Show simple item record

Comparative particle recoveries by the retracting rotorod, rotoslide and Burkard spore trap sampling in a compact array

dc.contributor.authorSolomon, William R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-11T19:27:20Z
dc.date.available2006-09-11T19:27:20Z
dc.date.issued1980-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationSolomon, W. R.; (1980). "Comparative particle recoveries by the retracting rotorod, rotoslide and Burkard spore trap sampling in a compact array." International Journal of Biometeorology 24(2): 107-116. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/47842>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1432-1254en_US
dc.identifier.issn0020-7128en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/47842
dc.description.abstractAn array comprising 4 intermittent (retracting) rotorods, 3 (“swingshield”) rotoslides and one Burkard (Hirst) automatic volumetric spore trap was operated on an urban rooftop during 70 periods of 9, 15 or 24 hours in late summer. Standard sampling procedures were utilized and recoveries of pollens as well as spores of Alternaria, Epicoccum, Pithomyces and Ganoderma species compared. Differences between paired counts from each sampler type showed variances increasing with levels of particle prevalence (and deposition). In addition, minimal, non-random, side-to-side and intersampler differences were noted for both impactor types. Exclusion of particles between operating intervals by rotoslides and rotorods was virtually complete. Spore trap recoveries for all particle categories, per m 3 , exceeded those by both impactors. The greatest (7-fold) difference was noted for the smallest type examined ( Ganoderma ). For ragweed pollen, an overall spore trap/impactor ratio approached 1.5. Rain effects were difficult to discern but seemed to influence rotoslides least. Overall differences between impactors were quite small but generally favored the rotoslide in this comparison. Our data confirm the relative advantages of suction traps for small particles. Both impactors and spore traps are suited to pollen and large spore collection, and, with some qualification, data from both may be compared.en_US
dc.format.extent775062 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherSpringer-Verlag; Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.en_US
dc.subject.otherLife Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherAnimal Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.otherPlant Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.otherEnvironmental Medicineen_US
dc.titleComparative particle recoveries by the retracting rotorod, rotoslide and Burkard spore trap sampling in a compact arrayen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNatural Resources and Environmenten_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSection of Allergy, Dept. of Internal Medicine, (Medical School) and Dept. of Epidemiology (School of Public Health), University of Michigan, 48109, Ann Arbor, Mich., USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47842/1/484_2005_Article_BF02253798.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02253798en_US
dc.identifier.sourceInternational Journal of Biometeorologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.