CHEMISTRY

AN ASIAN JOURNAL
www.chemasianj.org

Accepted Article
Title: Sensors and Analytical Technologies for Air Quality: Particulate
Matters and Bioaerosols

Authors: Xiaodi Su, Laura Sutarlie, and Xian Jun Loh

This manuscript has been accepted after peer review and appears as an
Accepted Article online prior to editing, proofing, and formal publication
of the final Version of Record (VoR). This work is currently citable by
using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) given below. The VoR will be
published online in Early View as soon as possible and may be different
to this Accepted Article as a result of editing. Readers should obtain
the VoR from the journal website shown below when it is published
to ensure accuracy of information. The authors are responsible for the
content of this Accepted Article.

To be cited as: Chem. Asian J. 10.1002/asia.202001051

Link to VoR: https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.202001051

A Journal of A sister journal of Angewandte Chemie

and Chemistry – A European Journal
Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Sensors and Analytical Technologies for Air Quality:

Particulate Matters and Bioaerosols

Accepted Manuscript
Xiaodi Su, [a, b]*# Laura Sutarlie, [a]# Xian Jun Loh[a] *

[a]
Institute of Materials Research and Engineering, Agency for Science, Technology
and Research, 2 Fusionopolis Way, #08-03 Innovis, Singapore 138634
[b]
Department of Chemistry, National University of Singapore, Block S8, Level 3, 3
Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543

*Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]

# Equal Contribution

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Graphic Abstract

Accepted Manuscript

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Abstract

Particulate matters (PMs), e.g. dusts, fibres, smokes, fumes, mists, liquid droplets and

airborne respirable solid or liquid particles, are the major sources of air pollution

concerning outdoor and indoor air quality. Among various PMs, bioaerosols are

airborne particles that are either living organisms (bacteria, viruses, and fungi) or

Accepted Manuscript
originated from living organisms (endotoxin, allergen etc). PMs and/or bioaerosols

have adverse health effects of infection, allergy, and irritation. Proper management and

source identification of PMs and bioaerosols will reduce their negative health impact.

In this review, we will discuss the analytical technologies and sensors for PMs and

bioaerosols. We will first introduce four types of PM analyser, namely filter-based

gravimetric method (GMM), optical method, β-ray absorption method (BAM), and

tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM). We will provide examples of how

commercial PM analyzers of different principles have been compared and calibrated

for specific applications under different climate conditions of specific geographic

locations. For bioaerosols, having more complex biological and biochemical identity,

we will start from air sampling techniques, followed by the discussion of various

detection methods (plate culture, molecular methods, immunoassays and biosensors) in

association with compatible sampling technologies. Using Influenza A (H1N1) virus

and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus as examples, we have highlighted the air sampling

and detection challenges for viral aerosols relative to bacterial and fungal aerosols. In

the end, we provide a perspective for future trend according to the limitation of current

commercial products and the key challenges in this field.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

1. Introduction

How polluted is the air today? How air pollution is destroying our life? These questions

have attracted more and more attention. Air pollutant only accounts for a very small

part (less than 1 %) in air (both indoor and outdoor air), but it has a huge impact on our

[1]
health, especially if we are exposed to the polluted air for a long period of time .

Accepted Manuscript
Particulate matters (PM) are one of the major types of pollutant in the air. They are a

mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or

smoke, are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye. Others are so small and

can only be detected using an electron microscope. PM10 and PM2.5 refer to the

[2]
particulates in the air with a diameter less than 10 μm and 2.5 μm, respectively.

Examples of PM10 include dust, soot, pollen, etc. Examples of PM2.5 include

combustion particles, organic compounds, and metal, etc. These particulates are small

enough, inhalable deep into the lung, and have potential cardiovascular effects. Long-

time exposure to environment of high PM concentration may increase the possibility of

getting lung cancer that has an average life expectancy about 6 months. [2,3]

Many people spend large portion of time, working, studying, eating, drinking and

sleeping in enclosed environments. Unlike outdoor air, indoor air is recycled

continuously, and air circulation may be restricted. Pollution exposure at home and

work is often greater than outdoors. This is because recycled air and restricted air

circulation can trap and accumulate pollutants. The major concern of indoor air is

bioaerosols. They are often found in private houses, non-industrial workplaces and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

public buildings (Figure 1).

Bioaerosols are also called as “organic dust”. They are either living organisms such as

bacteria, viruses, and fungi, or particulates originate from living organisms such as

bacterial endotoxins (components of cell membranes of bacteria), antigens (molecules

that can induce an immune response), toxins (toxins produced by

Accepted Manuscript
microorganisms), mycotoxins (toxins produced by fungi), fragment of plants

(pollen, plant fibre), dust mites, dust mites, cockroaches, pet dander, etc.[4, 5] Many

bioaerosols have severe health impacts, such as disease infection and allergenic

sensitivity. Some pathogenic bioaerosols can even cause epidemic and pandemic

infection, for example COVID-19. These adverse health impacts could also be

attributed to their ability to infect human, grow, multiply, and produce toxic

substances. For airborne infectious diseases, the pathogenic bioaerosols can be

discharged from an infected person via coughing, sneezing, laughing or close personal

contact, and survive in the air/ surfaces.[6] It can be very challenging to prevent the

spread of airborne pathogens indoor if the air circulation/ ventilation system is not well

designed.

Figure 1. Sources of microbial bioaerosols in the built environment, from humans,

5

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

pets, plants, plumbing systems, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, and
outdoor air. Reprint from Ref. [7] Copyright Springer Nature.

For effective and accurate assessment of air quality, numerous analytical techniques

have been developed for detecting PM and identifying types of bioaerosols. Before

reviewing these methodologies, we have provided the definitions of different sized PM

with examples (Figure 2). Besides the well-studied PM2.5 and PM10, airborne particles

Accepted Manuscript
between 0.1–0.7 μm are called as fine particles (FPs), and those smaller than 0.1 μm

(usually 0.055–0.1 μm) are defined as ultrafine particles (UFPs). According to the

chemical nature and physical properties of different particulate pollutants (size,

morphology, surface charge, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, etc.), various physical and

physicochemical principles have been exploited for air sampler development and for

downstream detection and identification.

In this review, we will discuss most recently developed sensors and analytical

technologies for PM and bioaerosols. While commercial PM analyzers are largely

available for larger particles (PM2.5 and PM10), identification and detection of UFPs and

FPs have posted major challenges in technology development and adoption. We will

first introduce four types of PM analyzers, and discuss how commercial analyzers of

different principles have been used, compared and calibrated for specific applications

of different climate and geographic locations. We will also discuss the technology

development for fine and ultrafine PM analysis, and the demand of in-field test. For

bioaerosols, having more complex biological and biochemical identity, we will start

from air sampling techniques, followed by the discussion of various detection methods

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

(plate culture, molecular methods, immunoassays and biosensors) in association with

compatible sampling technologies. We have compared different technologies for their

performance attributes, including different air sampling and detection challenges for

bacterial, viral, and fungal aerosols.

Air quality sensors is huge topic with a wide range of technologies involved. In the

Accepted Manuscript
selection of the reference materials, we have considered the balance between

sophisticated standard laboratory methods, portable sensors, and new methodologies

that tackle specific new challenges. Particularly, through this review, we will provide

perspectives about the commercial readiness of the sensing technologies and the

respective R&D focus for different types of particulate pollutants (being either sensor

evaluation and adoption, new sensor development, or standard establishment, etc). At

the end of the review, we will provide a perspective for future trend according to

commercial products available in market, the limitation of current commercial products,

the key challenges in this field, and the market trend to meet the demand of increasing

population and high living density.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Figure 2. Size of particulate matters and their definitions. PM: particulate matter; FP: fine
particle; UFP: ultrafine particle.

2. PM Analyzers

The concentration of PM in air can be measured by several techniques, such as filter-

based gravimetric method (GMM), laser based optical method, β-attenuation or β-ray

Accepted Manuscript
absorption method (BAM), and Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM)

method.[2] The filter-based GMM is far more accurate and stable than others. Thus this

method has been chosen by many countries as the standard method for testing PM. The

optical law in BAM has been well developed due to its low cost, high efficiency, and

convenient features. On the other hand, laser based optical methods are currently the

mainstream of PM sensors in the market. In this review we will focus more on the filter-

based GMM and the optical methods. The BAM and TEOM will be discussed briefly.

