Contribution of bioaerosols to airborne particulate matter

Figures & data

Table 1. Particle sizes of bioaerosols (microns).

Bioaerosol	Particle size (microns)
Bacteria	1 − 5
Bacterial endotoxins	< 5
Fungi: ascospores and basidospores	2– 10
Amebae: Naegleria spp	10– 35
Amebae: Acanthamoeba spp	15– 45
Amebae: cysts of Acanthamoeba	10– 25
Amebae: cysts of Naegleria	7– 15
Viruses	0.02– 0.3
Dust mites: organisms	225– 520
Dust mites: fecal pellets	10– 35
Pollen: green microalgae (Chlorela vulgaris)	8– 10
Pollen: common names: carelessweed, dioecious amaranth, Palmer’s amaranth, Palmer amaranth, and Palmer’s pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri)	6
Pollen: Timothy grass (Phleum pretense)	22
Pollen: rye grass (Lolium arundinaceum)	40
Pollen: pine (Pinus, 126+ species)	50

Sources: ACGIH 1999; Sporomex 2018

Table 2. Bioaerosols in PM_2.5.

	Field work			Samples
Type	Location	Details	Season	duration (hours)	n	% of PM2.5	Reference
fungal spores and sub-pollen	2 urban sites, 1 rural site Toronto, Canada	Central, 50 m from busy roadway; NW suburban, commercial; rural, 100 km NNW	May, June	22h, n = several		4–11	Womilogu et al. (2003)
proteins	Hohenpeiss-enberg, Germany	On hill 300m above an agricultural area	May	24h n = 15		2.9 ± 1.1	Hock et al. (2008)
proteins	Phoenix, AZ 2 sites	Natural desert: Lost Dutchman State Park; Urban fringe of Phoenix (the suburb of Chandler)	winter spring summer	24h, n = 15, 5 each season		6.3 urban fringe; 19.0, desert	Boreson et al.(2004)
amino acids	Davis, CA	National Acid Deposition Program site, 2 miles SW of city center	annual	24h n = 9		3.3	Zhang and Anastasio (2003)
seven sugars	Jeju Island, w. North Pacific Ocean	Rural, cliff-side site	annual	24h n = 47		0.7*	Fu et al. (2012)
six sugars	Dallas, TX suburban Phoenix, AZ	Urban core (Dallas) Agricultural, suburban (Phoenix)	Jan – July Jan – April	24h n = 57 n = 45		0.6 0.5	Jia, Clements, and Fraser (2010)
arabitol mannitol	17 studies, world wide	Many and varied	?	?		0.15*	Bauer et al. (2008) Zhang and Anastasio (2003)
leaf litter	Los Angeles, CA	Los Angeles	annual	?		0.4*	Rogge et al. (1993) Rogge et al. (1996)
DNA	Germany	Munich, Hohenpeissenberg, & Zugspitze	?	4h n = 14		0.05	Després et al. (2012)
bacteria	?	?	?	?		0.0
Total						16.5**

*reported, not in percentages, but in gravimetric units (ng/m³), then converted to percentages using the Phoenix Supersite 2001–2011 November-January average of 13.99 μg/m³ for PM_2.5

**sum of the following: fungal spores & subpollen, average of 4% and 11% – 7.5%; proteins, average of 2.9% and 6.3% – 4.6%; amino acids, 3.3%; sugars, average of 0.5% and 0.6%, plus 0.15% – 0.6%; leaf litter, 0.4%; and DNA, 0.05% – for a grand total of 16.5%

Table 3. Bioaerosols in PM_10.

	Concentration (ng/m3)
Type of bioaerosol	Additive*	deferred**
I. Seven sugars	100.5
II. Arabitol		44
Mannitol		71
III. Arabitol, worldwide	21
Mannitol, worldwide	23
IV. Proteins, Germany		350
V. Amino acids	302
VI. DNA	7
VII. Bacteria	1.94E-04
VIII. Water-soluble groups	1923
IX. Proteins, metro PHX		1950
X. Fungal spores,pollen	3000
XI. Proteins, avg. IV. & IX.	1150
Total	6,526.5	ng/m3
[PM10] cent. PHX	40	ug/m3
% bio in [PM10]	16.3	%

*additive: values in this column have been added together to produce the sum of 6,526.5 ng/m3

**deferred: values in this column have been omitted from the sum to avoid double counting.

Figure 1. PM_2.5 composition November – January, Phoenix supersite.

Figure 2. Distribution of bioaerosols in PM_2.5.

ACGIH, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1999. Bioaerosols: Assessment and control. ed. J. Macher, Cincinnati, OH: The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

 Google Scholar

Sporomex. 2018. Accessed December, 2018. http://www.sporomex.co.uk/technology/51-pollenspores.

 Google Scholar

Womilogu, T., et al. 2003. Methods to determine the biological composition of particulate matter collected from outdoor air. Atmos. Environ. 37:4335–44. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00577-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hock, N., J. Schneider, S. Borrmann, A. Römpp, G. Moortgat, T. Franze, C. Schauer, U. Pöschl, C. Plass-Dülmer, and H. Berresheim. 2008. Rural continental aerosol properties and processes observed during the Hohenpeissenberg aerosol characterization experiment (HAZE2002). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8:603–23. doi:10.5194/acp-8-603-2008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boreson, J., A. M. Dillner, and J. Peccia. 2004. Correlating bioaerosol load with PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations: A comparison between natural desert and urban-fringe aerosols. Atmos. Environ. 38:6029–41. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.040.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., and C. Anastasio. 2003. Free and combined amino compounds in atmospheric fine particles (PM2.5) and fog waters from Northern California. Atmos. Environ. 37:2247–58. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00127-4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fu, P., K. Kawamura, M. Kobayashi, and B. R. T. Simoneit. 2012. Seasonal variations of sugars in atmospheric particulate matter from Gosan, Jeju Island: Significant contributions of airborne pollen and Asian dust in spring. Atmos. Environ. 55:234–39. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.061.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jia, Y., A. L. Clements, and M. P. Fraser. 2010. Saccharide composition in atmospheric particulate matter in the southwest US and estimates of source contributions. J. Aerosol Sci. 41:62–73. doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2009.08.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bauer, H., M. Claeys, R. Vermeylen, E. Schueller, G. Weinke, A. Berger, and H. Puxbaum. 2008. Arabitol and mannitol as tracers for the quantification of airborne fungal spores. Atmos. Environ. 42:588–93. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rogge, W., L. M. Hildemann, M. A. Mazurek, G. R. Cass, and B. R. T. Simoneit. 1993. Sources of fine organic aerosol. 4. particulate abrasion products from leaf surfaces of urban plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27:2700–13. doi:10.1021/es00049a008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rogge, W., L. M. Hildemann, M. A. Mazurek, G. R. Cass, and B. R. T. Simoneit. 1996. Mathematical modeling of atmospheric fine particle-associated primary organic compound concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. 101 (no. D14):19,379–19,394, August 27. doi:10.1029/95JD02050.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Després, V. R., J. A. Huffman, S. M. Burrows, C. Hoose, A. Safatov, G. Buryak, J. Fröhlich-Nowoisky, W. Elbert, M. Andreae, U. Pöschl, et al. 2012. Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: A review. Tellus B 64: 857–95.

 Google Scholar