Rapid monitoring of indoor airborne influenza and coronavirus with high air flowrate electrostatic sampling and PCR analysis

doi:10.1007/s11783-024-1845-y

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (7) : 85 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-024-1845-y

Rapid monitoring of indoor airborne influenza and coronavirus with high air flowrate electrostatic sampling and PCR analysis

Sanggwon An¹, Sangsoo Choi¹, Hyeong Rae Kim², Jungho Hwang¹(

)

¹. School of Mechanical Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 02876, Republic of Korea
². Gas Metrology Group, Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), Daejeon 34113, Republic of Korea

Download: PDF(10989 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Electrostatic virus sampler was designed and evaluated in a pandemic scenario and real indoor field environment.

● Airborne virus was gently sampled with high aerosol sampling performance.

● Viral samples detectable for PCR were produced within 40 min.

The World Health Organization has raised concerns about the possibility of airborne transmission in enclosed and poorly ventilated areas. Therefore, rapid monitoring of airborne viruses is necessary in multi-use facilities with dense population. Accordingly, an electrostatic air sampler (250 L/min) was developed in this work to obtain indoor viral aerosol samples for analysis via the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Aerosol tests with H1N1 and HCoV-229E were performed to evaluate the sample collection efficiency. PCR analysis, along with another aerosol test, was conducted to evaluate the recovery of the virus particles collected by the sampler. In laboratory tests, our electrostatic sampler obtained viral samples that were detectable by PCR under the simulated viral pandemic scenario (3000 RNA copies per cubic meter of air) within 40 min. The resulting cycle threshold (C_t) values were 35.07 and 37.1 for H1N1 and HCoV-229E, respectively. After the performance evaluation in the laboratory, field tests were conducted in a university classroom from October 28 to December 2, 2022. Influenza A and HCoV-229E were detected in two air samples, and the corresponding C_t values were 35.3 and 36.8. These PCR results are similar to those obtained from laboratory tests, considering the simulated viral pandemic scenario.

Keywords Airborne virus Electrostatic sampler Rapid monitoring Indoor environment Field test

Corresponding Author(s): Jungho Hwang

Issue Date: 08 April 2024

Cite this article:

Sanggwon An,Sangsoo Choi,Hyeong Rae Kim, et al. Rapid monitoring of indoor airborne influenza and coronavirus with high air flowrate electrostatic sampling and PCR analysis[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(7): 85.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-024-1845-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2024/V18/I7/85

Fig.1 Electrostatic virus samplers (A) Kim et al. (2021) (B) This study.

Fig.2 Experimental setup for evaluation of virus sampling performance (A) Our electrostatic sampler−one pass test (B) Comparison with SKC BioSampler−one pass test (C) Comparison with SKC BioSampler−8 m³ chamber test.

Fig.3 Performance of our electrostatic sampler (A) Electrical currents with various applied voltages (B) Collection efficiency of our sampler for H1N1 under various air flow rates and applied voltages (w/o desalting process) (C) Collection efficiency of our electrostatic sampler for NaCl aerosols under various applied voltages (250 L/min air flow rate) (D) Collection efficiency for HCoV-229E and MS2 at 250 L/min (w/o desalting process) (E) Effect of desalting process on the collection efficiencies for H1N1 virus at 250 L/min (F) Recovery rates for H1N1 and human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E) (one-pass test, w/o desalting process).

Fig.4 Comparison between our electrostatic sampler and the SKC BioSampler for virus detection performance. (A) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for our sampler and SKC BioSampler (one-pass test, w/o desalting process) (B) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for our sampler and SKC BioSampler (one-pass test, w/ desalting process) (C) Plaque assay results for our sampler and SKC BioSampler (chamber test, w/ desalting process).

Tab.1 Comparison test results between our sampler, original sampler (Kim et al., 2021), and SKC BioSampler

Fig.5 Comparison between our electrostatic sampler, original electrostatic sampler, and the SKC BioSampler for virus detection performance (A) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for our electrostatic sampler and original electrostatic sampler (B) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for our electrostatic sampler and SKC BioSampler.

