Abstract：Due to the lack of standards and detection technical specifications for Andersen six-level impact microbial samplers, an evaluation method based on the capture efficiency curve for the aerodynamic particle size at a sampling physical efficiency of 50% (Da50) was proposed, and the detection and theoretical calculation of Da50 as well as its influencing factors were analyzed. Five domestic brands of Andersen samplers were tested, and it was found that the measurement results of different manufacturers' products varied significantly, the first or multi-level capture efficiency curves of multiple products corresponded to Da50 outside the particle size range. Research has found that the difference in sampler performance is not caused by insufficient aperture processing accuracy. The research results indicate that the higher the culture medium, the smaller the obtained Da50, under the same height of the culture medium, the ideal distance between layers is about 10mm. Therefore, the impact height is an important factor affecting the performance of Andersen six-level impact microbial samplers.
Wu Y, Wang B, Song Z J, et al. Comparing and analyzing three bioaerosol samplers with different principles［J］. Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology, 2022, 32(8): 901-904.
Guo J S, Cheng P B, Lü M, et al. Design and performance of a high flow rate wet wall cyclone bioaerosol sampler ［J］. Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2022, 39(6): 401-406, 409.
Liu D D, Huang P S, Li D W, et al. Research on virtual impact respirable dust sampler based on convex wall ［J］. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(2): 220-224.
Li N, Lu J C, Wen Z B, et al. Real-time ambient bioaerosols monitoring and the Andersen six-stage sampling result: a comparative study ［J］. Military Medical Sciences, 2011, 35(7): 527-530.
Chen L, Che H, Ren L L, et al. Study on collecting viral aerosols with Anderson Air Biosampler ［J］. Chinese Pharmaceutical biotechnology, 2010, 5(5): 342-347.
［7］
陈拼. 微生物气溶胶采样器设计及其应用研究［D］. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2018.
［9］
Alvis G T, Neal F H. Calibration of the Anderson 2000 Disposable Air Sampler［J］. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 1975, 36(6): 447-451.
Andersen A A. New sampler for the collection, sizing, and enumeration of viable airborne particles［J］. Journal of Bacteriology, 1958. 47(6): 471-484.
［10］
Fredericks S, Saylor J R. Ring-shaped deposition patterns in small nozzle-to-plate distance impactors ［J］. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2018, 52(1): 30-37.
［12］
Li L, Jeong H B, Jae H P, et al. Development of a size-selective sampler combined with an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay for the rapid measurement of bioaerosols［J］. Environmental Research, 2021, 194: 110615.
［14］
Zheng Y, Yao M. Liquid impinger BioSampler’s performance for size-resolved viable bioaerosol particles［J］. Journal of Aerosol Science. 2017, 106: 34-42.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Study on Evaluation Method of Acquisition Efficiency of Anderson Six-Stage Impact Sampler ［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2022, 43(6): 825-829.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Study on Efficiency Evaluation and Curve Fitting Optimization of PM2. 5 Particle Separating Device Based on Static Chamber Method［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2021, 42(10): 1398-1403.
Tian Y, Zhang G C, Liu J Q, et al. Effect of Sampling Flow Rate and Nozzle-plate Spacing on Collection Efficiency of Plankton Sampler［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2023, 44(7): 1154-1158.
［11］
Xuan D N, Yang Z, Jeffrey D E, et al. Evaluation of Bioaerosol Samplers for Airborne Escherichia Coli Carried by Poultry Litter Particles［J］. Journal of the ASABE, 2022, 65(4): 825-833.
［13］
Wachara K, Panya D. Prediction of Size Distribution and Mass Concentration of Smoke Particles on Moisture Content and Combustion Period from Para Rubber Wood Burning［J］. Applied Sciences. 2021, 11(12): 5649.
［15］
Guo J, Zheng X, Qin T, et al. An experimental method for efficiently evaluating the size-resolved sampling efficiency of liquid-absorption aerosol samplers［J］. Scientific Reports. 2022, 12(1): 4745.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Study on Evaluation Method of Physical Efficiency of Cyclone Microbiological Sampler ［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2022, 43(10): 1378-1381.
Liu W C, Fu B Q, Liu N Y, et al. Research Progress on Metrological Evaluation Methods for Sampling Efficiency of Bioaerosol Samplers［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2023, 44(10): 1617-1625.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Research on the efficiency evaluation device and method of PM10 cutter ［J］. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2021, 41(6): 2340-2346.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Performance evaluation and problem analysis of several common non-national standard particulate matter cutters［J］. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2021, 41(11): 4489-4493.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Zhao X N, et al. The Influence of Air Inlet Flow Rate on the Capture Efficiency of PM2.5 Cutter［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2021, 42(4): 532-536.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Study on the Detection Method of Sampling Physical Efficiency of Planktonic Sampler based on Aerodynamics ［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2022, 43(9): 1216-1219.
Liu J Q, Zhang G C, Wu D, et al. Evaluation of PM1 cutters and switching between PM2.5 cutters ［J］. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2021, 41(12): 5093-5097.
2023, Vol. 44 
