Optimizing DNA Yield in Filter-Based Bioaerosol Sampling: A Comprehensive Guide for Biomedical Research

Abstract

Filter-based sampling is a cornerstone for collecting airborne microbial DNA, crucial for public health surveillance, pathogen detection, and ecological studies. However, the ultra-low biomass nature of air samples poses significant challenges for obtaining sufficient, high-quality genetic material for downstream molecular analyses. This article synthesizes current research to provide a comprehensive framework for improving DNA yield. It explores the foundational principles of bioaerosol sampling, presents optimized methodological protocols, details troubleshooting strategies for common pitfalls, and validates approaches through comparative studies. Designed for researchers and drug development professionals, this guide aims to bridge the gap between sampling theory and practical application, enabling more reliable and robust bioaerosol data for biomedical and clinical research.

The Bioaerosol DNA Challenge: Why Filter-Based Sampling Demands Precision

Understanding the Ultra-Low Biomass Environment of Air

The study of airborne microbial communities, existing in an ultra-low biomass environment, presents a significant analytical challenge. The atmosphere contains microbial cell concentrations that can be as low as 10^2 to 10^4 cells/m³, creating a biomass density that is several orders of magnitude lower than terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems [1] [2]. This low inherent biomass complicates the collection of sufficient genetic material for robust molecular analysis, necessitating highly optimized protocols from sampling through to DNA sequencing. Filter-based sampling has emerged as a predominant method for bioaerosol collection due to its high collection efficiency (>95% for particles >0.5 µm) and operational simplicity [3] [4]. The overarching goal of these protocols is to maximize DNA yield and integrity while minimizing contamination and bias, thereby enabling high-resolution metagenomic or marker gene analyses that can provide species-level identification of airborne microorganisms [1] [5]. This document outlines a comprehensive, optimized pipeline to address these challenges, providing detailed methodologies for improved DNA recovery from filter-based bioaerosol sampling.

Optimized Sampling Parameters

Amassment: Flow Rate and Duration

The initial and most critical step is the efficient amassment of particulate matter from a large volume of air. The key parameters—flow rate and sampling duration—must balance the need for sufficient biomass collection with the practical considerations of temporal resolution and sampler performance.

• Sampling Duration: Experiments comparing sequential short-duration samples with a single long-duration sample have demonstrated that DNA yield increases consistently with sampling time, with no notable loss of DNA yield observed for durations ranging from 15 minutes to 3 hours [1]. Furthermore, combining two successive 15-minute filter samples yields a microbial taxonomic profile that mirrors that of a single 30-minute sample collected in parallel, indicating that community structure is not significantly altered by segmenting sampling time within this range [1]. For studies requiring longer sampling times, such as 24-hour monitoring, a single continuous sample is effective for obtaining sufficient DNA for genomic applications [3] [6].

• Flow Rate and Volume: DNA yield and the copy number of marker genes (16S and 18S rRNA) increase as a function of the total air volume sampled [1]. While higher flow rates (e.g., 300 L/min) may exhibit a slight diminishing return in collection efficiency per unit volume compared to lower rates (e.g., 100 L/min), the total biomass collected per unit of time is still superior [1]. This allows for a higher temporal resolution, which is crucial for capturing diel dynamics in airborne microbial communities. It is important to note that the community structure and richness are not significantly different for samples collected with different flow rates, ensuring qualitative data consistency [1].

Table 1: Optimization of Amassment Parameters for Bioaerosol Sampling

Parameter	Tested Range	Optimal Recommendation	Impact on DNA Yield & Quality
Sampling Duration	15 min – 24 hours	2-3 hours for high temporal resolution; 24 hours for maximum yield from low-concentration environments [1] [3]	Consistent increase in DNA yield with duration; no significant change in community profile for shorter durations [1].
Flow Rate	100 – 300 L/min	300 L/min to maximize biomass per unit time, accepting a slight efficiency trade-off [1].	Higher total volume sampled increases DNA yield; flow rate itself does not alter community structure [1].
Total Air Volume	12 – 36 m³ (over 2 hrs)	Maximize volume within sampler and time constraints.	Direct positive correlation with DNA yield and marker gene copy numbers [1].

Filter Material Selection

The choice of filter material is paramount, as it influences collection efficiency, particle retention, and the subsequent ease of DNA extraction. Different filter types have distinct physicochemical properties that affect their performance.

• Polycarbonate (PC) and Polyethersulfone (PES) Membranes: These membrane filters are often optimal for genomic studies. Polycarbonate filters, which are flat filters that collect particles on the surface, have been reported to give high DNA recovery [4]. Polyethersulfone (PES) membrane filters (0.22 µm pore size) have been demonstrated to recover sufficient DNA (e.g., up to 4 ng from a 24-hour sample) for genomic applications [3] [6]. Their structure facilitates efficient downstream processing.

• Comparison with Other Filters: Studies comparing filter types show that glass fiber (GF) and gelatin (Gel) filters may not perform as well as polycarbonate or PES in terms of DNA yield for molecular analysis [4]. Gelatin filters, while having high retention rates for microorganisms and viruses, may present challenges in handling and DNA extraction [2].

Table 2: Comparison of Filter Types for Bioaerosol DNA Sampling

Filter Type	Key Characteristics	Advantages	Disadvantages
Polycarbonate (PC)	Flat, surface-collecting membrane [4].	High DNA recovery; particles collected on surface ease elution [4].	--
Polyethersulfone (PES)	Membrane filter with high flow rates and protein binding resistance [3] [7].	Good DNA recovery; used in validated protocols for low biomass [3] [6].	--
Glass Fiber (GF)	Fibrous, depth-collecting filter [4].	High particulate load capacity.	Lower DNA recovery compared to PC; particles trapped within matrix can be harder to elute [4].
Gelatin	Membrane filter that can dissolve [4].	High retention for microbes and viruses; dissolves for processing [2].	Can be difficult to handle; may require specific protocols for dissolution and inhibition removal [4].

Sample Storage and Preservation

Maintaining sample integrity between collection and processing is critical. Investigations have compared instant processing with storage at -20°C and at room temperature (e.g., ~23°C) for up to 5 days [1].

• Freezer Storage (-20°C): No significant differences are observed between freshly processed samples and those stored at -20°C for several days in terms of both DNA quantity (Qubit, qPCR) and qualitative community profiles (metagenomics) [1]. This makes temporary freezer storage a viable and practical option.

• Room Temperature Storage: Samples stored at room temperature for 5 days show a significant loss (20-30%) in DNA quantity and minor but statistically significant changes in microbial community composition [1]. However, there is no significant loss in the number of species detected (richness), implying that microbial growth on the filter is impeded. This enables sample collection during field surveys where refrigeration is not immediately available, with the understanding that some quantitative bias may be introduced [1].

Laboratory Processing and DNA Extraction

Biomass Retrieval and Concentration

For filter-based samples, the initial step of removing biomass from the collection filter is often the most critical and limiting for maximizing yield in ultra-low biomass scenarios [1]. Direct DNA extraction on the filter itself is often inefficient, as the filter substrate can absorb lysis buffer and inhibit complete cell lysis.

A more effective method involves a two-step concentration process:

• Filter Washing: The primary air filter is washed in a buffer solution, such as phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), sometimes with a detergent additive like Triton-X-100, to dislodge and suspend the collected biomass [1].
• Secondary Concentration: The resulting suspension is then concentrated onto a secondary membrane with a smaller pore size (e.g., a 0.2 µm PES or Anodisc filter) [1]. This secondary membrane, with its much smaller surface area and trapped biomass, is then used for the DNA extraction process, significantly improving lysis buffer contact and DNA recovery.

Enhanced Cell Lysis and DNA Extraction

Given the low starting biomass, the DNA extraction protocol must be highly efficient. Standard kit protocols can be enhanced with additional lysis steps.

• Sonication and Thermal Incubation: The addition of a water-bath sonication step (e.g., at 65°C for 30 minutes) before the standard bead-beating in commercial kits can significantly improve DNA yield [7]. This combined physical and thermal stress helps to disrupt resilient cell walls, particularly of Gram-positive bacteria, freeing more DNA for purification.

• Commercial Kits: Several commercial DNA extraction kits are suitable, but they must be selected for their efficiency and compatibility with the filter type. Studies have successfully used and compared kits from manufacturers such as MOBIO (Power Water Kit) and Qiagen [3] [7]. The optimal kit should be validated for the specific filter and sample type.

Table 3: Optimized DNA Extraction and Analysis Protocol

Step	Protocol Detail	Rationale & Optimization
1. Biomass Retrieval	Wash primary filter in PBS (with 0.01% Triton-X) with vortexing or gentle sonication. Concentrate washate on a 0.2 µm PES secondary filter [1].	Significantly improves DNA recovery compared to direct extraction on the primary filter. Detergent aids in particle dislodging.
2. Cell Lysis	Place secondary filter in bead-beating tube. Add lysis buffer from selected kit. Perform water-bath sonication (1 min, RT) followed by thermal sonication (30 min, 65°C) [1] [7].	Enhanced lysis protocol disrupts tough cell walls (e.g., Gram-positive bacteria, spores), drastically increasing DNA yield from low biomass samples.
3. DNA Purification	Complete the protocol of a high-efficiency commercial DNA extraction kit (e.g., MOBIO PowerWater, Qiagen DNeasy).	Follow manufacturer's instructions, ensuring the kit is designed for environmental samples with potential inhibitors.
4. DNA Quantification	Use fluorometry (e.g., Qubit) and qPCR of 16S/18S rRNA genes [1] [7].	Fluorometry gives total DNA; qPCR assesses amplifiable, microbial-derived DNA, which is more informative for low-quality samples.
5. Downstream Analysis	Shotgun metagenomics or 16S/ITS amplicon sequencing [1].	Metagenomics allows for species-level identification and functional insight without amplification bias [1] [5].

Downstream Analysis and Quality Control

Sequencing Platform Considerations

For ultra-low biomass samples, the choice of sequencing method is important. Both metagenomic and marker gene (16S rRNA, ITS) sequencing are viable, but they offer different trade-offs.

• Metagenomic Sequencing: This approach involves sequencing all accessible DNA without amplification bias, enabling species-level identification and functional profiling [1] [5]. It is highly suitable for ultra-low biomass analysis when coupled with optimized sampling and extraction, but it requires higher DNA input and is more costly [1] [2].

• Marker Gene Sequencing: Amplicon sequencing of conserved genes (e.g., 16S for bacteria, ITS for fungi) is highly sensitive and cost-effective for taxonomic profiling, but it is subject to PCR amplification biases and cannot achieve the same taxonomic resolution as metagenomics [1].

