Author
Listed:
- Maria Pilar Plaza
(Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Helmholtz Center Munich—German Research Center for Environmental Health, 86156 Augsburg, Germany)
- Franziska Kolek
(Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Helmholtz Center Munich—German Research Center for Environmental Health, 86156 Augsburg, Germany)
- Vivien Leier-Wirtz
(Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Helmholtz Center Munich—German Research Center for Environmental Health, 86156 Augsburg, Germany)
- Jens Otto Brunner
(Health Care Operations/Health Information Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86159 Augsburg, Germany)
- Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann
(Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Helmholtz Center Munich—German Research Center for Environmental Health, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Christine Kühne—Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE), 7265 Davos, Switzerland)
- Athanasios Damialis
(Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany
Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)
Abstract
Airborne pollen monitoring has been an arduous task, making ecological applications and allergy management virtually disconnected from everyday practice. Over the last decade, intensive research has been conducted worldwide to automate this task and to obtain real-time measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate such an automated biomonitoring system vs. the conventional ‘gold-standard’ Hirst-type technique, attempting to assess which may more accurately provide the genuine exposure to airborne pollen. Airborne pollen was monitored in Augsburg since 2015 with two different methods, a novel automatic Bio-Aerosol Analyser, and with the conventional 7-day recording Hirst-type volumetric trap, in two different sites. The reliability, performance, accuracy, and comparability of the BAA500 Pollen Monitor (PoMo) vs. the conventional device were investigated, by use of approximately 2.5 million particles sampled during the study period. The observations made by the automated PoMo showed an average accuracy of approximately 85%. However, it also exhibited reliability problems, with information gaps within the main pollen season of between 17 to 19 days. The PoMo automated algorithm had identification issues, mainly confusing the taxa of Populus , Salix and Tilia . Hirst-type measurements consistently exhibited lower pollen abundances (median of annual pollen integral: 2080), however, seasonal traits were more comparable, with the PoMo pollen season starting slightly later (median: 3 days), peaking later (median: 5 days) but also ending later (median: 14 days). Daily pollen concentrations reported by Hirst-type traps vs. PoMo were significantly, but not closely, correlated ( r = 0.53–0.55), even after manual classification. Automatic pollen monitoring has already shown signs of efficiency and accuracy, despite its young age; here it is suggested that automatic pollen monitoring systems may be more effective in capturing a larger proportion of the airborne pollen diversity. Even though reliability issues still exist, we expect that this new generation of automated bioaerosol monitoring will eventually change the aerobiological era, as known for almost 70 years now.
Suggested Citation
Maria Pilar Plaza & Franziska Kolek & Vivien Leier-Wirtz & Jens Otto Brunner & Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann & Athanasios Damialis, 2022.
"Detecting Airborne Pollen Using an Automatic, Real-Time Monitoring System: Evidence from Two Sites,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2471-:d:754802
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2471-:d:754802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.