Fig.6 qRT-PCR analysis for virus particles collected using an aerosol-to-hydrosol approach of our electrostatic sampler in real pandemic scenario.

Fig.7 Field test in classroom of Yonsei University using our electrostatic sampler. (A) photograph of airborne virus sampling in classroom of the Yonsei University (B) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for air samples collected at 2022/11/04 (13:30~15:30) (C) Real-time qRT-PCR analysis for air samples collected at 2022/11/04 (16:00–18:00).

Tab.2 Real-time qRT-PCR results for collected virus samples in field tests

1	J Y Ahn, S An, Y Sohn, Y Cho, J H Hyun, Y J Baek, M H Kim, S J Jeong, J H Kim, N S Ku. et al.. (2020). Environmental contamination in the isolation rooms of COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Journal of Hospital Infection, 106(3): 570–576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.08.014
2	A Brlek, S Vidovic, S Vuzem, K Turk, Z Simonovic. (2020). Possible indirect transmission of COVID-19 at a squash court, Slovenia, March 2020: case report. Epidemiology and Infection, 148: e120 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001326
3	J Cai, W J Sun, J P Huang, M Gamber, J Wu, G Q He. (2020). Indirect Virus Transmission in Cluster of COVID-19 Cases, Wenzhou, China, 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(6): 1343–1345 https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200412
4	CDC (2021). Science brief: SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Available online at the website of cdc.gov (Accessed 2023, February 08)
5	J F W Chan, S F Yuan, K H Kok, K K W To, H Chu, J Yang, F F Xing, J L Liu, C C Y Yip, R W S Poon. et al.. (2020). A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet, 395(10223): 514–523 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9
6	P Y Chia, K K Coleman, Y K Tan, S W X Ong, M Gum, S K Lau, X F Lim, A S Lim, S Sutjipto, P H Lee. et al.. (2020). Detection of air and surface contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in hospital rooms of infected patients. Nature Communications, 11(1): 2800 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16670-2
7	M Conte, M Feltracco, D Chirizzi, S Trabucco, A Dinoi, E Gregoris, E Barbaro, Bella G La, G Ciccarese, F Belosi. et al.. (2022). Airborne concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor community environments in Italy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(10): 13905–13916 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16737-7
8	A Dinoi, M Feltracco, D Chirizzi, S Trabucco, M Conte, E Gregoris, E Barbaro, Bella G La, G Ciccarese, F Belosi. et al.. (2022). A review on measurements of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in air in outdoor and indoor environments: implication for airborne transmission. Science of the Total Environment, 809: 151137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151137
9	X Y Ge, Y Pu, C H Liao, W F Huang, Q Zeng, H Zhou, B Yi, A M Wang, Q Y Dou, P C Zhou. et al.. (2020). Evaluation of the exposure risk of SARS-CoV-2 in different hospital environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61: 102413 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102413
10	W C Hinds (1999). Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles. New York: John Wiley & Sons
11	K V Holmes, M M C Lai. (1996). Coronaviridae: the viruses and their replication. Fields Virol, 1: 1075–1093
12	M A Johansson, T M Quandelacy, S Kada, P V Prasad, M Steele, J T Brooks, R B Slayton, M Biggerstaff, J C Butler. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 transmission from people without COVID-19 symptoms. JAMA Network Open, 4(2): e2035057 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057
13	A L Katelaris, J Wells, P Clark, S Norton, R Rockett, A Arnott, V Sintchenko, S Corbett, S K Bag. (2021). Epidemiologic evidence for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during church singing, Australia, 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 27(6): 1677–1680 https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2706.210465
14	A Kenarkoohi, Z Noorimotlagh, S Falahi, A Amarloei, S A Mirzaee, I Pakzad, E Bastani. (2020). Hospital indoor air quality monitoring for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus. Science of the Total Environment, 748: 141324 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141324
