.p.629–640.
40.
Magill PL, Lumpkins ED, Arveson JS. A system for appraising airborne populations of pollens and spores. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1968; 29(3): 293–298.
41.
Ellis MB. Dematiaceous Hyphomycetes. 1st ed. Kew, Surrey, Commonwealth Mycological Institute, 1971.
42.
Michel D, Rotach MW, Gehrig R, Vogt R. On the efficiency and correction of vertically orientated blunt bioaerosol samplers in moving air. Int J Biometeorol. 2012; 56(6): 1113–1121.
43.
Banks L, Di Giovanni F. A wind tunnel comparison of the Rotorod and Samplair pollen samplers. Aerobiologia 1994; 10(2): 141–145.
44.
Heffer MJ, Ratz JD, Miller JD, Day JH. Comparison of the Rotorod to other air samplers for the determination of Ambrosia artemisiifolia pollen concentrations conducted in the Environmental Exposure Unit. Aerobiologia 2005; 21(3–4): 233–239.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1898-2263 |
| ISSN: | 1232-1966 |
Improvement of visual identification of the journal - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher Education allocated to the activities of disseminating science.
Generation of the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
