Published in

Springer, Aerobiologia, 1(39), p. 143-148, 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s10453-023-09782-x

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Accuracy of a hand-held resistance-free flowmeters for flow adjustments of Hirst-Type pollen traps

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractThe Hirst-type pollen trap (1952) is the most common device for aerobiological measurements of pollen and fungal spores in ambient air. In the 1960s the in-line flowmeter was removed and studies since then showed considerable variability in the airflow pumped through the instrument when using hand-held rotameters with an internal airflow resistance to adjust flowrates. To avoid this problem, our study compared the variability of airflow rates of Hirst-type traps when using commercially-available low-resistance airflow meters (heat anemometers) at various timescales. Experiments were conducted in Munich (Germany) and Payerne (Switzerland), using 4 different easyFlux® instruments and 6 Hirst-type pollen traps. Measurements were taken on an hourly basis from dawn to dusk at both locations, and in addition at Payerne, weekly observations over a period of one year. When using the common hand-held rotameters (with airflow resistance) the flow was 28.3% lower than with resistance-free flowmeter (i.e., measured 10 L/min which was in reality 12.8 L/min). The coefficient of variation between the four easyFlux® devices ranged from 0.32% to 1.55% over one day and from 2.88% to 8.17% over an entire year. Some of the traps showed surprising flow variations during the day. Furthermore, flowrates deviated more when measurements were made at the point where the double-sided tape is behind the orifice than elsewhere on the drum. The measurements away from this point are representative of the flow rates for most of the period of operation and flow calibration should thus be carried out away from this point, contrary to the current procedure.