Contamination Mitigation

The low abundance of target DNA in air samples makes them highly susceptible to contamination from reagents, laboratory environments, and personnel [3]. It is critical to include negative controls at every stage, from sampling with sterile filters through the DNA extraction and library preparation processes. These controls allow for the identification and bioinformatic subtraction of contaminating sequences in downstream analyses.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Reagents for Filter-Based Bioaerosol DNA Studies

Item	Function	Examples & Notes
High-Flow Air Sampler	To draw a large volume of air through a filter for biomass collection.	Portable, battery-powered samplers with flow rates of 50-300 L/min are ideal [1] [3].
Membrane Filters	The substrate for capturing airborne particles.	0.22 µm PES [3] [6] or Polycarbonate [4] filters (47 mm diameter) are recommended.
DNA Extraction Kit	To lyse cells and purify DNA from the collected biomass.	MOBIO PowerWater [7] or Qiagen kits [3] validated for environmental samples.
Lysis Enhancement Reagents	To improve the disruption of resilient microbial cells.	Triton-X-100 detergent for filter washing [1]. Equipment for water-bath sonication and thermal incubation [7].
PBS Buffer	A physiological buffer for washing filters and resuspending biomass without causing osmotic stress.	Prevents bias against Gram-positive bacteria that can occur with pure water [4].
Quantification Tools	To accurately measure DNA concentration and quality.	Fluorometer (e.g., Qubit) for total DNA; qPCR for amplifiable microbial DNA (16S/18S rRNA genes) [1] [7].
ML218	ML218, CAS:1346233-68-8, MF:C19H26Cl2N2O, MW:369.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
MMP145	MMP145, CAS:1025717-75-2, MF:C20H20N2O7S, MW:432.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow Visualization

The reliable analysis of airborne microbial communities in ultra-low biomass environments is achievable through a meticulously optimized pipeline. The key to success lies in the integration of high-volume sampling with appropriate flow rates and durations, the selection of effective filter media, robust sample storage and handling, and a DNA extraction protocol that includes a biomass retrieval step and enhanced lysis. By adhering to these detailed application notes and protocols, researchers can significantly improve DNA yield and quality, enabling insightful metagenomic and marker-gene studies that reveal the composition and dynamics of the atmospheric microbiome.

The reliability of bioaerosol research, particularly for culture-independent DNA-based analysis, is fundamentally dependent on the effective collection of airborne biomass. The inherent challenge of air as an ultra-low biomass environment necessitates that sampling protocols are meticulously optimized to ensure sufficient DNA yield for downstream molecular applications such as shotgun metagenomic sequencing (SMS) and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Among the operational parameters of filter-based air samplers, flow rate, sampling duration, and total sampled volume are critical variables that directly influence the quantity and quality of recoverable genetic material. These parameters are not independent; they interact to determine sampling efficiency, temporal resolution, and the integrity of the collected microbial community. This application note synthesizes recent research to provide detailed methodologies and data-driven recommendations for optimizing these sampler variables to maximize DNA yield in bioaerosol studies.

Extensive research has quantified the effects of flow rate, duration, and volume on DNA yield. The following tables consolidate key experimental findings to guide protocol design.

Table 1: Impact of Sampling Duration and Flow Rate on DNA Yield

Sampling Duration	Flow Rate (L/min)	Total Volume (m³)	Impact on DNA Yield	Key Findings
1 hour [8]	Not specified	~0.1	Average yield of 40.49 ng DNA	The "AirDNA" sampler demonstrated an 85% probability of obtaining ≥10 ng of DNA, sufficient for metabarcoding [8].
8 hours vs. 20-24 hours [9]	16	7.68 vs. ~19	Up to 98% higher yield from sequential 8-hour filters vs. a single 24-hour filter	Long, continuous sampling on a single filter leads to significant DNA loss, likely due to desiccation and degradation on the filter medium [9].
15 min - 3 hours [1]	300	4.5 - 54	Consistent increase in DNA yield with longer duration; no notable loss within 3 hours	DNA yield scales with time, and community structure from sequential short samples mirrors that of a single long sample, enabling high temporal resolution [1].

Table 2: Impact of Sampler Flow Rate and Total Volume

Flow Rate (L/min)	Sampling Duration	Total Volume (m³)	DNA Yield Efficiency	Key Findings
100, 200, 300 [1]	2 hours	12, 24, 36	DNA yield increased with total volume, but normalized yield (per m³) decreased by up to 20% at 300 L/min vs. 100 L/min	Higher flow rates can reduce particle retention efficiency but are favored for collecting more total biomass per unit time, improving temporal resolution [1].
300 [10]	30 minutes	9	Sufficient biomass for SMS	High-volume samplers like the SASS 3100 and ACD-200 Bobcat enable very short sampling times while still providing enough DNA for demanding applications like shotgun metagenomics [10].
150 [6]	24 hours	216	Recovery of up to 4 ng of DNA	A 0.22 µm PES membrane filter in a custom sampler operating for 24 hours can yield DNA quantities suitable for genomic applications [6].

Experimental Protocols for Variable Optimization

Protocol: Determining Optimal Sampling Duration to Minimize DNA Loss

This protocol is designed to quantify DNA degradation associated with long-duration sampling on a single filter [9].

1. Experimental Setup:

• Materials: Multiple identical air samplers (e.g., diaphragm vacuum pumps) with matched flow rates; polyethersulphone (PES) filter membranes (0.2 µm pore size, 47 mm diameter); sterile tweezers; DNA extraction kits (e.g., MOBIO PowerWater).
• Sampling Location: Select a representative environment (e.g., an open balcony with minimal human activity). Record temperature and relative humidity.

2. Sampling Procedure:

• Set up two identical sampling trains side-by-side to sample air in parallel.
• Train A: Operate a single sampler continuously for 24 hours using one filter.
• Train B: Operate a second sampler for the same 24-hour period, but replace the filter with a new, sterile one at 8-hour intervals. This will yield three sequential 8-hour filters.
• Ensure the flow rate (e.g., 16 L/min) is calibrated and identical for all samplers.

3. DNA Extraction and Analysis:

• Extract DNA from the single 24-hour filter (Train A) following a standard protocol.
• Extract DNA from each of the three 8-hour filters (Train B) individually.
• Pooling: Combine the eluted DNA from the three 8-hour extractions into a single, pooled DNA sample.
• Quantification: Quantify the total DNA yield from the 24-hour filter and the pooled 8-hour sample using a fluorometer (e.g., Qubit). Compare the yields.
• qPCR Confirmation: Perform qPCR targeting bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal 18S rRNA genes to compare gene copy numbers between the two sampling strategies.

4. Expected Outcome: The pooled DNA from the three sequential 8-hour filters is expected to show a significantly higher yield (up to 98% more) compared to the single 24-hour filter, demonstrating the substantial loss of DNA recoverability with extended, continuous sampling [9].

Protocol: Evaluating Flow Rate and Total Volume Effects on DNA Yield

This protocol systematically tests how different flow rates and the resulting total air volumes impact the quantity and quality of metagenomic DNA [1].

1. Experimental Setup:

• Materials: A high-volume air sampler with adjustable flow rate (e.g., capable of 100-300 L/min); a consistent set of filters (e.g., electret filters); calibration equipment for flow rate.
• Sampling Location: A consistent outdoor location to minimize environmental variability.

2. Sampling Procedure:

• Fix the sampling duration to a constant period, for example, 2 hours.
• Systematically vary the sampler's flow rate across multiple sampling runs. For instance, conduct separate sampling events at 100 L/min, 200 L/min, and 300 L/min.
• This will result in total sampled volumes of 12 m³, 24 m³, and 36 m³, respectively.
• Perform multiple replicates for each flow rate condition to ensure statistical power.

3. DNA Extraction and Analysis:

• Process all filters using an optimized, consistent DNA extraction method (e.g., the MetaSUB method, which includes mechanical, chemical, and enzymatic lysis) [11].
• Absolute Quantification:
  • Measure total DNA yield (ng) using a fluorometer.
  • Quantify the copy number of marker genes (e.g., bacterial 16S, fungal 18S) via qPCR.
• Normalized Quantification: Calculate the DNA yield per cubic meter of air (ng/m³) for each flow rate to assess collection efficiency.
• Community Analysis: Perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing or 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing on a subset of samples to compare microbial community structure (e.g., using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity and Jaccard richness) across different flow rates.

4. Expected Outcome: Total DNA yield and gene copy numbers will increase with higher total air volume. However, the normalized yield (per m³) may show a diminishing return (up to 20% decrease) at the highest flow rate due to reduced particle retention efficiency. Critically, the microbial community structure and richness should not be significantly biased by the flow rate, validating the use of higher flow rates for improved temporal resolution [1].

Workflow Diagram: Optimizing Sampler Variables for DNA Yield

The following diagram synthesizes the experimental findings into a logical decision-making workflow for planning a bioaerosol sampling campaign focused on DNA yield.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and their specific functions in bioaerosol sampling and DNA extraction, as identified in the cited research.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Bioaerosol DNA Studies

Item	Specific Function & Application
Electret Filters (e.g., from SASS 3100 or ACD-200 Bobcat)	Microfibrous filters with a permanent electric charge that enhances particle collection efficiency via electrostatic attraction, enabling high flow rates and high biomass recovery [10].
Polyethersulphone (PES) Membrane Filters (0.22 µm pore size, 47 mm)	Low-protein-binding membrane filters used for direct air sampling or as a secondary concentration membrane during filter processing; suitable for DNA recovery [6] [1].
MOBIO PowerWater DNA Extraction Kit	Commercial kit optimized for extracting DNA from low-biomass water samples; frequently adapted and used as a base for bioaerosol filter extraction protocols [9].
Multi-Enzyme Cocktail (MetaPolyzyme)	A lytic enzyme mixture targeting bacterial and fungal cell walls. Used in supplemental lysis steps to improve DNA yield from a wider range of microorganisms in complex communities [11].
Triton-X 100 Detergent	A non-ionic surfactant added to phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) during the filter washing step to help dislodge particles and biomass from the filter substrate, thereby improving recovery [1].
AMPure XP Beads	Magnetic SPRI (solid-phase reversible immobilization) beads used for post-extraction DNA clean-up and concentration, often replacing silica spin columns in modified protocols to improve recovery of low-concentration DNA [11].
Molibresib	Molibresib, CAS:1260907-17-2, MF:C22H22ClN5O2, MW:423.9 g/mol
mPGES1-IN-8	mPGES1-IN-8, CAS:1381846-21-4, MF:C16H19ClN4O2, MW:334.80 g/mol

In the field of bioaerosol research, the efficient capture of DNA is paramount for downstream molecular analyses such as PCR and next-generation sequencing. The initial sampling step—particularly the choice of filter material and pore size—serves as the critical foundation that dictates the success and accuracy of all subsequent procedures. This protocol examines the pivotal role of filter selection in maximizing DNA yield and preserving microbial diversity, providing a standardized approach for researchers aiming to optimize their bioaerosol sampling strategies.

Quantitative Comparison of Filter Performance

The choice of filter material and pore size involves balancing DNA recovery efficiency, filtration flow rates, and practical handling considerations. The following tables summarize key performance metrics from published studies to guide this decision.