2.1. Filter-based gravimetric method (GMM)

Collecting PM on a filter for analysis is the oldest and best understood method for

measuring particle pollution. A GMM device (Figure 3a) consists of three main

components, i.e. an impactor, a filter, and a precision pump. [12] The impactor (Figure

3b) is a momentum-based particle sorter that sorts the particles by size as the particles

passing through the striker. The particles passing through the impactor are then

collected by the next filter to obtain the corresponding PM weight. The pump draws air

at a constant rate to obtain a precise air volume corresponding to the particles of defined

weight, resulting in a PM concentration. The basic working principle is that when the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

pump draws air into the sensor, the airflow deflects as it hits the striker. Small particles

can rotate with the airflow because of small momentum, avoiding being collected by

the impactor. However, large particles that exceed certain size will not be able to turn

because of their large momentum. They will collide with the impactor surface and be

screened.

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 3. (a) Schematic drawing of a filter-based gravimetric method (GMM). (b)
Principle of the impactor. Adapted from Ref. [12] Copyright 2011 Springer Nature
Limited.

The operation of a GMM relies on parallel processing of blank and sample filter, and

the before and post sampling weighting of the filters for final data analysis to get the

PM level. The filter weighing must be very accurately performed in laboratory

conditions, and thus is difficult for field application.

2.2. Laser Based Optical Methods

In contrast to the GMM, optical methods, usually laser light scattering, are more

appealing for real-time monitoring with a faster response. An optical sensor measures

the size of particles by light scattering (Figure 4).[13] During the detection process, each
9

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

particle is illuminated by a defined laser, and the photodiode detects the scattered signal

of light at an angle of 90°. According to Mie theory, each measured signal is

proportional to the particle size, so the concentration of PM can be detected according

to the signal. In such a system, firstly, the laser source will shine on the air channel

where the air is flow in. The laser will then undergo the light scattering process by the

Accepted Manuscript
particles. After the microprocessor data collection, the results can be generated through

a series of complex algorithms.

Figure 4. (a) Measurement principle of a laser based optical aerosol spectrometer. (b)
laser measuring chamber. Reprinted from Ref. [13] Copyright 2012 Taylor & Francis.

The accuracy of the optical sensor can be affected by several factors, including

aerosol characteristics (i.e. particle size distribution, light absorption, and refractive

index), temperature, and even seasonal types. By considering and correcting these

influencing factors, the accuracy of the PM optical sensor can be improved. PM optical

sensor remains the preferred principle in large scale commercial sensors, due to its

affordable cost, low power requirements, and fast response time.

10

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

The research in PM optical sensors includes not only new sensor development that

exploits new optical principle, but more on the evaluation of largely available

commercial sensors in the market. For new sensor development, firstly, Wang et al.,

[14]
reported a new optical-fibre-based airborne particle counter. It is different from

Accepted Manuscript
traditional light scattering techniques, where particles are detected through the drop in

optical fiber coupling efficiency as the particles disrupt the electromagnetic mode of

the optical beam. The system does not require high power laser input, and thus it is

smaller than the traditional techniques. The authors have shown the close agreement

between theoretical model and experimental results for solid and liquid particles in the

1 to 10 µm range. In another report, a palm-sized PM detector is developed (Figure 5).

[15]
This sensor can detect particles with diameter as small as ∼ 0.3 mm and can measure

PM2.5 mass concentrations as high as ~ 600 µg/m3. They also conducted year-round

ambient observations at four urban and suburban sites in Fukuoka, Kadoma, Kasugai,

and Tokyo, Japan, and proved that the data collected by their sensor was in good

agreement with corresponding data from the collocated standard instrument.

11

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 5. Schematic of a palm sized optical PM2.5 sensor. (a) outside and (b) inside.
Reprinted from Ref. [15] Copyright 2018 Taylor & Francis

2.3. Beta Ray Absorption Method (BAM) and Tapered Element Oscillating

Microbalance (TEOM) Method

Figure 6. (a) Schematic of a beta-attenuated PM analysis method and (b) a Tapered

Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) ambient particulate monitor. Reprinted
from Ref. [16,17] Copyright 2004 Elsevier Ltd and 1982 American Chemical Society.

Figure 6a shows the principle of the BAM PM analyser that employs the absorption of

beta radiation by solid particles extracted from air flow. The process of testing is similar
12

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

to GMM. Through the membrane system, an air pump draws air from the environment.

The particles in the air are sucked up and deposited on the filter. Next, the particle-

deposited filter is treated with β-rays. The concentration of the PM particles is

calculated based on the energy attenuated degree of the β-rays penetrating the sample.

[16]

Accepted Manuscript
Raja et al, recently demonstrated the real-time PM2.5 mass concentration detection using

a BAM device for chemical species, including elements, ions, organic and elemental

carbon, and molecular markers. They concluded a major issue of the blank values in

the filter tape. Based on blank spot analyses, it was determined that measurement of

organic and elemental carbon (OC/EC) and elements were infeasible. [18]

The TEOM method (Figure 6b) uses a cone-shaped elemental oscillation microbalance.

Similar to GMM and BAM, TEOM also uses a filter to collect PM samples, but the

detection principle is different. In a TEOM sensor, there is an oscillating hollow conical

tube with a replaceable filter at its oscillating end. The frequency at which the hollow

tube oscillates is determined by the characteristics of the conical tube itself and its

quality. When the precision pump introduces air into the filter and the PM particles

deposit, the weight of the hollow tube changes and causes a change in its oscillation

frequency. According to the change of the oscillation frequency, the mass of the PM

sample deposited on the filter membrane can be calculated, and then the PM

concentration of the air can be obtained according to the volume of the air extracted by

the precision pump.[17]

13

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

In a common practice, the filter used for particle collection in a TEOM monitor is

regularly exchanged for new ones. Most recently, Nosratabadi et al., demonstrated the

feasibility of collecting used filters from TEOM monitors at various locations,

extracting the particles, and studying the particles regarding their ability to generate

Accepted Manuscript
oxidants, endotoxin content, and ability to activate inflammatory cells.[19] The particles

collected have considerable seasonal and spatial difference in their oxidative potential,

endotoxin content, and ability to activate blood monocytes in releasing interleukin-1β.

Instead of discarding the TEOM filters, the extracted particles from the filters can be

further analysed in term of their toxicity, providing more characteristics for the

collected particles.

2.4. Fine Particle and Ultrafine Particle Analysis

Airborne particles with size between 0.1–0.7 μm are fine particles (FPs), and airborne

particles smaller than 0.1 μm (100 nm) are defined as ultrafine particles (UFPs).

Comparing to PM2.5, FPs and UFPs cause more pulmonary inflammation and are

retained longer in the lung. They have increased toxicity due to their smaller size, larger

surface area, adsorbed surface material, and the physical characteristics. They are also

linked with diabetes and cancer. [20] Accurate evaluation of the distribution of ultrafine

particulate matter in air is of utmost significance to public health, especially for

[21,22]
children. However, the detection of FPs and UFPs posed major challenges as

the commonly used PM2.5 index fails to provide size distribution for FPs and UFPs.

14

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Benefitting from the advancement of nanotechnology, Yu et al., demonstrated a size

spectrometer by using a nanofiber array for probing FPs and UFPs with an

[23]
unprecedented size resolution of 10 nm (Figure 7). Through control of the

polarization of the probe light, the uniform nanofibers provide strong optical

evanescent fields that enhance particle-perturbed scattering. This size spectrometry

Accepted Manuscript
was used to study the air particulate matters in Beijing. It yielded size distribution

and mass concentrations of the nanoparticles that are in agreement with the officially

released data. This nanofiber-array size spectrometer is capable for full monitoring

of PMs (including FPs and UFPs) in air, and for monitoring early-stage haze

evolution.

Figure 7. A size spectrometer using a nanofiber array for probing FPs and UFPs with
a 10-nm resolution. (A) Schematic set-up of nanowaveguide-based size spectrometry.
(B) Optical image of the nanowaveguides. (C) Comparison of the diameter distribution
of a nanowaveguide from the theoretical prediction and SEM measurements. (D)
Theory and simulation of scattering efficiency. (E) Scattering efficiency of a spherical
nanoparticle as a function of the waveguide diameter and particle size. Reprinted from
Ref. [23] Open access and free to use.

