ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2024
Sampling efficiency and nucleic acid stability during long-term sampling with different bioaerosol samplers.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Collection Efficiency of a Wet-Type Electrostatic Precipitator for Aerosolized Influenza A Virus.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Marine influence on airborne bacterial community composition and predicted functional potential in coastal zones: a case study from Ostend, Belgium.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Three Bioaerosol Samplers for Bacterial Diversity.Journal of aerosol science · 2026Article
- First field evidence of aerosolised SGPV, ISAV-HPR0, and IPNV in Atlantic salmon RAS highlights transmission and biosecurity risks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diversity of DNA viruses in the atmosphere of sub-Antarctic South Georgia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aerosol microbiome studies have received increased attention as technological advancements have made it possible to dive deeper into the microbial diversity. To enhance biomass collection for metagenomic sequencing, long-term sampling is a common strategy. While the impact of prolonged sampling times on microorganisms' culturability and viability is well-established, its effect on nucleic acid stability remains less understood but is essential to ensure representative sample collection. This study evaluated four air samplers (SKC BioSampler, SASS3100, Coriolis μ, BioSpot-VIVAS 300-P) against a reference sampler (isopore membrane filters) to identify nucleic acid stability during long-term sampling. Physical sampling efficiencies determined with a fluorescent tracer for three particle sizes (0.8, 1, and 3 μm), revealed high efficiencies (> 80% relative to reference) for BioSampler, SASS3100, and BioSpot-VIVAS for all particle sizes, and for Coriolis with 3 μm particles. Coriolis exhibited lower efficiency for 0.8 μm (7%) and 1 μm (50%) particles. During 2-h sampling with MS2 and Pantoea agglomerans, liquid-based collection with Coriolis and BioSampler showed a decrease in nucleic acid yields for all test conditions. BioSpot-VIVAS displayed reduced sampling efficiency for P. agglomerans compared to MS2 and the other air samplers, while filter-based collection with SASS3100 and isopore membrane filters, showed indications of DNA degradation for 1 μm particles of P. agglomerans after long-term sampling. These findings show that long-term air sampling affects nucleic acid stability in both liquid- and filter-based collection methods. These results highlight bias produced by bioaerosol collection and should be considered when selecting an air sampler and interpreting aerosol microbiome data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.