15	H R Kim, S An, J Hwang. (2021). High air flow-rate electrostatic sampler for the rapid monitoring of airborne coronavirus and influenza viruses. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 412: 125219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125219
16	I S Lee, H J Kim, D H Lee, G B Hwang, J H Jung, M Lee, J Lim, B U Lee. (2011). Aerosol particle size distribution and genetic characteristics of aerosolized influenza A H1N1 virus vaccine particles. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 11(3): 230–237 https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2010.12.0105
17	J Y Li, A Leavey, Y Wang, C O’Neil, M A Wallace, C A D Burnham, A C M Boon, H Babcock, P Biswas. (2018). Comparing the performance of 3 bioaerosol samplers for influenza virus. Journal of Aerosol Science, 115: 133–145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.08.007
18	Q Li, X H Guan, P Wu, X Y Wang, L Zhou, Y Q Tong, R Q Ren, K S M Leung, E H Y Lau, J Y Wong. et al.. (2020). Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(13): 1199–1207 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316
19	Y G Li, H Qian, J Hang, X G Chen, P Cheng, H Ling, S Q Wang, P Liang, J S Li, S L Xiao. et al.. (2021). Probable airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a poorly ventilated restaurant. Building and Environment, 196: 107788 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107788
20	G Y Lin, T M Chen, C J Tsai. (2012). A modified Deutsch-Anderson equation for predicting the nanoparticle collection efficiency of electrostatic precipitators. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12(5): 697–706 https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2012.04.0085
21	J Y Liu, X J Liao, S Qian, J Yuan, F X Wang, Y X Liu, Z Q Wang, F S Wang, L Liu, Z Zhang. (2020). Community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2, Shenzhen, China, 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(6): 1320–1323 https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200239
22	K B Mullis, F A Faloona. (1987). Specific synthesis of DNA in vitro via a polymerase-catalyzed chain reaction. Methods in Enzymology, 155: 335–350 https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(87)55023-6
23	J W Park, H R Kim, J Hwang. (2016). Continuous and real-time bioaerosol monitoring by combined aerosol-to-hydrosol sampling and ATP bioluminescence assay. Analytica Chimica Acta, 941: 101–107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2016.08.039
24	D Relova, L Rios, A M Acevedo, L Coronado, C L Perera, L J Perez. (2018). Impact of RNA degradation on viral diagnosis: an understated but essential step for the successful establishment of a diagnosis network. Veterinary Sciences, 5(1): 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5010019
25	M Rustad, A Eastlund, P Jardine, V Noireaux. (2018). Cell-free TXTL synthesis of infectious bacteriophage T4 in a single test tube reaction. Synthetic Biology, 3(1): ysy002 https://doi.org/10.1093/synbio/ysy002
26	T T Shen, N C Pereira (2012), Electrostatic precipitator. Wang L K, Norman C P, eds. Air and Noise Pollution Control. New York: Springer Science & Business Media
27	WHO (2020). Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Available online at the website of (Accessed 2023, February 08)
28	M S Yao, H L Zhang, S F Dong, S Q Zhen, X D Chen. (2009). Comparison of electrostatic collection and liquid impinging methods when collecting airborne house dust allergens, endotoxin and (1,3)-beta-d-glucans. Journal of Aerosol Science, 40(6): 492–502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2009.02.002
29	C Zogning, J Lobry, F Moiny (2020). Comparison between positive and negative corona discharges by hydrodynamic plasma simulations. Proceedings of 2020 International Symposium on Electrical Insulating Materials (ISEIM 2020): 552–560
30	A Zukeran, H Sawano, K Ito, R Oi, I Kobayashi, R Wada, J Sawai. (2018). Investigation of inactivation process for microorganism collected in an electrostatic precipitator. Journal of Electrostatics, 93: 70–77 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2018.04.002
31	Z L Zuo, T H Kuehn, H Verma, S Kumar, S M Goyal, J Appert, P C Raynor, S Ge, D Y H Pui. (2013). Association of airborne virus infectivity and survivability with its carrier particle size. Aerosol Science and Technology, 47(4): 373–382 https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.754841

[1]

FSE-24008-OF-AS_suppl_1

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed