Niazi Sadegh, Philp Lisa K, Spann Kirsten, Johnson Graham R
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Science, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health (ILAQH), Brisbane, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Brisbane, Australia.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021 Jul 27;87(16):e0049721. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00497-21.
Laboratory-generated bioaerosols are widely used in aerobiology studies of viruses; however, few comparisons of alternative nebulizers exist. We compared aerosol production and virus survival for a Collison nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN), and hydraulic spray atomizer (HSA). We also measured the dry size distribution of the aerosols produced and calculated the droplet sizes before evaporation and the dry size distribution from normal saline solution. Dry count median diameters of 0.11, 0.22, and 0.30 μm were found for normal saline from the Collison nebulizer, VMN, and HSA, respectively. The volume median diameters were 0.323, 1.70, and 1.30 μm, respectively. The effect of nebulization on the viability of two influenza A viruses (IAVs) (H1N1 and H3N2) and human rhinovirus 16 (HRV-16) was assessed by nebulization into an SKC BioSampler. The HSA had the least impact on surviving fractions (SFs) of H1N1 and H3N2 (89% ± 3% and 94% ± 2%, respectively), followed by the Collison nebulizer (83% ± 1% and 82% ± 2%, respectively). The VMN yielded SFs of 78% ± 2% and 76% ± 2%, respectively. Conversely, for HRV-16, the VMN produced higher SFs (87% ± 8%). Our findings indicate that there were no statistical differences between SFs of the viruses nebulized by these nebulizers. However, VMN produced higher aerosol concentrations within the airborne size range, making it more suitable where high aerosol mass production is required. Viral respiratory tract infections cause millions of lost days of work and physician visits globally, accounting for significant morbidity and mortality. Respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei from infected hosts are the potential carriers of such viruses within indoor environments. Laboratory-generated bioaerosols are applied in understanding the transmission and infection of viruses, modeling the physiological aspects of bioaerosol generation in a controlled environment. However, little comparative characterization exists for nebulizers used in infectious disease aerobiology, including Collison nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizer, and hydraulic spray atomizer. This study characterized the physical features of aerosols generated by laboratory nebulizers and their performance in producing aerosols at a size relevant to airborne transmission used in infectious disease aerobiology. We also determined the impact of nebulization mechanisms of these nebulizers on the viability of human respiratory viruses, including IAV H1N1, IAV H3N2, and HRV-16.
实验室产生的生物气溶胶广泛应用于病毒的空气生物学研究;然而,很少有对替代雾化器的比较。我们比较了碰撞雾化器、振动网孔雾化器(VMN)和液压喷雾雾化器(HSA)的气溶胶产生情况和病毒存活情况。我们还测量了所产生气溶胶的干燥粒径分布,并计算了蒸发前的液滴大小以及生理盐水溶液的干燥粒径分布。发现碰撞雾化器、VMN和HSA产生的生理盐水干燥计数中值直径分别为0.11、0.22和0.30μm。体积中值直径分别为0.323、1.70和1.30μm。通过雾化到SKC生物采样器中评估雾化对两种甲型流感病毒(IAV)(H1N1和H3N2)和人鼻病毒16型(HRV - 16)活力的影响。HSA对H1N1和H3N2存活分数(SFs)的影响最小(分别为89%±3%和94%±2%),其次是碰撞雾化器(分别为83%±1%和82%±2%)。VMN产生的SFs分别为78%±2%和76%±2%。相反,对于HRV - 16,VMN产生了更高的SFs(87%±8%)。我们的研究结果表明,这些雾化器雾化的病毒的SFs之间没有统计学差异。然而,VMN在空气传播粒径范围内产生了更高的气溶胶浓度,使其在需要大量生产气溶胶的情况下更适用。病毒性呼吸道感染在全球范围内导致数百万个工作日的损失和就医人次,造成了显著的发病率和死亡率。来自受感染宿主的呼吸道飞沫和飞沫核是室内环境中此类病毒的潜在携带者。实验室产生的生物气溶胶被用于了解病毒的传播和感染,在受控环境中模拟生物气溶胶产生的生理方面。然而,在传染病空气生物学中使用的雾化器,包括碰撞雾化器、振动网孔雾化器和液压喷雾雾化器,几乎没有比较性的特征描述。本研究描述了实验室雾化器产生的气溶胶的物理特征及其在产生与传染病空气生物学中空气传播相关粒径的气溶胶方面的性能。我们还确定了这些雾化器的雾化机制对人类呼吸道病毒活力的影响,包括IAV H1N1、IAV H3N2和HRV - 16。