In addition to the above optical method, electrical method is also reported for FPs and

UFPs measurement. Mertens et reported on-line measurements of residual nanoparticle

15

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

numbers downstream of the flue gas treatment systems of a wide variety of medium-

and large-scale industrial installations, using a Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI). When

electrically-charged particles are deposited on the insulated impaction stages in the

ELPI, an electrical current is generated. They further utilized Scanning Electron

Microscope coupled with an Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (SEM-EDS) to determine

Accepted Manuscript
the chemical composition of the particles. With combined particle density and chemical

composition measurements, this work represents the importance of FP measurement for

evaluating the efficiency of industrial dedusting systems. [24]

2.5 Commercial PM Analysers and Calibration

Many available technologies often share similar or common components. They can be

used in combination in order to get accurate results and/or identify source affecting the

detection outcome. For example, the accuracy of an optical sensor can be affected by

many reasons, such as the particle size distributions, light absorptions, index of

refraction, temperature, season, and type of aerosol monitor. It can be calibrated by a

[25]
filter-based GMM for in-line measurement with more accurate results. Shin et al,

for example, has compared the β-ray absorption method (BAM) and gravimetric

method (GMM) for the measurement of mass concentrations of particulate matter less

than 10 μm in diameter (PM10) at Gosan, Republic of Korea. They have observed

consistent difference. By using a gas/particle equilibrium model, they have found out

the major factors that affected the concentration difference, including relative humidity,

dust storm event and wind direction, in addition to water absorption.

16

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

With the availability of many low-cost commercial analyzers, can these commercial

low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates?

Several studies have investigated some commercial low cost sensors, in order to better

understand their performance for improving the spatial and temporal resolution of

Accepted Manuscript
particulate matter data. Badura et al., evaluated four models of low-cost optical sensors,

i.e. SDS011 (Nova Fitness), ZH03A (Winsen), PMS7003 (Plantower), and OPC-N2

[26]
(Alphasense), against a TEOM 1400a analyser (Figure 8). Through nearly half a

year of continuous measurement, they discovered different reproducibility. Particularly,

the coefficient of variation (CV) values were found lower than 7% in the case of

SDS011 and PMS7003 sensors and equal to 20% for OPC-N2 units. And CV was higher

than 50% for ZH03A, mainly due to malfunctions. They have also assessed the linearity

in concentration measurement, and the humidity impact on the accuracy. They

commented that low-cost optical PM sensors could be effective tools for ambient air

quality monitoring, upon proper calibrations. Castell et al., [26] conducted an evaluation

of 24 identical units of a commercial low-cost sensor (for gases and PMs). They used

CEN (European Standardization Organization) as reference analyzers to evaluate the

measurement capability over time and a range of environmental conditions of the low-

cost units. Their results show that the performance of these 24 units varies spatially and

temporally, depending on the atmospheric composition and the meteorological

conditions. This is an important study, showing that commercial low-cost sensors need

to be tested for their performance. In another similar study, Zheng et al, characterized

17

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

the performance capabilities of a low-cost PM sensor model (Plantower model

PMS3003) for measuring PM2.5 at 1 min, 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h integration times. [27]

They used a research-grade instrument (environmental βattenuation monitor, E-BAM)

and three Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) as references (two Teledyne model

T640s and a Thermo Scientific model 5030 SHARP). In this study, they focus on PM2.5

Accepted Manuscript
across a range of concentrations to calibrate the low-cost analyser. They concluded that

upon proper selection of a reference equipment, the performance of the low-cost

detector can become adequate and reliable for field test.

The above examples show the importance of proper evaluation of commercial analyzers.

To facilitate such evaluation study, Hapidin et al, designed an advanced aerosol chamber.

In the chamber, they introduced an output airflow rate to decay the PM concentration

more quickly to overcome the time-consuming issue of conventional experimental

processes. [28] The chamber was then utilized to evaluate three commercial PM sensors

(Sharp GP2Y1010AU0F, Winsen ZH03A, and Novafitness SDS011). In this study, they

used a condensation particle counter (TSI, 3025A) and particle sensor (Honeywell,

HPMA115S0-XXX) as reference monitors.

18

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Figure 8. Comparison of four models of low-cost optical sensors (SDS011, Nova

Fitness; ZH03A, Winsen; PMS7003, Plantower; and OPC-N2, Alphasense) with a
TEOM 1400a analyser for air quality monitoring and exposure estimation. Reprinted
from Ref. [26] Open Access

3. Bioaerosols and Airborne Pathogens

Accepted Manuscript
While PM analysers can monitor particle mass or concentration, bioaerosol analysis

requires more sophisticated technologies and analytical systems for identification of the

chemical and biological content, especially identification of pathogens following the

particle collection. After air sampling, compatible analytical techniques are coupled as

downstream tools to study the biological content and properties of the captured particles.

Depending on the type of bioaerosol, the downstream analytical tools include plate

culture, molecular method, fluorescent methods, immunoassay, and biosensors.

A wide variety of air samplers are available for capturing bioaerosols of a wide range

of particle sizes (from tens of nanometers for “naked” virus to more than 100 μm for

fungi, mold and protozoa aerosols, depending on the humidity). [30] These samplers are

based on different principles, including impactors, liquid impinger, filters, electrostatic

precipitators, and water-based condensation. Their sampling efficiency varies

according to temperature, humidity, particle properties (size, surface charge, and

hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity), and medium used. Some basic consideration for

bioaerosols samplers are: one sampler may not collect all types of bioaerosols; no

sampling device provides 100% recovery of the particles (especially for viruses which

have microns and sub-micron range aerosol particles[29]); the viability of bioaerosol
19

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

samples should be maintained in the sampler for subsequent analysis; and efficiency of

the sampler depends on the size of the particular organism. In this session we will

discuss various viable (bacteria, virus, fungi, mold) and nonviable bioaerosols (toxin,

pollens) for their sampling and detection.

Following the sampling, the choice of the downstream analytical approach is according

Accepted Manuscript
[30]
to viability of the bioaerosols and identification level required. Viable bioaerosols

(bacteria, fungi, virus) can be detected through culture methods (with culture medium

that can be adjusted for selectivity detection), and culture –free methods (molecular

methods or biosensors). Non-viable bioaerosols with large size like pollen can be

detected by microscopy, and those with small size like toxin can be detected by

biosensors, Raman or mass spectrometry. Detailed examples and discussion are given

in the respective sessions below.

3.1. Bacteria Aerosols

3.1.1. Bacterial aerosol sampling coupled with plate culture

Current ISO standard for microbiological air quality evaluation (ISO 14698-1:2003)

entails passive or active air sampling methods, followed by culture plate count. [31] The

passive and active air sampling refers to air sample collection without or with forced

airflow. Figure 9 shows an example of passive and active air sampling by exposing a

petri dish containing a selected solid culture medium to the air without or with forced

airflow, respectively. Particularly, the passive air sampling in Figure 9a, also referred

as diffusive sampling, involves leaving the settle plate to be exposed to air for a period

20

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

of time, where bacteria cells may settle by gravity on the surface of the plate. Other

passive collection methods are dust fall collector and electrostatic dust fall collector. [32]

Larger bioaerosols like fungi cells also can be collected together in this sampling, and

can be differentiated from bacteria by applying specific culture medium or other

molecular methods. Further discussion for fungal is in section 3.3. The passive method

Accepted Manuscript
is considered non-quantitative because some particles may not settle onto the plate

[33]
within the sampling time, and it does not specify the volume of air sampled. In

contrast, the active air sampling (Figure 9b) is typically a pumped sampling with

controlled pump flow rate. It allows for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. It is

fast and ideal for controlled area where biological particle count is low. [31]

Figure 9. Schematic of (a) passive air sampling on a settling plate, and (b) active
sampling by impaction on plate filled with medium for detection of viable bioaerosol.
Particles collected on the plates are cultured.

Napoli et al., has recently compared these two sampling methods for evaluation of

microbial contamination in operating theatres. [30] Specifically, they evaluated the Total

Viable Count (TVC) at rest (in the morning before the beginning of surgical activity)

and in operational (during surgery) using the passive and active sampling methods

21

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

followed by plate culture. They demonstrated that when a strict protocol is followed,

results of active and passive sampling correlate well for both at rest and in operational

sampling. However, when the choice must be made between one or the other, they

suggested that passive measurement is better than active volumetric sampling during

surgery, when the measurement is carried out to monitor the risk of microbial wound

Accepted Manuscript
contamination. On the other hand, if the sampling is performed to obtain information

on the concentration of all inhalable viable particles, the active method should be

preferred.

One important example of airborne pathogen bacteria is Legionella, a ubiquitous

bacteria in natural (e.g., rivers, lakes) and artificial (e.g., showers, cooling towers)

aquatic environments. Legionella grows at temperature of 25 °C–50 °C, especially if

the water is stagnant and rich in sediments, and causes a typical pneumonia known as

Legionnaires’ disease (LD). Legionella is commonly spread through airborne water

droplets. Chang and Hung discussed the methods for detection and quantification of

airborne Legionella around cooling towers. [32] They assessed the capabilities of eight

bioaerosol samplers, including filter-based (cassette/polycarbonate filter and

IOM/gelatin filter), agar-based (Andersen one-stage sampler and MAS-100/A), and

liquid-based sampling methods (BioSampler, AGI-30, MAS-100/L, and SASS 2300)

for monitoring culturable, viable, and total legionellae around cooling towers. They

found that viable and total legionella can be efficiently sampled by a filter based IOM

equipped with a gelatin filter. It is interesting to note that the three sampling methods

22

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

(agar-based, filter-based, and liquid-based) have different flow rate, sampling time, and

sampled volume. The liquid-based SASS 2300 has the highest flow rate allowing the

largest volume of sampled air in a given sample duration. This could be the reason why

this method is recommended for frequent test.

Accepted Manuscript
Due to the involvement of bacteria culture, the so called standard procedure (air

[33, 34]
sampling and bacteria plate culture and count) requires more than 24 hours and

thus it is not practical for rapid on-site detection and monitoring. Furthermore, the

standard plate culture method is also not adequate for identification of bacteria. Many

bacteria of multiple species can grow on the same type of agar plate. Other limiting

factor of bacteria and other bioaerosol assessment based on conventional culture

methods include: non standardized method for enumeration, techniques, locations of

sampling, sampling time, and environmental factors variation, e.g. temperature, relative

humidity, airflow etc. [35]

3.1.2. Bacteria aerosol sampling followed by culture-free detection methods

To achieve faster bacteria detection, various culture-free methods have been developed

integrated with bacteria aerosol sampling to detect bacteria in air. Immunoassays, for

example ELISA, have been widely used to detect pathogens with high sensitivity and

specificity. Traditional ELISA requires tedious multiple incubation, rinsing and

pipetting steps. For airborne pathogen detection, the assay must be combined with

sampling collecting from the aerosol. [36]

23

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Biosensors are analytical devices containing biological components and physical

transducers that can translate the biological event into measureable signals. Biosensor

technologies have been coupled with air sampling processes for direct aerosol analysis.

Among different types of biosensors, optical biosensors have been extensively

Accepted Manuscript
developed. Some of these examples are bioluminescence ATP (adenosine triphosphate)

sensor demonstrated for bacteria bioaerosol. Detection of ATP from aerosol reflects the

presence of living microbes because ATP is a biological energy source within living

cell. The traditional ATP test for hygiene monitoring has now been modified and further

developed into new systems and new designs for bacteria detection in air. One of the

example is a microfluidic device that consists of an aerosol condensation system,

a microfluidic channel, and an ATP-bioluminescence transducer. The device has been

demonstrated to determine aerosolized B. subtilis and E. coli within 10 min, potentially

for real-time detection. [37, 38] Another example is by Park et al, where they introduced

a methodology for disrupting cell membranes with air ions coupled with ATP

bioluminescence detection for real-time monitoring of bioaerosol concentrations. [38]

The methodology was tested using aerosolized Staphylococcus

epidermidis and Escherichia coli, and indoor bioaerosols. They have built the

correlation of the bioluminescence signal with plate culture Colony Forming Unit

(CFU/m3) obtained by plate culture. They have proved that their system is reliable and

fast (cell-lysis time: 3 min; bioluminescence detection time: <1 min) and easy operation.

Nevertheless, ATP presents in bacteria and other living cells, and it cannot provide

24

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

identification of specific bacteria species. Other optical sensor exploits staining bacteria

captured from air by colliding mist of specific antibody labelled with fluorescent dye

to quickly bind bacteria cell entrapped on an impaction plate. The system can detect

aerosolized E. coli 104 – 105 particles/ L. [39]

Accepted Manuscript
In addition to the coupling of biosensors with air sampler, microfluidic device is further

added into the airborne bacteria detection. For example, a portable system of integrated

microfluidic chip is developed, in which bacteria is captured from air to water. The

microfluidic device performs bacteria cell enrichment and PCR detection. The device

is demonstrated for aerosolized P. aeruginosa within 70 min. [40] Microfluidic chip can

also be coupled with fluorescent immunoassay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and

with high-throughput LAMP analysis for aerosolized bacteria. [41, 42]

3.2. Viral Aerosols

3.2.1. Challenges in viral aerosol sampling

Like other bioaerosols, viruses can be released to air in droplets or become airborne and

remain infectious outside their hosts for prolonged periods of time. Detection of viruses

in air is essential to understand and prevent viral transmission, and for surveillance.

Comparing to bacteria aerosols, viral aerosol collection and detection have specific

challenges related to their size (size distribution) and their cell structure. Viruses are

generally smaller in size than bacteria or other microorganisms, ranging from tens to

hundreds of nm for single virus particles (or “naked” virus) to micrometer after

25

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

aerosolization or coalescing with other particles. The challenge in viral aerosol

sampling is to collect as much virus in various size range and to keep them viable.

Collection of nanomater particulates typically requires high impact or high air flow, but

it may decrease virus viability. [43, 44] Commonly used instruments to recover viruses

suspended in the air include liquid impingers, solid impactors, filters, electrostatic

Accepted Manuscript
precipitators, and many others. [43, 44] The collection efficiency, i.e. physical collection

efficiency (the ratio of the amount of captured particles to the total particle in air) and

biological collection efficiency (the fraction of biologically active virus that remains

viable after collection), varies according to collection conditions and types of the virus.

The aerodynamic size distribution has a direct effect on physical collection efficiency.

Environmental conditions, like pH, temperature, light irradiation, also affect the

physical collection efficiency. The biological efficiency is determined by the collection

conditions, aerosol formation methods and viruses’ morphology, surface charge,

hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity properties.

Due to the aforementioned complication, specific sampling techniques need to be

[45]
worked out for a specific application. Ladhani et al., for example, demonstrated a

successful sampling and detection of airborne influenza virus using a custom-made

electrostatic precipitation (ESP)-based bioaerosol sampler (Figure 10). Coupled with

downstream quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis, they

demonstrated that the performance of the ESP-based sampler shows a higher collection

efficiency of 47%, than other liquid-based samplers; and the sampling time is reduced

26

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

from hours to minutes.

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 10. A electrostatic precipitation (ESP)-based bioaerosol sampler for sub-
micron aerosols of influenza virus. The aerosolized viruses are sampled directly into a
miniaturized collector with liquid volume of 150 μL. The obtained liquid sample is
directly analysed by PCR assays. Reprinted from Ref. [45] Unrestricted use of
copyright.

Fabian et al, compared the collection performance of four aerosol samplers, i.e. a liquid

based SKC Biosampler, a compact cascade impactor (CCI), Teflon filters, and gelatin

filters for collection of aerosolized influenza virus.[46] The infectivity of the captured

influenza virus was determined using a fluorescent focus assay and quantitative PCR.

They found that the SKC Biosampler has a much higher efficiency in recovering

preserved influenza virus than the other samplers, which only recovered 7–22% of

infectious viruses. More discussion about molecular detection (PCR) coupled air

sampling will be performed in the next session.

3.2.2. Viral aerosol sampling coupled with molecular analysis

27

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

The last two work in the earlier session are the examples, where viral sampling coupled

with molecular analysis. This is true that viruses do not have ATP, thus ATP test cannot

be used for downstream analysis. Moreover, viruses only grow in their host cells, thus

less convenient for culture analysis. To detect the virus, the most popular method is to

Accepted Manuscript
analyze the genetic material of virus (DNA or RNA) through PCR for DNA, and reverse

transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for RNA. PCR/RT-PCR can identify

virus species but they detect genetic materials from both viable and non-viable virus

cells, which mean that it cannot tell whether the virus detected is still infectious (viable)

or dead. To assess the viability, PCR should be accompanied with a virus plaque assay

(culturing virus in host cells and counting how many host cells are infected/ dead due

to virus). However, plaque assay is not as simple as bacteria/ fungi culture (on non-

living medium, i.e. agar plates). Plaque assay uses live host cells, which requires tedious

work in daily maintenance of host cell culture in biosafety labs.

In PCR based airborne pathogen detection study, great efforts have been made for

developing effective sampling techniques compatible with the PCR process. In

sampling of viruses, particularly viruses with RNA, the sampling methods must be able

to retain the integrity of the RNA in the virus. Figure 11 shows an example of airborne

[47]
sample analysis that couples molecular analysis with particle sampling . In this

design, bioaerosols in the ambient air are sucked in through the inlet of the bio-sampler

and deposited on a strip of polyurethane foam (PUF) contained in a cartridge. The

28

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

individual PUF strips are then processed for pathogen isolation and nucleic acid

extraction. After that, qPCR is performed for specific pathogen detection.

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 11. An example of airborne sample analysis platform coupling molecular
analysis. Reprinted from Ref. [47] Unrestricted use of copyright.

3.2.3. Aerosol viral RNA (H1N1 and COVID-19) detection by RT-PCR

RT-PCR combines reverse transcription of RNA into DNA (in this context called

complementary DNA or cDNA) and amplification of specific DNA targets

using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). RT-PCR is required for RNA virus detection

because RNA molecules are not stable, and they can’t withstand the PCR processes.

Influenza A (H1N1) virus was first identified in April 2009, when real-time RT-PCR

[48]
was a relatively new technique. Since then RT-PCR protocols were largely

established and validated following industry-standard criteria. The lower limit of

detection of the assay was 384 copies of viral RNA per ml of viral transport medium

(95% confidence interval: 273-876 RNA copies/ml). This assay for the influenza A
29

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

[49]
matrix gene was recommended in 2007 by the World Health Organization. It was

then further modified as the influenza A(H1N1)v virus-specific test. Both assays were

equally sensitive. [50] Since then, this molecular technique has been largely applied as

[51] [52,53]
downstream detection techniques for influenza virus and rhinovirus aerosols

in air. Efforts on design new samples technologies coupling RT-PCR have been

Accepted Manuscript
continued. Huynh et al., designed a mask designed to capture virus from patients

following talking, breathing, and coughing, during a 20 min time. [53] The captured virus

sample were sent to lab for identification using a conventional RT-PCR. Lednicky et

al., also reported a novel way for the sampling of A/H3N2 viruses in a short time. [55]

Their system used two samplers, i.e. personal air samplers along with media-containing

air samplers. They have demonstrated in-field detection. Noti et al., reported the

detection of infectious influenza virus in cough aerosols generated in a simulated

[55]
patient examination room. With this study, they determined whether coughed

influenza was infectious. They also assessed the effectiveness of an N95 respirator and

surgical mask in blocking transmission.

SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) pandemic started from end 2019. There has been extensive

studies of whether SARS-CoV-2 may also spread through aerosols in the absence of

aerosol generating procedures, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation. RT-

PCR has been largely used as downstream analysis test following air sampling. Some

studies conducted in health care settings, where symptomatic COVID-19 patients were

[56-58]
cared for, reported the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples. Most of

30

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

these studies used impinger technique and pre-sterilized gelatin filters, followed by

either RT-PCR or droplet-digital-PCR. Figure 12 shows the study of the aerodynamic

nature of SARS-CoV-2 by measuring viral RNA in aerosols in different areas of Wuhan

[57,58]
hospitals during the outbreak of COVID-19 in February and March 2020. By

using a miniature cascade impactor (Sioutas Impactor, SKC), the collected aerosol

Accepted Manuscript
samples were separated into five ranges (>2.5 μm, 1.0–2.5 μm, 0.50–1.0 μm and 0.25–

0.50 μm on 25-mm filter substrates, and 0–0.25 μm on 37-mm filters). The studies

concluded that the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in aerosols that was detected in

isolation wards and ventilated patient rooms was very low, but it was higher in the toilet

areas. The maximum transmission distance of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol might be 4 m.

Other COVID-19 aerosol studies involving viral cultures concluded no viable virus in

air samples.[59-67] According to the RT-PCR data, the quantity of RNA detected was in

[59]
extremely low numbers in large volumes of air. Bullard et al. have concluded that

the RT-PCR assay result is not necessarily indicative of replication- and infection-

competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection.[68]

In a most recent literature, Zhu et al., investigates the associations of six air pollutants

[69]
(PM2.5, PM10, SO2, CO, NO2 and O3) with COVID-19 confirmed cases. They

observed significantly positive associations of PM2.5, PM10, NO2 and O3 in the last two

weeks with newly COVID-19 confirmed cases. This study further highlighted the

importance of effective air quality monitoring and air quality control.

31

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 12. Concentration of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA in different aerosol size
bins from a study performed in Wuhan Fangcang hospital, during the outbreak of
COVID-19 in February and March 2020. Concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in a
protective-apparel removal room in zone B (a), zone C (b), and in the medical staff’s
office (c) of the hospital. The x axis represents the aerodynamic diameter on a
logarithmic scale to cover the multiple magnitudes of measured aerosol diameters.
Reprinted from Ref. [58] Copyright 2020 Nature Publishing Group.

3.2.4. Viral aerosol sampling coupled with biosensors

[70]
Biosensors can be used as alternative downstream analysis methods. Kwon and

Fronczek et al. described a microfluidic particle immunoassay for the rapid detection

of pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 from captured aerosols. The system is interfaced

with a smartphone.[71] Shen et al. developed a nearly automated microfluidic device that

captured airborne influenza A/H1N1, H3N2, and SARS viruses using antibody-coated

silicon nanowires.[72] The sensor directly measured conductance fluctuations of the

nanowires due to antibody–antigen binding. This system requires minimal sampling

handling for rapid detection in 2 min. It can detect 104 viruses per µL collected liquid,

or about 1–5 pg per µL collected liquid.

32

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

3.3. Fungal bioaerosols

Fungal and mold-containing aerosols can account for large proportions of air

particulate matters indoor. Exposure to airborne fungi/mold is the cause of allergy,

infection, or irritation. [73-77] Fluorescent based analytical methods include ATP meter

[78]
, fluorescent dye staining [79], and the exploitation of their autofluorescent properties

Accepted Manuscript
[80]
. Since fungal aerosols consist of spores and fragments with diverse array of

morphologies, they can also be identified by their morphological characteristics. [81, 82]

Moreover, plate culture and nucleic acids detection will provide their biochemical

characteristics, from which one can determine their role in infection, allergy and

irritation [81-88]. Table 1 shows a few examples of airborne fungi identification, covering

the air sampler used, downstream detection methods, and major fungi species studied.

Table 1. Examples of Fungal Aerosol Analysis

Fungal species Sampler Downstream detection Ref.
Cladosporium cladosporioides, a volumetric-based surface Morphological 81
Pseudeurotium desertorum, air sampler (Merck MAS- characterization;
®
Geomyces sp. and Antarctomyces 100 Eco , Whitehouse Cultivation; Sequence-
psychrotrophicus Station, NJ, U.S.A.) based identification
Aspergillus fumigatus (AF), A glass fibre filter based scanning electron 82
Cladosporium cladosporioides PM10 sampler (APM550 microscope (SEM);
(CC) and Alternaria alternata from Envirotech, India) qPCR
(AA)
Basidiomycota and Ascomycota a glass filters (Pall Colony PCR 83
Corporation, Type A/A, 102-
mm diameter
Penicillium sp. and Cladosporium AirIdeal portable air sampler Culture in 84
sp. chloramphenicol malt
extract agar
29 species belonging to 13 genera Andersen two-stage sampler Culture 85
from indoor and 26 species onto a petri dish containing
belonging to 12 genera from malt extract agar

33

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

outdoor environment of the

cowshed. Dominant species:
Cladosporium sp., Aspergillus sp.,
and Alternaria alternata.
Penicillium roqueforti a miniature cyclone-type air PCR followed by 86
sampler Southern blotting
Aspergillus fumigatus, A. Aerosolized using the FESEM 87
versicolor, and Penicillium Fungal Spore Source
chrysogenum Strength Tester (FSSST) and
the Stami particle generator

Accepted Manuscript
(SPG).
Mycosphaerella brassicicola a personal volumetric air Total Analysis Systems 88
sampler (Rickmansworth, (TAS), immunoassay
Hertsfordshire, United
Kingdom)

For fungal morphological characterization, Field Emission Scanning Electron

Microscopy (FESEM) and/or SEM are often used. Afanou et al characterized the profile

of aerosols generated from Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus versicolor, and Penicillium

chrysogenum grown for 8 weeks on gypsum boards, collected by a filter based

[87]
PM10 sampler (APM550 from Envirotech, India). From the FESEM images (Figure

13), it can be seen that the collected particles have distinct structural features, including

the near spherical particles (mostly only single spores), oblong particles (comprising some

spore aggregates and fragments, <3.5 μm), and fiber-like particles that regroup chained

spore aggregates and fragments (>3.5 μm). This study has proven that fungal particles of

various size, shape, and origin can be aerosolized. This is one of the recent reports of

fungal exposure assessment over different seasons. In fact, fungal exposure assessment

over different season has been a general concern of a vast wealth of studies, as shown in

earlier studies. [89, 90]

34

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Accepted Manuscript
Figure 13. FESEM images of allergenic and plant pathogenic fungal spores. The
species type of the spores was revealed by DNA analysis. (a) A. fumigatus, (b) A. favus,
(c) A. niger, (d) A. rhizopus, (e) young spores of Cladosporium sp. in a chain form, (f)
mature single spore of Cladosporium sp., (g) Alternaria sp., (h) Rhizopus sp., (i)
Chaetomium sp., (j) Neurospora crassa., and (k) Epicoccum sp. Scale is different for
every image and is given at the bottom of each image. Reprinted from Ref. [87]
Unrestricted use of copyright.

To better understand the role of fungi in infection, allergy and irritation, fungi

identification is needed. Plate culture and DNA detection are frequently used methods.

In the same study by Afanou et al., following SEM characterization, they performed

DNA identification using qPCR for each fungi spore. Coupling the allergy

epidemiological data, they found correlation with the reported allergy cases with the

seasonal changes in the ambient concentrations of certain allergic fungi.

For DNA detection, the methods for DNA production following particle sampling are

[91]
important. Williams et al., reported three methods to produce DNA for PCR tests

following the collection of P. roqueforti spores by using a miniature cyclone-type air

35

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

sampler: (1) adding untreated spores to PCRs, (2) disrupting spores (fracturing of spore

walls to release the contents) using Ballotini beads, and (3) disrupting spores followed

by DNA purification. Disrupting the spores was found to be most suitable for achieving

maximum sensitivity and it was possible to detect DNA from a single spore.

Accepted Manuscript
Fungi can also be detected by immunoassay and/or biosensor, following the sampling

process. Total Analysis Systems (TAS) have been developed that could be portable due

to the integration of bioaerosol sampler and immunoassay detection. A portable

[92]
microtiter immunospore trapping device was developed by Kennedy et al. This

device can capture Mycosphaerella brassicicola into microplate wells, to conduct the

immunoassay analysis. More recently Li et al. [93] developed a microfluidic system with

integrated sampling and immunofluorescence assay for enrichment and

semiquantitative detection of Aspergillus niger spore within 3 h.

3.4. Nonviable Bioaerosols

Biocontaminants, such as some fungi/mold spores or pollen grains, settle rapidly within

the indoor environment, due to their large size and mass. Over time they may become

nonviable and fragmented by the process of desiccation.[94] Allergens,

bacterial endotoxins (components of cell membranes of Gram-negative bacteria),

antigens (molecules that can induce an immune response), mycotoxins (toxins

produced by fungi), glucans (components of cell walls of many molds), pollen, animal

debris, and plant fibers, are other examples of nonviable bioaerosols. Pollens (~100 µm)

36

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

with relatively large size under microscope can be detected and classified by using a

[95, 96]
portable light microscope and image analysis algorithm . Automated online

version of microscope with image analysis for pollen monitoring from air also has been

[97]
reported. Meanwhile, many of smaller nonviable bioaerosols like endotoxins,

mycotoxins, etc. cannot be observed under common microscope. Biosensor, nanosensor,

Accepted Manuscript
optical spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry (MS) technologies

have been largely used for detecting these analytes upon proper sampling. [98-102]

4. Conclusion and Future Perspectives

PM and bioaerosols count for large proportions of air pollutant with adverse health

effects. Commercial low-cost PM analyzers are largely available to provide mass

measurement. The R&D focus is about product validation and calibration against

specific use cases and environments, i.e. specific countries, regions, and outdoor and

indoor scenarios (home, school, hospital, operation treasure, cabin etc).

For bioaerosol detection, sampling technologies must be compatible with the

downstream analytical methods. One of the major issues is the lack of standardization

in the methodology, from air sampling strategies, sample treatment to the analytical

methods applied. Identifying effective sampling techniques that is compatible with

highly sensitivity detection techniques is important. Not only the physical efficiency

(the ratio of capture particles relative to the total particles available), but also the

biological efficiency (the fraction of biologically active particles of the viable particles
37

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

upon collection) is highly important for assessing the infectivity. Integrated sampling

and detection/identification technologies are far behind those for other pollutants in

terms of availability of commercial products suitable for real-time monitoring.

In general, air quality monitoring and control are an extremely complex issue that

Accepted Manuscript
requires both technology advancement and governmental influence for technology

adoption. Many technologies have been far being ready for adoption because the lack

of standardization in terms of operation and calibration, reporting, analysis algorithm

application. Enabling technologies, for example, modelling should provide stronger

linkage with bioaerosol processes.

All in all, for all pollutants and any given category of pollutant, the market requires

sampling and sensor technologies with the following attributes: efficient, fast, sensitive,

low-cost, easy to install and easy to use, intelligent calibration, connective to a network.

With all these attributes fulfilled, the sensor technologies are expected to lead to

reducing air pollution risks. The integrated and standardized technology platform and

application protocols will promote the implementation of the public health prevention

programme and to build healthier living environments.

38

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by NMRC grant (COVID19RF3-0054) and A*STAR RIE2020

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING (AME)

PROGRAMMATIC GRANT (A18A8b0059).

Accepted Manuscript
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

39

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

References:

1. World Health Organization, Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of

exposure and burden of disease. 2016. ISBN: 9789241511353
2. J. O. Anderson, J. G. Thundiyil, and A. Stolbach, J Med Toxicol. 2012, 8, 166–
175.
3. B. Gurjar, A. Jain, A. Sharma, A. Agarwal, P. Gupta, A. Nagpure, J. Lelieveld,
Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 4606-4613.
4. C. Humbal, S. Gautam, U. Trivedi, Environment International, 2018, 118, 189-193.

Accepted Manuscript
5. W.D. Griffiths and G.A.L.DeCosemo, J. Aerosol Sci. 1994, 25, 1425-1458
6. M. K. Ijaz, B. Zargar, K. E. Wright, J. R. Rubino, Am. J. Infect. Control 2016, 44,
S109-S120.
7. A. J. Prussin, L. C. Marr, Microbiome 2015, 3, 78.

8. William G. Lindsley, F. M. Blachere, R. E. Thewlis, A. Vishnu, K. A. Davis, G. Cao.

J. E. Palmer, K. E. Clark, M. A. Fisher, R. Khakoo, and D. H. Beezhold, PLoS One.
2010, 5, e15100.

9. K. P. Fennelly, Lancet Respir Med 2020, 8, 914–24.

10. S. Allegra, L. Leclerc, P. A. Massard, F. Girardot, S. Riffard, and J. Pourchez, Sci
Rep. 2016, 6, 33998.
11. B. H. Iglewski, Medical Microbiology. 4th edition. Chapter 27Pseudomonas, 1996.
Baron S, Editor.
12. L. A.Wallace, A. J. Wheeler, J. Kearney, K. Van Ryswyk, H. You, R.H. Kulka, P. E.
Rasmussen, J. R. Brook, X. Xu, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2011, 21, 49-64.
13. H. Grimm, D. J. Eatough, J. of the Air & Waste Management Association 2012, 59,
101-107.
14. Y. Wang and J. F. Muth, Sensors (Basel), 2017, 17, 2110.
15. T. Nakayama, Y. Matsumi, K. Kawahito, and Y. Watabe, Aeros. Sci. Tech. 2018, 52,
2-12.
16. J. Willam, R. W. S. Courtney, T. G. Dzubay, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1982, 16, 236-
239.
17. A. Charron, Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 415-423.
18. S. Raja, S. R. Chandrasekaran, L. Lin, X. Xia, P. K. Hopk, K. T. Valsaraj, Aerosol.
Air Qual. Res. 2017, 17, 14–23.
19. A. R. Nosratabadi, P. Graff, H. Karlsson, A. G. Ljungman, P. Leanderson, Air Qual.
Atmos. Health 2019, 12, 161–171.
20. D. E. Schraufnagel, Experimental & Molecular Medicine 2020, 52, 311–317.

40

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

21. A. Heinzerling, J. Hsu, F. Yip, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 32.
22. S. L. Miller, N. A. Facciola, D. Toohey, J. Zhai, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.
2017, 14, 128.
23. X.-C. Yu, Y. Zhi, S.-J. Tang, B.-B. Li, Q. Gong, C. W. Qiu, Y. F. Xiao, Light: Sci.
Applications 2018, 7, 18003.
24. J. Mertens, H. Lepaumier, P. Rogiers, D. Desagher, L. Goossens, A. Duterque, E.
Le Cadre, M. Zarea, J. Blondeau, M. Webber, Exp. Mol. Med. 2020, 52, 311–317.
25. S. E. Shin, C. H. Jung, Y. P. Kim, Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2011, 11, 846–853.
26. N. Castell, F. R. Dauge, P. Schneider, M. Vogt, U. Lerner, B. Fishbain, D. Broday,

Accepted Manuscript
A. Bartonova, Environ. Int. 2017, 99, 293–302.
27. T. Zheng, M. H. Bergin, K. K. Johnson, S. N. Tripathi, S. Shirodkar, M. S. Landis,
R. Sutaria, D. E. Carlson, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 2018, 11, 4823-4846.
28. D. A. Hapidin, C. Saputra, D. S. Maulana, M. M. Munir, K. Khairurrijal, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res. 2019, 19, 181-194.
29. M. Pan, J. A. Lednicky, and C. Y. Wu, J. Appl. Microbiol.2019, 127, 1596-1611.
30. C. Napoli, V. Marcotrigiano, M. T. Montagna, BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 594.
31. C. Pasquarella*, O. Pitzurra† and A. Savino, Journal of Hospital Infection 2000, 46,
241–256.
32. H. Würtz, T. Sigsgaard, O. Valbjørn, G. Doekes, H. W. Meyer, Indoor
Air. 2005;15 Suppl 9:33-40.
33. C. –W. Chang and P. –Y. Hung, Aerosol Sci. Tech. 2012, 46, 369–379.
34. P.-K. Hsiao, C.-C. Cheng, K.-C. Chang, L.-M. Yiin, C.-J. Hsieh, C.-C. Tseng,
Aerosol Sci. Tech. 2014, 48, 173-183.
35. A. M. Rule, K. J. Schwab, J. Kesavan, T. J. Buckley, Aerosol Sci. Tech. 2009, 43,
620-628.
36. K.-H. Kim, E. Kabir, S. A. Jahan, J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 67, 319-326.
37. S. E. Speight, B. A. Hallis, A. M. Bennett, J. E. Benbough, J. Aerosol Sci. 1997, 28,
483-492.
38. S. J. Lee, J. S. Park, H. T. Im, and H.-I. Jung, Sens Actuat. B-Chem 2008, 132, 443-
448.
39. C. W. Park, J.-W. Park, S. H. Lee, J. Hwang, Biosens Bioelectons 2014, 52, 379-
383
40. Q. Liu, Y. Zhang, W. Jing, S. Liu, D. Zhang, G. Sui, Analyst, 2016, 141, 1637.
41. X. Jiang, W. Jing, X. Sun, Q. Liu, C. Yang, S. Liu, K. Qin, G. Sui, ACS Sens. 2016,
1, 7, 958–962.
42. W. Jing, X. Jiang, W. Zhao, S. Lium X. Cheng, G. Sui., Anal. Chem. 2014, 86,
5815−5821.
41

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

43. D. Verreault, S. Moineau, C. Duchaine, Methods for Sampling of Airborne Viruses,

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2008, 72, 413–444.
44. M. Pan, J. A. Lednicky, C.‐Y. Wu, J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 127, 1596-1611.
45. L. Ladhani, G. Pardon, H. Meeuws, L. van Wesenbeeck, K. Schmidt, L. Stuyver, W.
van der Wijngaart, PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174314.
46. P. Fabian, J. J. McDevitt, E. A. Houseman, and D. K. Milton, Indoor Air 2009,
19, 433–441.
47. A. Sharma, E. Clark, J. D. McGlothlin and S. K. Mittal,. Front. Microbiol., 2015, 6,
article 512

Accepted Manuscript
48. E. Spackman, D.L. Suarez, Methods Mol. Biol. 2008, 436, 19-26.
49. Ruixue Wang, Jeffery K Taubenberger, Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2010, 8, 517–
527.
50. M. Panning, M. Eickmann, O. Landt, M. Monazahian, S. Olschläger, S.
Baumgarte, U. Reischl, J. J. Wenzel, H. H. Niller, S. Günther, B. Hollmann,
D. Huzly, J. F. Drexler, A. Helmer, S. Becker, B. Matz, A. Eis-Hübinger, C.
Drosten, Euro Suurveill 2009, 14, 19329.
51. N. Nikitin, E. Petrova, E. Trifonova, O. Karpova, Adv. Virol. 2014, Article ID
859090, 6 pages.
52. T. A. Myatt, S. L. Johnston, S. Rudnick, D. K. Milton, BMC Public Health 2003, 3,
5.
53. K. N. Huynh, B. G. Oliver, S. Stelzer, W. D. Rawlinson, E. R. Tovey, Clin. Infect.
Dis. 2008, 46, 93-95.
54. J. A. Lednicky, J. C. Loeb, Influenza Res Treat, 2013, Article ID 656825, 8 pages.
55. J. D. Noti, W. G. Lindsley, F. M. Blachere, G. Cao, M. L. Kashon, R. E. Thewlis,
C. M. McMillen, W. P. King, J. V. Szalajda, D. H. Beezhold, Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012,
54, 1569-77.
56. K.K. Coleman, Y. K. Tan, S.W.X. Ong, M. Gum M, Nat Comm. 2020, 11,
Article number: 2800.
57. Z.D. Guo, Z-Y. Wang, S.F. Zhang, X. Li, L. Li, C. Li, Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26,
1409-1419.
58. Y. Liu, Z. Ning, Y. Chen, M, Guo, Y. Liu, N. K. Gali, Nature 2020, 582, 557-60.
59. J. Ma, X. Qi, H. Chen, X. Li, Z. Zhan, H. Wang, MedRxiv. 2020 doi:
10.1101/2020.05.31.20115154.
60. S. Faridi, S. Niazi, K. Sadeghi, K. Naddafi, J. Yavarian, M. Shamsipour, Sci Total
Environ. 2020, 725,138401.
61. V.C.-C. Cheng, S.-C. Wong, V.W.-M. Chan, S.Y.-C. So, J.H.-K. Chen, C.C.-Y.
Yip, Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020,1-32.

42

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

62. S.W.X. Ong, Y.K. Tan, P.Y. Chia, T.H. Lee, O.T. Ng, M.S.Y. Wong, JAMA. 2020
323,1610-1612.
63. T. Yamagishi, MedRxiv. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20088567
64. M. Döhla, G. Wilbring, B. Schulte, B.M. Kümmerer, C. Diegmann, E. Sib, MedRxiv.
2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.05.02.20088567.
65. S. Wu, Y. Wang, X. Jin, J. Tian, J. Liu, Y. Mao, Am. J. Infect. Control. 2020, S0196-
6553(20)30275-3.
66. Z. Ding, H. Qian, B. Xu, Y. Huang, T. Miao, H.-L. Yen, MedRxiv. 2020 doi:
10.1101/2020.04.03.20052175.

Accepted Manuscript
67. V.C.C. Cheng, S.C. Wong, J.H.K. Chen, C.C.Y. Yip, V.W.M. Chuang, O.T.Y.
Tsang, Infect. Cont. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41,493-8.
68. J. Bullard, K. Dust, D. Funk, J. E. Strong, D. Alexander, L. Garnett, C. Boodman, A.
Bello, A. Hedley, Z. Schiffman, K. Doan, N. Bastien, Y. Li, P. G. Van Caeseele, G.
Poliquin, Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, ciaa638.
69. Y. Zhu, J. Xie, F. Huang, and L. Cao, Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 727, 138704
70. C. F. Fronczek, J.-Y. Yoon, Journal of laboratory automation 2015, 20, 390-410.
71. H.-J. Kwon, C. F. Fronczek, S. V. Angus, A. M. Nicolini, J. –Y. Yoon, J. Lab.
Automat. 2014, 19, 322–331.
72. F. Shen, M. Tan, Z.Wang, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7473–7480.
73. J. Madureira, C. Pereira, I. Paciência, J. P. Teixeira, E. Fernandes, J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health A. 2014, 77, 816-826.
74. M. Mac Aogáin, R. Chandrasekaran, A. Y. H. Lim, T.B. Low, G. L. Tan, T. Hassan,
T.H. Ong, H. Q. A. Ng, D. Bertrand, J. Y. Koh, Eur. Respir. J. 2018, 52, 1800766.
75. M. Mac Aogáin, P. Y. Tiew, A. Y. H. Lim, T. B. Low, G. L. Tan, T. Hassan, T. H.
Ong, S. L. Pang, Z. Y. Lee, X.W. Gwee, C. Martinus, Y. Y. Sio, Sir A. Matta, T. C.
Ong, Y. S. Tiong, K. N. Wong, S. Narayanan, V. B. Au, D. Marlier, H. R. Keir, A.
Tee, J. A. Abisheganaden, Mariko Siyue Koh, De Yun Wang, J. E. Connolly, F. T.
Chew, J. D. Chalmers, and S. H. Chotirmall, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018,
199, 842–853.
76. M. Mac Aogáin, R. Chandrasekaran, A. Y. H. Lim, T. B. Low, G.L. Tan, T. Hassan,
T.H. Ong, A. Ng,D. Bertrand, J. Y. Koh, S. L. Pang, Z. Y. Lee, X. W. Gwee, C.
Martinus, Y. Y. Sio, Sri A. Matta, F. T. Chew, H. R. Keir, J. E. Connolly, J. A.
Abisheganaden, M. S. Koh, N. Nagarajan, J. D. Chalmers and S. H. Chotirmall, Eur.
Respir. J. 2018, 52, 1800766.
77. K. W. Tham, M. S. Zuraimi, D. Koh, F. T. Chew, P. L. Ooi. Pediatr Allergy Immunol.
2007, 18, 418-24.
78. M. Rakotonirainy, J. Hanus, S. B. Termes, C. Heraud and B. Lavédrine 2003,
AICCM Bulletin 2003, 28, 16-22.
79. S. D. Card, B. A. Tapper, C. Lloyd-West, and K. M. Wright, Mycologia, 2013, 105,
43

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

221-229.
80. B. Dreyer, A. Morte, In: Varma A., Kharkwal A.C. (eds) Symbiotic Fungi. Soil
Biology, vol 18. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 2009, 123-140
81. S. M. Duncan, R. L. Farrell, N. Jordan, J. A. Jurgens, R. A. Blanchette, Polar
Science 2010, 4, 275e283.
82. H. Priyamvada, R. K. Singh, M. Akila, R. Ravikrishna, R. S. Verma, S. S. Gunthe,
Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, Article number: 11171
83. J. Fröhlich-Nowoisky, D. A. Pickersgill, V. R. Després, and U. Pöschl, PNAS 2009,
106, 12814-12819.

Accepted Manuscript
84. J. Madureira, c. Pereira, I. Paciência, J. P. Teixeira, F. E. de Oiveira, J. Toxicol
Environ. Health A. 2014, 77, 816-26.
85. R. Pavan, K. Manjunath, J. Microbiol. 2014, Article ID 985921 | 8 page
86. R. H. Williams, E. Ward, H. A. McCartney, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67,
2453–2459.
87. K. A. Afanou, A. Straumfors, A. Skogstad, I. Skaar, L. Hjeljord, Q. Skare, B.
J. Green, A. Tronsmo, W. Eduard, Aerosol Sci Technol. 2015, 49, 423-435.
88. R. Kennedy, A. J. Wakeham, K. G. Byrne, U. M. Meyer, F. M. Dewey, Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 2000, 66, 2996-3003.
89. Mika Frankelm Gabriel Bekö, Michael Timm, Sine Gustavsen, Erik Wind Hansen,
and Anne Mette Madsen, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 8289–8297.
90. A. L. Pasanen, Indoor Air 2001, 11, 87-98
91. R. H. Williams, E. Ward, and H. A. McCartney, Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001, 67,
2453–2459.
92. R. Kennedy, A. J. Wakeham, K. G. Byrne, U. M. Meyer, F. M. Dewey, Appl.
Environ. Micro. 2020, 66, 2996–3000.
93. X. Li, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, W. Zhao, S. Liu, and G. Sui., ACS Sens. 2018, 3,
2095−2103.
94. M. Y. Menetrez, K. K. Foarde, D. S. Ensor, J. Air. Waste. Manag. Assoc. 2001, 51,
1436-42.
95. Y. Wu, A. Calis, Y. Luo, C. Chen, M. Lutton, Y. Rivenson, X. Lin, H. C. Koydemir,
Y. Zhang, H. Wang, Z. Göröcs, A. Ozcan, ACS Photonics 2018, 5, 4617−4627.
96. E. Sauvageat, Y. Zeder, K. Auderset, B. Calpini, B. Clot, B. Crouzy, T. Konzelmann,
G. Lieberherr, F. Tummon, and K. Vasilatou, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 2020, 13, 1539–
1550.
97. J. Oteros, G. Pusch, I. Weichenmeier, U. Heimann, R. Möller, S. Röseler,
C. Traidl-Hoffmann, C. Schmidt-Weber, J.T.M. Buters, Int. Arch. Allergy
Immunol. 2015, 67,158–166.
98. L. Sutarlie, S. Y. Ow, X. D. Su, Biotech. J. 2017, 12, 1500459.
99. N. Li, Y. Lu, X. D. Su, The Analyst 2015, 140, 2916-2943.
44

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

100. X. D. Su, L. Sutarlie, X. J. Loh, Research- A Science Partner Journal, 2020,

8272705.
101. J. A. Huffman, A. E. Perring, N. J. Savage, B. Clot, B. Crouzy, F. Tummon,
O. Shoshanim, B. Damit, J. Schneider, V. Sivaprakasam, M. A. Zawadowicz, I.
Crawford, M. Gallagher, D. Topping, D. C. Doughty, S. C. Hill & Y. Pan, Aerosol
Sci. Tech. ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online)
102. J. Cox, H. Mbareche, W. G. Lindsley, and C. Duchaine, J. Aerosol Sci. Tech.
2019, 10.1080/02786826.2019.1688759.

Accepted Manuscript

45

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Chemistry - An Asian Journal 10.1002/asia.202001051

Dr Su Xiaodi

Xiaodi Su received her PhD in Analytical Chemistry from

Nankai University (China) in 1995. She joined the Institute of
Materials Research & Engineering (IMRE), A*STAR in 1998.
Currently, she is a Senior Scientist in the Soft Materials Department.
She is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of
Chemistry, NUS. Her research expertise include nanomaterials
based biosensors and advanced analytical technologies for
chemical, biochemical, and biological analysis. She received an

Accepted Manuscript
Outstanding University Researcher Award in 1999 for her postdoc
research work in National University of Singapore (NUS).

Dr Laura Sutarlie
Laura Sutarlie obtained her PhD in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering from
National University of Singapore in 2012. She is a scientist in Institute of Materials
Research and Engineering (IMRE), A*STAR, Singapore. Her research interest includes
development of rapid and low cost sensors/biosensors for detection of chemicals,
biomolecules, and microorganisms.

A/Prof Xian Jun Loh

A/Prof Xian Jun Loh completed his basic and postgraduate studies
at the National University of Singapore. A polymer chemist by
training, he is currently the Executive Director of the Institute of
Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE), A*STAR. He is
concurrently an Adjunct Associate Professor in the National
University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University.
As a pioneer in the area of biodegradable thermogels, he is highly
knowledgeable in developing these materials for various
applications spanning biomedical, engineering, cosmetics,
personal care and food. His scientific contributions have earned
him the position of Fellowship in both Fitzwiliam College in the University of
Cambridge as well as in the Royal Society of Chemistry. He is also awarded the Highly
Cited Researcher Award by Clarivate Analytics. He is also the current Vice President
and member of the Executive Committee of the Singapore National Institute of
Chemistry. With his extensive experience in authoring >200 journal papers, 38 patents
and know-hows, >30 book chapters and 7 books, he currently sits on several editorial
boards of international journals as an expert in his area. He has also successfully helped
in the commercialization of 8 different products and is always interested in the
translation of science to products.

46

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.