Table 1: Comparison of Filter Material Performance for Bioaerosol DNA Sampling

Filter Material	Collection Efficiency	Recommended Use Case	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Polycarbonate (PC) [4] [6]	High (>95% for particles >0.5 µm)	Maximizing DNA yield; bacterial bioaerosols	High recovery; flat surface simplifies analysis	May prefer spore-forming microorganisms
Gelatin (Gel) [4]	Information Missing	Viability studies; culture-based analysis	Dissolvable; gentle on cells	Less robust for molecular work
Glass Fiber (GF) [4]	Information Missing	High-volume sampling	Deep-bed filtration resists clogging	May require cutting for extraction; lower recovery than PC
Mixed Cellulose Ester (CN) [12]	Information Missing	Community composition studies	High consistency in community composition	Information Missing

Table 2: Effect of Filter Pore Size on eDNA Recovery (from Aquatic Studies, Illustrative for Bioaerosols)

Pore Size (µm)	Relative Total DNA Concentration	Relative Target DNA (Fish) Concentration	Average Filtration Time	Impact on Biodiversity
0.2 [13]	Highest (3.785 ng/µL)	Highest (5.95E+03 copies/µL)	Longest (32 min 6 s)	Highest (17 fish species detected)
1.2 [13]	Intermediate	Intermediate (1.63E+03 copies/µL)	Intermediate	Lower (10 fish species detected)
3 [13]	Low	Low (4.79E+02 copies/µL)	Short (compared to 0.2µm)	Intermediate (12 fish species detected)
5 [14]	Information Missing	Maximizes target-to-total DNA ratio	Fast	Recommended for macroorganisms
8 [13]	Lowest (0.577 ng/µL)	Low (5.02E+02 copies/µL)	Fastest (2 min 9 s)	Lower (11 fish species detected)

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Comparative Evaluation of Filter Materials for Bioaerosol DNA Yield

This protocol is adapted from a systematic evaluation of bioaerosol collection methods for molecular ecology research [4].

• 3.1.1 Objective: To determine the optimal filter material for recovering sufficient DNA from bioaerosols for next-generation sequencing applications.
• 3.1.2 Materials:
  • Air sampling pump with adjustable flow rate (capable of 2-300 L/min)
  • Filter holders (sterilizable)
  • Test filter materials: Polycarbonate (PC), Gelatin (Gel), Glass Fiber (GF)
  • DNA extraction kit (e.g., Qiagen DNeasy PowerWater Kit)
  • Fluorometer (e.g., Qubit with dsDNA HS Assay Kit) for DNA quantification
• 3.1.3 Procedure:
  • Sampling Setup: Decontaminate filter holders and all surfaces with a DNA-degrading solution (e.g., 10% bleach) followed by 70% ethanol. Perform this in a sterile laminar flow hood if possible.
  • Filter Loading: Aseptically load the different filter types into their respective holders.
  • Air Sampling: Connect holders to calibrated air samplers. Sample air at a standardized flow rate (e.g., 150 L/min) for a defined period (e.g., 1-4 hours), ensuring comparable air volumes across samples. Record environmental conditions (temperature, relative humidity).
  • Post-Sampling Handling: After sampling, carefully retrieve filters using sterile forceps.
    • For PC and GF filters, place each into a sterile tube containing the initial lysis buffer from the DNA extraction kit.
    • For Gel filters, dissolve in a suitable warm buffer as per manufacturer's instructions.
  • DNA Extraction: Process all samples using the same commercial DNA extraction kit, following the manufacturer's protocol precisely. Include negative control filters (handled identically but with no air drawn through them).
  • DNA Quantification and Quality Assessment: Quantify the double-stranded DNA yield using a fluorometer. Assess DNA quality via spectrophotometry (A260/A280 ratio) or by running an aliquot on an agarose gel.
• 3.1.4 Expected Outcome: Polycarbonate (PC) filters are expected to yield the highest quantity of DNA under identical sampling conditions [4].

Protocol 2: Optimizing Pore Size for Targeted DNA Capture

This protocol is informed by studies on environmental DNA that highlight the importance of pore size for enriching target versus total DNA [14] [13].

• 3.2.1 Objective: To identify the filter pore size that maximizes the recovery of target DNA (e.g., from a specific macro-organism) while minimizing co-capture of non-target microbial DNA and inhibitors.
• 3.2.2 Materials:
  • Air sampling pump
  • Filter holders
  • Filters of the same material (e.g., Polyethersulfone - PES) with different pore sizes (e.g., 0.2 µm, 0.45 µm, 1.2 µm, 3 µm, 5 µm)
  • DNA extraction kit
  • Fluorometer
  • Equipment for quantitative PCR (qPCR) or digital PCR (dPCR) for target DNA quantification
• 3.2.3 Procedure:
  • Sampling: Follow the decontamination and sampling steps from Protocol 3.1.3, using different pore size filters to sample air from the same environment simultaneously.
  • DNA Extraction and Quantification: Extract DNA from all filters and quantify the total DNA yield as described in Protocol 3.1.3.
  • Target DNA Quantification: Perform a targeted qPCR or dPCR assay for a specific gene of interest (e.g., a vertebrate mitochondrial gene) on all extracted DNA samples.
  • Data Analysis: Calculate the ratio of target DNA copies (from qPCR/dPCR) to total DNA (from fluorometry) for each pore size.
• 3.2.4 Expected Outcome: Larger pore sizes (e.g., 3-5 µm) are expected to yield a higher ratio of target (e.g., vertebrate) DNA to total DNA, as they capture the larger particles and cells associated with macro-organisms while allowing much of the smaller, non-target microbial DNA to pass through [14] [13].

Workflow: Optimizing Filter Selection for Bioaerosol DNA Studies

The following diagram illustrates the decision-making pathway for selecting the appropriate filter material and pore size based on specific research objectives.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Filter-Based Bioaerosol DNA Sampling

Item	Function/Application	Exemplary Product Notes
Polycarbonate (PC) Filters	High-efficiency capture of bacterial bioaerosols for DNA extraction. Flat surface ideal for microscopy.	Pore sizes: 0.2 to 1.2 µm. Known for high DNA recovery in comparative studies [4].
Mixed Cellulose Ester (CN) Filters	Capturing bioaerosols for community composition analysis via metabarcoding.	Provides high consistency in recovered microbial community composition [12].
Glass Fiber (GF) Filters	High-volume air sampling where clogging may be an issue.	Deep-bed structure holds more particles; may require cutting for DNA extraction [4] [13].
Lysis Buffer Preservation	Immediate stabilization of DNA on filters post-sampling; prevents degradation.	Often contains EDTA, Tris, and detergents. Filters can be stored in buffer at -20°C for later extraction [12].
Silica Gel Desiccant	Dry preservation of filters at room temperature for DNA stabilization.	Effective for room temperature storage and transport; shown to work well for community analysis [12].
CTAB-PCI Buffer	Effective DNA extraction and precipitation from complex environmental samples, aiding inhibitor removal.	CTAB is a cationic detergent that precipitates nucleic acids; effective for eDNA extraction from filters [13].
DNA Extraction Kits	Standardized and efficient recovery of DNA from various filter types.	Multiple commercial kits (e.g., from Qiagen) are available and have been tested for use with bioaerosol filters [6].
Portable Air Sampler	Active sampling of a known volume of air at a controlled flow rate.	Should be capable of high flow rates (e.g., 150 L/min) and prolonged operation (e.g., 24 hrs) [6].
IDO-IN-7	Navoximod|Potent IDO1 Inhibitor for Research	Navoximod is a potent IDO1 pathway inhibitor for cancer immunotherapy research. This product is for Research Use Only and not for human consumption.
NBI-31772	NBI-31772, CAS:374620-70-9, MF:C17H11NO7, MW:341.27 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Filter material and pore size are not merely preliminary considerations but are foundational parameters that directly determine the quantity, quality, and representativeness of DNA recovered from bioaerosols. As evidenced by the protocols and data herein, the optimal choice is contingent upon the specific research question. Polycarbonate filters often excel in maximizing total DNA yield, while mixed cellulose ester filters may provide more consistent community profiles. For targeted studies on larger organisms, a larger pore size strategically enriches the target DNA. By adhering to these standardized protocols and making informed selections from the scientist's toolkit, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and robustness of their bioaerosol DNA studies.

Filter-based sampling is a cornerstone of bioaerosol research for genomic analysis, prized for its high collection efficiency (>95% for particles >0.5 µm) and operational simplicity [3] [6]. The central challenge in this field lies in balancing the need for sufficient biomass collection—often requiring extended sampling times or high flow rates—against the risk of nucleic acid degradation and sample loss that such intensive sampling can introduce. This application note examines the critical trade-offs between extended sampling and sample integrity, framing them within the context of a broader thesis on improving DNA yield. We summarize quantitative findings on sampler performance, provide detailed protocols for assessing DNA stability, and offer actionable strategies for optimizing DNA recovery in filter-based bioaerosol research.

The Competing Forces: Sampling Duration and Nucleic Acid Integrity

The Imperative for Extended Sampling

The atmosphere is a low-biomass environment. Estimates place the average concentration of bacteria at approximately 1.2 × 10⁴ cells/m³ and fungal spores at 7.3 × 10² spores/m³ [3] [6]. To collect sufficient DNA for downstream genomic applications like shotgun metagenomic sequencing, researchers often rely on high-volume air samplers and prolonged sampling times [15]. One study demonstrated that a portable bioaerosol sampler running for 24 hours at 150 L/min using a 0.22-µm polyether sulfone (PES) membrane filter could recover up to 4 ng of DNA, a quantity deemed sufficient for genomic applications [3] [6].

The Risk of Sample Degradation

However, long sampling times and high flow rates are a double-edged sword. The continuous airflow during filter sampling desiccates collected microbial cells, leading to cell rupture and the release of nucleic acids into the filter matrix, where they may be lost during extraction or become more susceptible to degradation [15]. One study on high-volume air samplers found that prolonged continuous sampling reduces species detection, and filter-based collection can show indications of DNA degradation for 1 µm bacterial particles after long-term sampling [5] [15]. Similarly, impactor-type active samplers have shown a decreased recovery of culturable microorganisms over extended sampling times (e.g., 30 minutes versus 2 minutes), attributed to the desiccation of both the collection media and the microorganisms [16].

Table 1: The Impact of Sampling Duration on Sample Integrity from Various Studies

Sampler Type	Sampling Duration	Observed Impact on Sample	Primary Degradation Mechanism
High-Volume Filter Sampler [5]	Prolonged continuous	Reduced species detection	Not Specified
Filter-Based Collection [15]	2 hours	Indications of DNA degradation for 1 µm bacteria	Desiccation
Impactor Samplers [16]	30 minutes vs. 2 minutes	Decreased recovery of culturable microbes	Desiccation
Liquid-Based Samplers [15]	2 hours	Decrease in nucleic acid yields; re-aerosolization	Evaporation of collection liquid

Experimental Protocols for Evaluating DNA Stability and Sampler Performance

Protocol: Assessing Nucleic Acid Stability During Long-Term Sampling

This protocol is adapted from a 2024 study that evaluated nucleic acid stability across different bioaerosol samplers [15].

• Objective: To quantify the degradation of DNA and RNA from specific microbial agents during extended sampling sessions using different sampler technologies.
• Materials:
  • Test Aerosols: MS2 virus and Pantoea agglomerans bacteria.
  • Samplers: A selection of sampler types (e.g., SKC BioSampler, SASS3100, Coriolis μ, BioSpot-VIVAS, Isopore Membrane Filters).
  • Analysis Equipment: Equipment for qPCR or ddPCR to quantify nucleic acid yield.
• Procedure:
  • Aerosol Generation: Generate a controlled aerosol containing known concentrations of MS2 and P. agglomerans.
  • Sampling: Operate the test samplers simultaneously in the controlled environment for a defined period (e.g., 2 hours).
  • Sample Processing: Recover the collected samples from each device according to the manufacturer's instructions.
  • Nucleic Acid Extraction: Extract total nucleic acids from each sample using a standardized kit.
  • Quantification: Use qPCR/ddPCR with specific primers for MS2 and P. agglomerans to quantify the recovered nucleic acids.
• Data Analysis: Compare the quantified nucleic acid yields from each sampler against the reference (isopore membrane filters) and against the known input amount to calculate percent recovery and degradation.

Protocol: Optimized Active Sampling for DNA Extraction

This protocol outlines the construction and use of a custom, portable bioaerosol sampler designed for high DNA yield [3] [6].

• Objective: To collect ambient bioaerosols for genomic DNA extraction while minimizing user-induced contamination.
• Key Materials:
  • Sampler Components: Counter-rotating fan, automotive mass air flow (MAF) sensor, Arduino microcontroller, 3D-printed ABS plastic filter holder, and a hermetically sealed housing.
  • Filter: 47 mm diameter, 0.22 µm pore size Polyether Sulfone (PES) membrane filter.
• Procedure:
  • Sampler Assembly: Construct the sampler as detailed in Table 3 and the associated text.
  • Sterilization: Chemically sterilize all surfaces that contact the filter using alcohol.
  • Field Deployment: Deploy the sampler outdoors. Set a flow rate of 150 L/min for a duration of 24 hours.
  • Filter Recovery: Use the magnetic locking mechanism on the filter holder to quickly interchange filters, minimizing field contact with the sampling surface.
  • DNA Extraction: In the lab, extract DNA directly from the PES filter using a commercial kit optimized for low biomass and a modified protocol (see Section 4.2).

Strategies for Optimizing DNA Yield and Integrity

Sampler Selection and Configuration

The choice of sampler and its configuration directly impacts the quantity and quality of recovered DNA. The following diagram illustrates the key decision points for developing a sampling strategy that balances yield and integrity.

The diagram above shows that optimizing sampler configuration is a balancing act. Research indicates that larger particle size selectors capture a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi [5]. Furthermore, while longer sampling is often necessary, one study found that prolonged continuous sampling reduces species detection [5]. Therefore, pilot studies are recommended to determine the minimum sampling time required to achieve a detectable signal for your specific environment and analytical goals.

Table 2: DNA Recovery and Degradation Characteristics of Different Sampler Types [15]

Sampler Type	Collection Principle	Key Findings on Nucleic Acid Stability
SASS3100	Filtration (Filter-based)	Showed indications of DNA degradation for 1 µm particles of P. agglomerans after long-term sampling.
Isopore Membrane Filter	Filtration (Filter-based)	Similar degradation profile to SASS3100 for bacterial DNA after 2-hour sampling.
Coriolis μ	Liquid-based (Cyclone)	Showed a decrease in nucleic acid yields for both MS2 and P. agglomerans during 2-hour sampling.
SKC BioSampler	Liquid-based (Impingement)	Showed a decrease in nucleic acid yields for both MS2 and P. agglomerans during 2-hour sampling.
BioSpot-VIVAS	Condensation Growth	Displayed reduced sampling efficiency for P. agglomerans compared to MS2 and other samplers.

DNA Extraction and Stabilization for Low-Biomass Filters

The low microbial biomass on air filters demands specialized DNA extraction and handling techniques to minimize loss and accurately assess quality [17].

• Use Magnetic Bead-Based Purification with Carrier RNA: This method is highly recommended for its high recovery rates from low-input samples (<10 ng). The carrier RNA enhances DNA precipitation and prevents adsorption losses during wash steps, which is critical when working with trace amounts of DNA [17].
• Employ Gentle, Enzyme-Assisted Lysis: Harsh mechanical disruption can shear the already limited DNA. Using enzymatic digestion (e.g., with Proteinase K) provides a gentler lysis that helps preserve DNA integrity, especially from tougher fungal spores or gram-positive bacteria [17].
• Optimize Elution Volume: Eluting the final DNA product into a standard volume (e.g., 100 µL) can result in concentrations too low for quantification or library preparation. Eluting into a smaller volume (e.g., ≤20 µL) is crucial to ensure a measurable concentration. Use low-binding tubes to prevent adsorption [17].
• Implement Rigorous QC with Fluorometry: Traditional spectrophotometry (e.g., Nanodrop) is unreliable for low-concentration samples and can overestimate DNA quantity. Use fluorometric quantification (e.g., Qubit with dsDNA HS assay) for accurate concentration measurement, as it is specific for double-stranded DNA and sensitive down to 0.01 ng/µL [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Filter-Based Bioaerosol DNA Studies

Item	Function/Application	Example/Note
Polyether Sulfone (PES) Membrane Filter	Capture of bioaerosols; shown to recover up to 4 ng of DNA in a 24-hour period.	0.22 µm pore size; 47 mm diameter [3] [6].
Quartz Filter	Compatible with standard high-volume air samplers (HVS) for metagenomic profiling.	Enables leveraging existing air quality monitoring infrastructure [5].
Magnetic Bead-Based Kits	High-efficiency DNA purification from low-biomass samples.	Often used with carrier RNA to improve yield from trace samples [17].
Proteinase K	Enzymatic digestion for gentle cell lysis, preserving DNA integrity.	Ideal for tough-to-lyse organisms like fungal spores [17].
Qubit Fluorometer & dsDNA HS Assay	Accurate quantification of low-concentration DNA extracts.	Essential for reliable pre-sequencing library quantification [17].
Portable Bioaerosol Sampler	Autonomous, field-deployable unit for controlled, long-duration sampling.	Can be built with COTS components; allows for programmable flow rate and duration [3] [6].
NCGC 607	NCGC 607, MF:C24H22IN3O4, MW:543.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
NCT-505	NCT-505, CAS:2231079-74-4, MF:C27H28FN5O3S, MW:521.6114	Chemical Reagent

The pursuit of improved DNA yield from filter-based bioaerosol sampling is fundamentally about managing the inherent tension between biomass collection and biomolecule preservation. Evidence consistently shows that extended sampling times, while often necessary, can compromise DNA integrity and reduce microbial diversity detection. There is no universal solution; the optimal strategy depends on the specific research question and environmental conditions. Researchers are encouraged to systematically optimize sampling duration, select filters and samplers based on validated performance data, and employ low-biomass DNA extraction and QC protocols. By thoughtfully navigating these trade-offs, scientists can significantly enhance the quality and reliability of genomic data derived from the aerobiome.

Building a Robust Protocol: From Sampler Selection to DNA Elution

Filter-based sampling is a cornerstone of bioaerosol research for genomic applications, prized for its high collection efficiency (>95% for particles >0.5 µm) and operational simplicity [3] [4]. The critical challenge in this field lies in overcoming the ultra-low biomass nature of air to obtain sufficient, high-quality DNA for downstream molecular analyses such as quantitative PCR (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) [3] [1]. The choice of filter membrane is a fundamental parameter that directly impacts DNA yield and quality, yet researchers often face a complex decision among various filter types. This application note focuses on three commonly used membrane filters—Polyethersulfone (PES), Polycarbonate (PC), and Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE)—providing a structured comparison of their performance based on quantitative DNA recovery, microbial diversity representation, and practical handling. The data and protocols herein are framed within the broader objective of improving DNA yield from filter-based bioaerosol sampling, a key requirement for advancing environmental monitoring, public health research, and drug development involving airborne microbes.

Filter Performance Comparison

The selection of a filter membrane influences multiple aspects of the sampling and analysis workflow. The table below summarizes the key characteristics and performance metrics of PES, PC, and MCE filters, drawing from controlled comparative studies.

Table 1: Comparative performance of bioaerosol sampling filters for DNA recovery

Filter Type	Pore Size (µm)	DNA Yield/Recovery Efficiency	Microbial Diversity Recovery	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
PES (Polyethersulfone)	0.22 - 0.45	- Recovery efficiency: 86% (bacterial consortium) [18]- Yield: Up to 4 ng (24h at 150 L/min) [3]	- Markedly greater bacterial, fungal, and eukaryotic DNA recovery ratios (9.3, 11.5, and 10.3, respectively) vs. other filters [18]- More diverse and richer assemblages [18]	- High quantitative and qualitative DNA recovery [18]- Suitable for prolonged sampling [3]	- Potential for desiccation stress on microbes over long durations [19]
PC (Polycarbonate)	0.22 - 0.45	- Among the highest DNA yields in comparative studies of filter classes [4]	- Good recovery of microbial diversity [4]	- Flat surface morphology facilitates direct microscopic analysis and efficient biomass elution [4]	- Surface collection can lead to overloading; may be less effective for small particles trapped within other filter matrices [4]
MCE (Mixed Cellulose Ester)	0.22 - 0.80	- Recovery efficiency: 48% (bacterial consortium) [18]	- Lower diversity recovery compared to PES [18]	- High protein binding capacity, useful for other analyte types [4]	- Lower DNA recovery efficiency for bacterial targets [18]- May require specialized extraction protocols

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Comparative Filter Testing for DNA Recovery Efficiency

The following protocol is adapted from methodologies used in controlled studies to quantitatively compare filter performance [3] [18].

Objective: To determine the optimal filter membrane (PES, PC, MCE) for maximizing DNA yield and quality from bioaerosols in a controlled environment.

Materials:

• Test Filters: 47-mm diameter PES (0.22 µm), PC (0.22 µm), and MCE (0.22 µm) membranes.
• Sampling Apparatus: A calibrated bioaerosol sampler capable of maintaining a constant flow rate (e.g., 150 L/min) [3].
• Bioaerosol Chamber: A controlled environment chamber for generating consistent bioaerosols [3].
• Positive Control Aerosol: A laboratory-grown bacterial consortium of known concentration (e.g., Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) [3] [18].
• DNA Extraction Kits: Commercially available kits such as Qiagen DNeasy PowerWater Kit or MOBIO PowerWater Kit [3] [7].
• Analysis Equipment: Fluorometer (e.g., Qubit) for DNA quantification, qPCR instrument for 16S rRNA gene quantification, and sequencing platform for diversity analysis [18] [7].

Procedure:

• Filter Preparation: Sterilize filter holders and aseptically load each test filter type into identical, separate sampling units.
• Aerosol Generation: Generate a stable, homogenous aerosol of the bacterial consortium within the bioaerosol chamber. Monitor temperature, humidity, and pressure.
• Simultaneous Sampling: Run all filter samplers in parallel from the same chamber environment for a fixed duration (e.g., 2-4 hours) at identical flow rates.
• Post-Sampling Handling: Aseptically retrieve each filter. For DNA extraction, either process the filter directly or use an optimized biomass elution step.
  • Biomass Elution Recommendation: To maximize yield, wash the filter in a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution with brief water-bath sonication (1 min, room temperature) to dislodge cells. Concentrate the biomass from the wash buffer by filtering through a secondary 0.2-µm PES or Anodisc membrane [1].
• DNA Extraction: Extract DNA from all filters using the same standardized kit and protocol. Include negative control filters (unexposed) to account for contamination.
• Quantification and Quality Assessment:
  • Measure total DNA yield using a fluorometer (Qubit).
  • Quantify bacterial and fungal load via qPCR targeting 16S and 18S rRNA genes, respectively.
  • Assess microbial community composition via 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing (e.g., Illumina MiSeq).

Protocol: Optimized DNA Extraction from Low-Biomass Filters

This protocol outlines an optimized method for extracting DNA from PES filters, which have been shown to deliver high performance [3] [7] [1].

Key Modifications for Low-Biomass Samples:

• Enhanced Lysis: Incorporate an additional lysis step using thermal sonication. Subject the filter in the initial lysis buffer to water-bath sonication for 30 minutes at 65°C before proceeding with the standard bead-beating step [7].
• Pooling Strategy: For very low biomass environments, pool DNA extracts from multiple consecutive sampling filters to achieve the minimum concentration required for sequencing library preparation (typically >10 ng) [7].
• Inhibitor Removal: Use DNA extraction kits specifically designed for environmental samples (e.g., PowerWater Kit) that include reagents to remove PCR inhibitors like humic acids, which are common in air samples [7] [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key materials and reagents for filter-based bioaerosol DNA studies

Item	Function/Application	Example Products/References
PES Membrane Filter (0.22 µm)	Primary collection substrate for high DNA yield and diversity recovery.	Pall Corporation PES membranes [7]; Optimized in controlled studies [3] [18]
High-Flow Air Sampler	Volumetric collection of bioaerosols onto the filter substrate.	Custom COTS samplers [3]; "AirDNA" sampler with ventilation fan [8]
DNA Extraction Kit (Environmental)	Lysis and purification of DNA, removing common environmental inhibitors.	Qiagen DNeasy PowerWater Kit [3]; MOBIO PowerWater Kit [7]
Sonication Water Bath	Enhanced cell lysis for improved DNA yield from low-biomass filters.	Used with thermal incubation (65°C) for 30 minutes [7] [1]
Fluorometer & qPCR Instrument	Quantification of total DNA and specific microbial markers (16S/18S rRNA).	Qubit Fluorometer [7] [1]; qPCR for 16S/18S rRNA gene copies [18] [7]
NDI-091143	NDI-091143, CAS:2375840-87-0, MF:C20H14ClF2NO5S, MW:453.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Nemonoxacin malate	Nemonoxacin malate, CAS:951163-60-3, MF:C24H31N3O9, MW:505.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The systematic comparison of PES, PC, and MCE filters reveals a clear hierarchy for DNA-based bioaerosol studies. Polyethersulfone (PES) membranes, particularly with a 0.22-µm pore size, consistently outperform other filters in both DNA recovery efficiency and the representation of microbial diversity, making them the recommended choice for most metagenomic and qPCR applications [3] [18]. Polycarbonate (PC) filters serve as a strong alternative when a flat surface is required for complementary analyses like microscopy. The adoption of the optimized protocols outlined herein—including biomass elution with sonication and thermal-lysis-enhanced DNA extraction—is critical for translating the theoretical advantage of PES filters into robust, high-yield results in practice. By standardizing these pre-analytical steps, researchers can significantly improve the sensitivity and reliability of their bioaerosol genomic data, thereby accelerating discoveries in environmental science, public health, and drug development.

Configuring Sampling Parameters for Maximum Yield

The accurate analysis of airborne microbial communities is pivotal for public health, environmental monitoring, and drug development. However, the inherent ultra-low biomass nature of bioaerosols presents a significant challenge for obtaining sufficient DNA for downstream genomic applications [1]. Filter-based sampling is a widely used method due to its high collection efficiency, but its success is critically dependent on the configuration of sampling and processing parameters. This application note synthesizes recent research to provide detailed protocols for maximizing DNA yield from filter-based bioaerosol sampling, directly supporting efforts to improve the reliability and sensitivity of air microbiome studies.

Optimized Sampling Parameters

The amassment stage is the first and one of the most critical steps in the bioaerosol analysis pipeline. The following parameters have been identified as key for maximizing yield.

Sampling Duration and Flow Rate

The volume of air sampled, determined by the flow rate and sampling duration, directly influences the quantity of biomass collected. However, the relationship is not always linear, and prolonged sampling can have detrimental effects.

• Optimal Duration: Studies indicate that while longer sampling durations increase total DNA yield, very long durations can be counterproductive. One study found that a continuous 20-hour sampling period on a single filter led to a 98% loss in DNA recoverability compared to sequential shorter samples, likely due to the desiccation and degradation of DNA on the filter over time [9]. Therefore, for extended monitoring, using sequential shorter-duration filters (e.g., 8-hour intervals) is recommended over a single continuous sample [9].
• Optimal Flow Rate: Higher flow rates collect more biomass in a shorter time, improving temporal resolution. Research shows that DNA yield increases as a function of the total air volume sampled [1]. For instance, increasing the flow rate from 100 L/min to 300 L/min over a 2-hour period increased the total DNA yield, despite a slight (up to 20%) diminishment in concentration normalized per air volume, which is attributed to decreased particle retention efficiency at higher flow rates [1]. Thus, forfeiting optimal sampling efficiency in favor of higher flow rates is often justified to achieve the biomass required for high-time-resolution studies [1].

Table 1: Impact of Sampling Parameters on DNA Yield

Parameter	Optimal Range	Impact on DNA Yield	Key Consideration
Sampling Duration	Shorter intervals (e.g., 8h) sequenced over long continuous periods	Prevents massive DNA loss (up to 98% over 20h) [9]	Better to use multiple short-duration filters than one long-duration filter.
Flow Rate	150 - 300 L/min [1] [3]	Higher flow increases total DNA yield, enabling higher time-resolution studies [1].	A slight drop in per-volume efficiency is offset by greater total biomass.
Filter Material	0.22 µm Polyethersulfone (PES) [3]	PES membranes can recover sufficient DNA (e.g., 4 ng in 24h) for genomic applications [3].	Material affects both particle retention and subsequent DNA extraction efficiency.
Particle Size Selection	Larger size selectors	Captures a broader range of microbes, particularly fungi [5].	Critical for representing the full microbial community, not just bacteria.

Filter Material and Storage

The choice of filter substrate and post-sampling storage conditions are vital for preserving the integrity of the collected biomass.

• Filter Material: Studies comparing filter types have identified 0.22 µm polyethersulfone (PES) membrane filters as highly effective for DNA recovery. One optimized protocol using a PES filter at 150 L/min for 24 hours was able to recover up to 4 ng of DNA, a quantity sufficient for genomic applications [3].
• Storage Conditions: Immediate processing of filters is ideal. However, if storage is necessary, freezing at -20°C for up to 5 days is a viable alternative, showing no significant differences in DNA quantity or quality compared to fresh samples. In contrast, storage at room temperature for the same duration resulted in a 20-30% loss in DNA quantity and minor shifts in microbial community composition [1].

Enhanced DNA Extraction and Processing

For ultra-low biomass samples, the DNA extraction process itself is the most limiting step and requires optimized, rigorous protocols to maximize yield.

Filter Processing and Biomass Retrieval

Direct DNA extraction from the air filter is inefficient, as the filter substrate can absorb the lysis buffer. A more effective method involves a two-step process:

• Biomass Removal: The filter is washed in a buffer solution, such as PBS, sometimes with a detergent like Triton-X 100, to dislodge the collected particles.
• Biomass Concentration: The wash solution is then concentrated onto a secondary, thinner membrane with a smaller pore size (e.g., 0.2 µm PES or Anodisc). This method results in significantly higher DNA recovery compared to direct extraction [1].

Sonication and Lysis Optimization

A major breakthrough in DNA extraction from low-biomass filters is the incorporation of a high-temperature sonication step prior to bead-beating.

• Protocol: A 30-minute sonication in a water bath at 65°C before the standard MOBIO PowerWater DNA extraction kit protocol.
• Effectiveness: This enhanced lysis method dramatically increased DNA yields from both high- and low-biomass environmental samples by up to 600% as measured by fluorometry and qPCR [9]. The application of sonication at room temperature for one minute during the filter washing step has also been shown to improve biomass recovery [1].

The following workflow diagram summarizes the optimized end-to-end protocol, from sampling to analysis, as detailed in the application note.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Evaluating Sampling Duration Impact on DNA Recoverability

Objective: To assess DNA loss associated with long-duration filter sampling [9].

Methodology:

• Setup: Employ two identical sampling trains operating in parallel for 24 hours.
• Train A (Continuous): Sample air continuously for 24 hours onto a single filter.
• Train B (Sequential): Sample air for 24 hours, replacing the filter with a new one at 8-hour intervals (resulting in three filters).
• Processing: Extract DNA from the single 24-hour filter. For the sequential train, extract DNA from each of the three 8-hour filters separately and pool the DNA solutions into a single sample.
• Analysis: Compare the total DNA yield from Train A and Train B using fluorometry (e.g., Qubit) and qPCR. A significantly higher yield from Train B indicates substantial DNA loss during long-duration sampling.

Protocol: High-Temperature Sonication for Enhanced DNA Yield

Objective: To significantly improve DNA extraction efficiency from low-biomass filter samples [9].

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: Place the filter (or concentrated biomass from the filter) into the bead-beating tube of a commercial DNA extraction kit (e.g., MOBIO PowerWater).
• Sonication: Before commencing the kit's standard protocol, add the lysis buffer and subject the tube to water-bath sonication for 30 minutes at 65°C.
• Completion: After sonication, complete the remainder of the manufacturer's DNA extraction protocol, including bead-beating and purification steps.
• Quantification: Measure the DNA concentration using a fluorometer (Qubit) and compare it to extractions performed without the high-temperature sonication step. Yields are expected to increase by several fold.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Function/Application	Example Specifications / Notes
High-Volume Air Sampler	Actively draws a known volume of air through a collection filter.	Portable, flow rate of 150-300 L/min; can be built with COTS components [6] [3].
PES Membrane Filter	The substrate for collecting bioaerosols from the air.	47 mm diameter, 0.22 µm pore size; shown to yield sufficient DNA for genomics [3].
DNA Extraction Kit	Lyses cells and purifies genomic DNA from collected biomass.	MOBIO PowerWater Kit; requires protocol modification with added sonication [9].
Water-Bath Sonicator	Provides additional lysis through cavitation and heat.	Critical for ultra-low biomass; used at 65°C for 30 min to boost yield up to 600% [9].
Qubit Fluorometer	Accurately quantifies very low concentrations of double-stranded DNA.	Preferred over spectrophotometry for low-biomass samples due to high sensitivity and specificity [9] [1].
Neorauflavane	4-[(7R)-5-methoxy-2,2-dimethyl-7,8-dihydro-6H-pyrano[3,2-g]chromen-7-yl]benzene-1,3-diol	High-purity 4-[(7R)-5-methoxy-2,2-dimethyl-7,8-dihydro-6H-pyrano[3,2-g]chromen-7-yl]benzene-1,3-diol for research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
NSC23005 sodium	NSC23005 sodium, MF:C13H16NNaO4S, MW:305.33 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced DNA Extraction Techniques for Low-Biomass Filters

The analysis of bioaerosols is critical for understanding public health, air quality, and microbial ecology [5] [3]. A principal technical challenge in this field is the ultra-low biomass nature of air, which results in limited DNA yields from filter-collected samples, thereby constraining downstream molecular analyses such as shotgun metagenomic sequencing [1] [11]. This application note details advanced, optimized protocols designed to maximize DNA yield and quality from low-biomass air filters, providing researchers with robust methods to overcome the significant hurdles of low microbial biomass and high host contamination.

Core Technical Challenges in Low-Biomass DNA Analysis

Analyzing the aerosol microbiome presents unique technical obstacles not typically encountered in higher-biomass environments. The microbial density in air is estimated to be orders of magnitude lower than in terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems [1]. This low biomass, often with a high proportion of non-viable cells, combined with potential contamination from laboratory reagents and instruments, poses a substantial challenge for obtaining sufficient DNA for sequencing [3] [1]. Furthermore, extended sampling durations, while increasing yield, can reduce species detection due to the desiccation and osmotic shock of stress-sensitive microorganisms [5] [11]. Efficiently lysing a comprehensive range of microbial types (e.g., Gram-positive bacteria with tough cell walls and fungi) from a filter substrate is another critical step that requires optimization to ensure a representative microbiome profile [11].

Optimized DNA Extraction Methodologies

The MetaSUB Method: A Comprehensive Multi-Component Approach

The custom MetaSUB method was developed to maximize DNA yield from low-biomass air samples and ensure comprehensive lysis of diverse microorganisms [11].

Key Procedural Steps:

• Total Filter Processing: The entire filter extract is processed, separating into pellet and supernatant fractions. The inclusion of the supernatant is crucial, as it can contain a significant portion of the total DNA that would otherwise be lost [11].
• Combined Lysis Strategy: Biomass is subjected to a multi-pronged lysis approach:
  • Chemical Lysis: Using a lysis buffer containing guanidine salts [20].
  • Enzymatic Lysis: Supplementing with a multi-enzyme cocktail (e.g., MetaPolyzyme) to target resilient cell walls of bacteria and fungi [11].
  • Mechanical Lysis: Utilizing bead beating for physical disruption [11].
• DNA Purification and Concentration: The lysate is purified and concentrated using a silica membrane column or magnetic beads, followed by washing and elution in a low-ionic-strength buffer [20] [11].

Performance: Benchmarking with subway air samples showed that the MetaSUB method obtained drastically improved DNA yields and reported higher microbial diversity compared to other methods [11].

Supernatant and Pellet Fractionation for Maximum Yield

A critical finding in low-biomass research is that a significant amount of DNA can be lost in the supernatant if the entire filter extract is not processed.

Experimental Protocol:

• After placing the filter in a buffer solution and vortexing, the extract is centrifuged to create a pellet (P) and supernatant (S) fraction [11].
• These fractions are processed separately through the DNA isolation protocol.
• The resulting DNA from both fractions can be sequenced individually or pooled.

Outcome: Sequencing of the P and S fractions from subway air samples revealed overall similar but non-identical taxonomic compositions. Omitting the supernatant fraction can bias the microbiome profile and lead to a substantial loss of DNA yield [11].

Enhanced Biomass Recovery with Agar Solution

For extremely low-biomass specimens, such as skin or air filters, the use of a sampling or extraction solution containing agar can significantly improve DNA recovery.

Procedure:

• Sample Collection/Elution: A solution containing 0.2% (w/v) agar (e.g., AgST) is used to elute the sample from the filter or swab [21].
• DNA Extraction with Agar: Agar is added at the beginning of the DNA extraction process. It functions as a co-precipitant during the precipitation of microbial cells and DNA, reducing loss throughout the extraction workflow [21].
• Lysis without Centrifugation: Enzymatic lysis is performed without a centrifugation step, and the agar helps retain the microbial DNA in solution [21].

Results: This method demonstrated a significant increase in the amount of microbial DNA recovered from low-biomass skin sites compared to conventional solutions. It also reduces the relative abundance of contaminating microbes in the sequencing data by enhancing the yield of true sample DNA [21].

Optimized Filtration and Lysis for Sampler Filters

This strategy leverages routine high-volume air samplers (HVS), demonstrating that existing air quality monitoring infrastructure can be used for microbiome studies [5].

Key Optimizations:

• Filter Material: Quartz or Polyethersulfone (PES) filters are effective for metagenomic profiling [5] [3].
• Particle Size: Using larger particle size selectors during sampling captures a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi [5].
• Enhanced Lysis: An optimized, portable bioaerosol sampler can operate at 150 L/min for 24 hours, recovering up to 4 ng of DNA, sufficient for genomic applications [3]. The DNA extraction involves a critical biomass retrieval step where the filter is washed in a buffer (PBS with detergent like Triton-X) with water-bath sonication, and the biomass is concentrated on a thinner 0.2 µm PES or Anodisc membrane before DNA purification [1].

Quantitative Data and Performance Comparison

The following tables summarize key experimental data from the cited research, providing a comparison of the performance of various strategies and reagents.

Table 1: Impact of Sampling Parameters on DNA Yield

Parameter	Tested Conditions	Impact on DNA Yield & Quality	Key Finding
Sampling Duration [1]	15 min to 3 hours (at 300 L/min)	DNA yield consistently increased with longer duration.	No notable DNA yield loss for durations up to 3 hours; community structure was not significantly affected.
Sampling Flow Rate [1]	100, 200, and 300 L/min (for 2 hours)	DNA yield and marker gene copy number increased with total air volume.	Diminishing return per volume at higher flow rates, but the total biomass collected still favors higher flow rates for time-resolution.
Continuous vs. Interrupted Sampling [7]	1x24 hour vs. 3x8 hour parallel sampling	DNA yield from a single 24-hour filter was lower than the pooled yield from three 8-hour filters.	Suggests potential DNA degradation or loss associated with long-duration continuous sampling on a single filter.

Table 2: Comparison of DNA Isolation Methods for Low-Biomass Air Samples

Method / Kit	Core Lysis Strategy	Key Advantage	Demonstrated Outcome
Custom MetaSUB Method [11]	Chemical + Enzymatic + Mechanical	Processes entire filter extract (pellet + supernatant); comprehensive lysis.	Drastically improved DNA yields and higher reported diversity from subway air samples.
MasterPure Kit [22]	Chemical (Gram-positive optimized)	Effective for Gram-positive bacteria; no binding column.	Successfully retrieved expected DNA yield from mock communities; effective when combined with MolYsis.
Enzymatic Lysis with Agar [21]	Enzymatic with agar co-precipitant	Reduces DNA loss throughout extraction; no centrifugation.	Significantly increased microbial DNA recovery from extremely low-biomass specimens like skin.
DNeasy PowerSoil (Modified) [23]	Bead beating (minimized) or Enzymatic	Can be tailored for High Molecular Weight (HMW) DNA recovery.	Enzyme-supplemented lysis (without beads) favored longer read lengths in nanopore sequencing.

Workflow and Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the optimized end-to-end workflow for obtaining DNA from low-biomass air filters, integrating the key advanced techniques discussed in this note.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Low-Biomass DNA Extraction

Reagent / Kit	Function in Protocol	Application Note
MetaPolyzyme / Lysozyme [11] [23]	Enzymatic lysis; targets resilient bacterial and fungal cell walls.	Critical for comprehensive microbiome representation; used in combination with chemical and mechanical lysis.
Guanidine Hydrochloride [20]	Chaotropic salt in lysis buffer; disrupts cells, inactivates nucleases, enables DNA binding to silica.	Foundational component of many lysis buffers and silica-based purification chemistries.
MolYsis Basic5 [22]	Host DNA depletion kit; selectively degrades human and other mammalian DNA.	Essential for samples with high host content (e.g., nasopharyngeal aspirates); improves microbial sequencing depth.
Agar [21]	Co-precipitant; reduces DNA loss during extraction by improving precipitation efficiency.	Added to sampling solution or at start of DNA extraction (0.05-0.4% w/v) for extremely low-biomass specimens.
Silica-coated Magnetic Beads (MagneSil) [20]	Purification matrix; binds DNA under high-salt conditions for washing and elution.	Amenable to high-throughput, automated protocols; "mobile solid phase" allows efficient washing.
PES Membrane Filter (0.22-µm) [3] [7]	Filter substrate for collecting bioaerosols from air.	Demonstrates high collection efficiency (>95%) for particles >0.5 µm; suitable for genomic analysis.
NVP-BVU972	NVP-BVU972, CAS:1185763-69-2, MF:C20H16N6, MW:340.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
NVR 3-778	NVR 3-778, CAS:1445790-55-5, MF:C18H16F4N2O4S, MW:432.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Filter-based sampling is a cornerstone of bioaerosol research for genomic applications, prized for its high collection efficiency exceeding 95% for particles larger than 0.5 µm [6]. However, a significant bottleneck in the workflow has traditionally been the sample elution and DNA extraction phase, where irreversible adsorption to the filter matrix and inefficient cell lysis can lead to substantial DNA loss and compromised yield [24] [25]. These challenges are particularly acute in ultra-low biomass environments, such as typical indoor or outdoor air, where the starting genetic material is minimal [26] [27].

Innovative materials, specifically dissolvable filters, are emerging as a transformative solution to this problem. By integrating the filter directly into the downstream molecular workflow, these materials eliminate the elution step, thereby maximizing DNA recovery and streamlining the process [25]. Concurrently, advancements in integrated detection are pushing the frontier towards near real-time monitoring of airborne microbes. This protocol details the application of these innovative materials within the context of a thesis aimed at improving DNA yield from filter-based bioaerosol sampling, providing researchers with a robust framework for advanced aeromicrobiology studies.

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key materials essential for implementing dissolvable filter protocols and integrated detection systems.

Table 1: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Advanced Bioaerosol Sampling

Item Name	Function/Benefit	Key Characteristics
Polyethersulfone (PES) Dissolvable Membrane Filter [6] [25]	Dissolves directly in lysis buffer, removing elution step and maximizing DNA yield.	Amenable to molecular techniques; can recover nanograms of DNA from low-biomass samples.
Guanidinium Thiocyanate Lysis Buffer [28]	Effective chemical lysis for DNA release and stabilization; cost-effective for in-house methods.	Denatures nucleases; forms basis of efficient, reproducible in-house DNA extraction protocols.
Metapolyzyme Enzyme Mix [27]	Enzymatic treatment for enhanced lysis of robust microbial structures (e.g., spores).	Increases DNA yield from diverse microbial communities without introducing significant contamination.
High-Volume Air Sampler (HVS) Quartz Filters [27]	Leverages existing air quality infrastructure for bioaerosol metagenomic profiling.	Enables large-volume sampling; requires optimized DNA extraction protocols for ultra-low biomass.
Tween Mixture (TM) Collection Medium [24]	Preserves microbial viability and culturability in liquid impingement sampling.	Superior to water or PBS for maintaining cell integrity during prolonged sampling.

Comparative Experimental Data

To inform experimental design, the following tables summarize critical quantitative findings from recent studies on sampling and DNA extraction efficiency.

Table 2: Impact of Filter Material and DNA Extraction Method on DNA Yield

Filter Material	DNA Extraction Method	Key Finding / DNA Yield	Reference
Quartz Fiber (HVS)	Phenol-Chloroform	Yielded 4x higher DNA concentration (8 ng vs. 2 ng) vs. commercial kits.	[27]
Quartz Fiber (HVS)	NucleoSpin Soil Kit / DNeasy PowerWater Kit	Lower yield (2 ng) from ultra-low biomass samples on quartz filters.	[27]
Polycarbonate (PC)	Phenol-Chloroform	Recommended for highest bacterial DNA yield recovery.	[25]
Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE)	Not Specified	Showed better performance than PC filters, with lower DNA Loss Percentage (DLP).	[24]

Table 3: Effect of Sampling Parameters on Sample Integrity

Parameter	Condition	Impact on Sample	Reference
Sampling Time	120 minutes (Liquid Impingement)	Significant reduction in bacterial culturability, viability, and increased DNA loss.	[24]
Sampling Time	Prolonged Continuous (Filter)	Reduces species detection in metagenomic profiling; larger particles capture broader diversity.	[27]
Liquid Medium	Tween Mixture (TM) with replenishment	Preserved highest viability (89.91%) and culturability (69.64%) at 120 min.	[24]
Liquid Medium	DI Water or PBS	Lower viability and culturability preservation compared to Tween Mixture.	[24]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Bioaerosol Sampling with a Custom Portable Filter Sampler

This protocol, adapted from M. G. Sabariego et al. (2023), describes the operation of an optimized, portable filtration system for collecting bioaerosols onto dissolvable filters [6].

Application Notes: This sampler is designed for autonomous, prolonged outdoor operation, capturing ambient bioaerosols while minimizing user contamination. The use of a 0.22 µm PES filter is optimal for subsequent genomic DNA extraction.

• Key Equipment:

  • Custom-built portable bioaerosol sampler with a counter-rotating fan, mass airflow sensor, and Arduino microcontroller for flow rate control (150 L/min) [6].
  • 0.22 µm Polyethersulfone (PES) membrane filters.
  • Sterile forceps and filter housings (3D-printed ABS plastic, chemically inert).
  • Temperature, pressure, and relative humidity sensors.

• Procedure:

  • Sterilization: Wipe all sampler components that encounter the filter, including the filter holder and restraint, with 70% ethanol or isopropanol and allow to air dry completely.
  • Filter Loading: Aseptically place a sterile 0.22 µm PES membrane filter into the filter holder using sterile forceps. Securely close the filter housing.
  • Sampler Deployment: Place the sampler at the sampling location, ideally at breathing height (approx. 1.5 meters). Ensure the intake is unobstructed.
  • System Calibration: Power on the sampler. The internal microcontroller will run a 30-second calibration to determine the pressure drop and automatically adjust the fan speed to maintain the desired flow rate (e.g., 150 L/min).
  • Sample Collection: Initiate sampling for the desired duration (e.g., 24 hours). The system will log flow rate and environmental conditions (temperature, relative humidity, pressure) onto a microSD card.
  • Sample Recovery: After the sampling period, stop the sampler. Using sterile forceps, carefully remove the filter from the holder. Place the filter in a sterile, pre-labeled tube for immediate processing or storage at -80°C.

Protocol 2: Direct DNA Extraction from Dissolvable PES Filters

This protocol is optimized for maximum DNA recovery from PES filters by dissolving the filter matrix directly in the lysis buffer, thereby bypassing the inefficient elution step [6] [25].

Application Notes: This method is crucial for low-biomass air samples. The dissolution of the filter integrates the collection medium directly into the lysis step, maximizing the recovery of microbial cells and free DNA.

• Key Reagents:

  • Lysis Buffer (e.g., from commercial kits like DNeasy PowerWater Kit, or a Guanidinium Thiocyanate-based in-house buffer [28]).
  • Metapolyzyme enzyme mix.
  • Proteinase K.
  • Ethanol (70% and 100%).
  • Elution Buffer (e.g., TE buffer or nuclease-free water).

• Procedure:

  • Lysis: Transfer the PES filter from Protocol 1 to a sterile tube. Add an appropriate volume of lysis buffer (e.g., 1 mL) to completely immerse and dissolve the filter. Vortex thoroughly.
  • Enzymatic Treatment (Optional for Robust Microbes): To enhance the lysis of difficult-to-lyse microorganisms (e.g., fungal spores, Gram-positive bacteria), add Metapolyzyme and Proteinase K to the lysate. Incubate at 56°C for 120 minutes [27].
  • DNA Purification: Follow the standard steps of a commercial DNA extraction kit (e.g., DNeasy PowerWater Kit) or an in-house silica-column method [28] from this point onward. This typically involves:
    • Binding DNA to a silica membrane.
    • Washing with wash buffers (often containing GuSCN and ethanol).
    • Eluting DNA in a small volume of elution buffer (e.g., 50-100 µL).
  • DNA Storage: Quantify the DNA yield using a fluorometric method. Store the extracted DNA at -80°C for downstream molecular applications (e.g., qPCR, metagenomic sequencing).

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated experimental workflow, from sample collection to DNA analysis, highlighting the critical role of dissolvable filters.

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The integration of dissolvable filters like PES represents a significant leap forward in bioaerosol genomics. By dissolving the filter, the protocol fundamentally circumvents the primary source of DNA loss—the elution inefficiency from a solid matrix [6] [25]. This is quantitatively supported by studies showing that PES filters can recover sufficient DNA for genomic applications from low-biomass air samples [6]. Furthermore, the move towards leveraging standardized materials, such as quartz filters from high-volume air samplers used in air quality networks, promises to make robust bioaerosol metagenomics more accessible and comparable across studies [27].

For a thesis focused on maximizing DNA yield, the experimental data and protocols provided here underscore several critical considerations. First, the choice of filter material is paramount, with dissolvable membranes and polycarbonate filters demonstrating superior performance for DNA recovery. Second, the DNA extraction method must be optimized for the specific filter type and the ultra-low biomass nature of air samples; phenol-chloroform extraction or optimized commercial kits with enzymatic treatments are recommended. Finally, sampling duration is a double-edged sword: while longer sampling collects more biomass, it can also stress microorganisms and lead to DNA degradation, suggesting a balance must be struck or replenishment strategies employed [24] [27].

The future of this field lies in the deeper integration of sampling and detection. While protocols like the one described for the NIOSH bioaerosol sampler coupled with immediate lysis and RNA extraction exist for specific targets [29], the ultimate goal is the development of fully automated systems. These systems would integrate dissolvable filters with microfluidic chips and biosensors, enabling near real-time, on-site detection and characterization of airborne microbes [30]. This will be instrumental in transforming bioaerosol research from a retrospective analytical exercise into a proactive tool for public health, environmental monitoring, and biodefense.

Maximizing Recovery and Minimizing Bias: A Troubleshooting Guide

Mitigating Sampling Stress and DNA Degradation During Collection

Filter-based air sampling is a cornerstone of bioaerosol research, prized for its high collection efficiency (>95% for particles >0.5 µm) and operational simplicity [3] [6]. However, the process inherently subjects captured microorganisms to sampling stress, potentially compromising DNA integrity and leading to underestimation of microbial diversity and concentration [31] [32] [24]. This application note details validated strategies to mitigate these effects, ensuring the recovery of high-quality genetic material essential for downstream molecular analyses such as shotgun metagenomic sequencing. The protocols herein are framed within the broader objective of improving DNA yield from bioaerosol sampling for research and diagnostic applications.

The primary factors affecting nucleic acid stability during filter sampling are desiccation stress from continuous airflow and physical damage upon impaction [32] [24]. Prolonged sampling times exacerbate these effects, as illustrated in a 2025 study which reported a significant increase in DNA Loss Percentage (DLP) for Escherichia coli when sampling time extended from 15 to 120 minutes [24]. Furthermore, post-sampling handling, particularly storage temperature, critically influences RNA and DNA recovery, with room temperature storage shown to yield approximately half the RNA compared to immediate processing or refrigeration [31].

The following strategies are supported by recent experimental evidence. Key quantitative findings on the impact of sampling duration and storage are consolidated in [31] [24].

Table 1: Impact of Sampling and Storage Conditions on Nucleic Acid Recovery

Factor	Condition Tested	Key Finding	Recommendation
Sampling Time	120 min vs. shorter durations	Significant increase in DNA Loss Percentage (DLP); reduction in culturability and viability [24].	Minimize sampling duration to the extent possible while ensuring sufficient biomass collection.
Storage Temperature	25°C (Room Temp) vs. 4°C (Refrigeration)	~2x less RNA recovered after storage at room temperature [31].	Store filter samples at 4°C if immediate processing is not feasible.
Storage Duration	Up to 1 week	Refrigerated storage (4°C) maintained RNA recovery for up to one week [31].	Process samples as soon as possible; limit refrigerated storage to one week.
Particle Size Inlet	PM10 vs. PM2.5	Larger particle size inlets (PM10) captured a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi [5] [27].	Select a particle size inlet appropriate to the target microorganisms (e.g., PM10 for broader diversity).
Filter Material	Quartz vs. PTFE-coated Glass Fiber	An optimized DNA extraction protocol for quartz filters yielded sufficient DNA for metagenomics [5] [27].	Quartz filters from high-volume samplers are a viable option; compatibility with extraction protocol is key.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Optimized DNA Extraction from Quartz Filters for Metagenomics

This protocol, adapted from a 2025 study, is designed for ultra-low biomass samples on quartz fiber filters, such as those from High-Volume Samplers (HVS) [5] [27].

Key Reagents and Equipment:

• Lysis Buffer: Phenol-chloroform
• Enzymes: Proteinase K, Metapolyzyme
• Commercial Kits: NucleoSpin Soil Kit (Macherey-Nagel) or DNeasy PowerWater Kit (Qiagen)
• Filter portion (approx. 22 cm²)

Procedure:

• Filter Processing: Aseptically cut a portion (~22 cm²) of the quartz filter. Place it in a sterile tube.
• Initial Lysis: Add 3 mL of lysis buffer to ensure complete wetting of the filter. Incubate with gentle agitation.
• Fraction Separation: After initial lysis, two fractions will form—a supernatant and a pellet. Process these separately to maximize yield.
• Enzymatic Treatment:
  • Pellet Fraction: Resuspend in a suitable buffer and treat with a metapolyzyme mixture.
  • Supernatant Fraction: Treat with proteinase K.
  • Incubate both fractions at the appropriate temperature for 120 minutes.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Combine the treated fractions and proceed with a standard phenol-chloroform extraction method, which has been shown to yield 4x higher DNA concentrations than commercial kits alone for these samples.
• Purification: Purify the extracted DNA using a column-based clean-up step (e.g., from the NucleoSpin or PowerWater kits).
• Elution & Storage: Elute DNA in a low-EDTA TE buffer or nuclease-free water. Store at -20°C or -80°C for long-term preservation.

Protocol 2: Comparative Evaluation of Sampling Stress

This methodology outlines the testing of different filters and samplers to assess their impact on nucleic acid stability [24].

Key Reagents and Equipment:

• Test Microorganism: Escherichia coli (Gram-negative representative)
• Samplers: Button Sampler (filter-based), BioSampler (liquid impingement-based)
• Filters: Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE), Polycarbonate (PC)
• Collection Media: Deionized (DI) Water, Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS), Tween Mixture (TM)
• DNA Quantification Kit (e.g., Qubit)

Procedure:

• Aerosol Generation: Generate an aerosol of the test microorganism (E. coli) in a controlled bioaerosol chamber.
• Parallel Sampling: Sample the aerosol in parallel using the samplers and media to be tested.
  • For filter samplers, test different filter types (MCE, PC).
  • For liquid impingement samplers, test different collection media (DI Water, PBS, TM), with and without replenishment to counter evaporation.
• Variable Sampling Times: Conduct sampling over a range of durations (e.g., from 15 min to 120 min).
• Post-Sampling Analysis:
  • Viability & Culturability: Assess using culture-based methods (e.g., colony-forming units).
  • DNA Yield and Loss: Extract total nucleic acid from the sampler's collection medium/filter and the residual liquid in the sampler's vessel (if applicable). Quantify DNA and calculate the DNA Loss Percentage (DLP).
• Data Correlation: Correlate DLP with viability and culturability metrics to determine the least stressful sampling conditions.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Filter-Based Bioaerosol DNA Studies

Item	Function/Application	Examples & Notes
Filter Membranes	Physical capture of bioaerosols.	Quartz Fiber: Compatible with HVS; requires optimized DNA extraction [5] [27]. PTFE: High collection efficiency, low pressure drop, PCR-compatible [31]. MCE (Mixed Cellulose Ester): Showed better performance (lower DLP) than Polycarbonate in comparative studies [24].
Collection Media	Preservation of viability and nucleic acids in liquid-based samplers.	Tween Mixture (TM): With replenishment, preserved highest viability (89.91%) and culturability (69.64%) at 120 min [24]. DNA/RNA Shield: Effective for preserving richer bacterial diversity in field studies [33].
Enzymes for Lysis	Digestion of robust cell walls to maximize DNA yield from filters.	Metapolyzyme: Effective for pellet fractions from quartz filters without introducing contamination [27]. Proteinase K: Optimal activity with 120-min incubation for filter extracts [27].
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Standardized purification of DNA from low-biomass samples.	DNeasy PowerWater Kit (Qiagen): Validated for use with water and air samples [3] [27]. NucleoSpin Soil Kit (Macherey-Nagel): Suitable for challenging environmental samples [27].
Portable Sampler	Autonomous, field-deployable bioaerosol collection.	COTS-based Sampler: Custom-built using commercial parts; capable of 24h sampling at 150 L/min onto 47mm filters [3] [6].
OSI-027	OSI-027, CAS:936890-98-1, MF:C21H22N6O3, MW:406.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow and Decision Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for bioaerosol sampling and analysis, incorporating critical decision points for mitigating DNA degradation.

Diagram 1: Optimal Workflow for DNA-Centric Bioaerosol Sampling

The reliability of bioaerosol metagenomic data is fundamentally dependent on the initial sampling and handling procedures. By implementing the strategies outlined—minimizing sampling time, selecting appropriate filters and inlets, ensuring proper refrigerated storage, and employing robust, validated DNA extraction protocols—researchers can significantly mitigate sampling stress and DNA degradation. These practices are essential for obtaining representative microbial community data and improving DNA yield, thereby strengthening the conclusions drawn from bioaerosol research in public health, drug development, and environmental monitoring.

Filter-based sampling is a cornerstone of bioaerosol research for environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis, prized for its high collection efficiency exceeding 95% for particles larger than 0.5 µm [6]. However, a significant bottleneck persists at the elution and extraction stage, where the inherently low biomass typical of air samples—often as few as 1.2 × 10⁴ bacterial cells/m³—can lead to critically low DNA yields, compromising downstream genomic applications [6] [7]. This challenge is exacerbated by the potential for sample degradation during extended sampling times [19]. Within the context of a broader thesis on enhancing DNA recovery from air samples, this application note details two robust physical lysis methods—sonication and thermal incubation—that can be integrated into existing protocols to significantly improve DNA yield and quality from complex filter-based samples.

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from investigations into sonication and thermal incubation for improving DNA yield.

Table 1: Impact of Sonication on Proteomic and Phosphoproteomic Coverage in Tissue Lysates This data, while from a proteomics study, illustrates the principle of how sonication can improve the recovery of specific, often hard-to-lyse, subpopulations, which is directly relevant to the diverse microbial communities found in bioaerosols [34].

Analysis Type	Condition	Proteins/Phosphopeptides Identified	Notable Improvements
Global Proteomics	Non-sonicated	>12,000 proteins	Baseline
	Sonicated	>12,000 proteins	Improved detection of membrane-bound (~8% increase) and DNA-binding nuclear proteins (~3% increase)
Phosphoproteomics	Non-sonicated	>25,000 phosphopeptides	Baseline
	Sonicated	>25,000 phosphopeptides	Increased number of quantified phosphopeptides; Pathway-specific enrichments observed

Table 2: Optimization of Thermal Sonication for DNA Yield from Bioaerosol Filters Data derived from experiments on environmental bioaerosol filters, showing the direct impact of combined thermal and sonication treatment on DNA yield [7].

Sample Type	Treatment Condition	DNA Yield (Qubit)	Gene Copy Number (qPCR)
Low Biomass (Ambient Air)	Original MOBIO PW protocol (No treatment)	Baseline	Baseline
	Water-bath sonication only (No heating)	Moderate Increase	Moderate Increase
	Sonication + 65°C Incubation	Highest Yield	Highest Copy Number
	Sonication + 75°C Incubation	Decrease vs. 65°C	Decrease vs. 65°C
High Biomass (AHU Filters)	Original MOBIO PW protocol	Baseline	Baseline
	Sonication + 65°C Incubation	Significant Increase	Significant Increase

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Sonication-Assisted Lysis for Improved Protein Recovery

This protocol, adapted from advanced proteomic studies, is highly effective for disrupting robust cellular structures, making it suitable for a wide spectrum of microorganisms captured in bioaerosol filters [34].

• Principle: Application of high-frequency ultrasound energy creates microbubbles that collapse and generate shock waves, physically disrupting cellular integrity and shearing nucleic acids to reduce sample viscosity [34].
• Materials:
  • Lysis Buffer (e.g., Urea-based buffer or commercial DNA/RNA lysis buffer)
  • Sonicator with probe (e.g., tip sonicator)
  • Ice bath
  • Refrigerated microcentrifuge
• Procedure:
  • Transfer the filter containing the bioaerosol sample into a suitable tube containing lysis buffer.
  • Place the tube on an ice bath to dissipate heat generated during sonication.
  • Insert the sonicator probe into the sample, ensuring it is immersed but not touching the tube walls.
  • Sonicate using the following typical parameters:
    • Amplitude: 30-50%
    • Cycle: 10-30 seconds of sonication pulses, followed by 30-60 seconds of rest.
    • Total Process Time: 2-5 minutes.
  • Centrifuge the lysate briefly (e.g., 1 minute at 10,000 × g) to pellet insoluble debris.
  • Transfer the supernatant to a new tube for subsequent DNA extraction or purification steps.

Thermal Sonication for Enhanced DNA Elution from Filters

This protocol combines the physical lysis of sonication with the chemical lysis enhancement of elevated temperatures, optimized specifically for low-biomass environmental filters [7].

• Principle: Heat denatures proteins and disrupts cell membranes, while sonication provides physical shear force. The combination synergistically increases the efficiency of cell lysis and DNA release.
• Materials:
  • Commercial DNA extraction kit (e.g., MOBIO PowerWater Kit, Qiagen kits)
  • Water-bath sonicator with temperature control (e.g., Elmasonic SH250EL)
  • Thermostatic mixer or heat block
• Procedure:
  • Following the manufacturer's guidelines, place the filter sample into the bead-beating tube provided with the DNA extraction kit.
  • Instead of proceeding directly to bead-beating, add the recommended lysis buffers.
  • Incubate the sample tube in a water-bath sonicator for 30 minutes.
  • Maintain the water bath at the optimized temperature of 65°C [7].
  • After thermal sonication, proceed with the remainder of the DNA extraction protocol, including the bead-beating step and subsequent washes.
  • Elute the DNA in nuclease-free water or buffer. For maximum recovery of low-concentration DNA, incubate the elution buffer on the column for 5 minutes at room temperature before centrifugation [35].

Workflow and Pathway Diagrams

Optimized Bioaerosol DNA Analysis Workflow

Experimental Comparison of Elution Conditions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Optimized Bioaerosol DNA Elution

Item	Function/Application in Protocol
Polyethersulfone (PES) Membrane Filter (0.22 µm)	High-efficiency capture of bioaerosols; provides a suitable substrate for subsequent DNA elution with minimal inhibition [6] [7].
Water-Bath Sonicator with Heater	Provides simultaneous application of ultrasound energy and controlled thermal incubation for the Thermal Sonication protocol [7].
Tip Sonicator (Probe Sonicator)	Delivers high-intensity ultrasound energy directly to the sample for the Sonication-Assisted Lysis protocol, ideal for disrupting tough cell walls [34].
MOBIO PowerWater DNA Kit	Optimized for eluting DNA from environmental water and filter samples; used with modification (thermal sonication) in the cited studies [7].
Nuclease-Free Water	Used as the elution buffer in DNA extraction kits; incubation for 5 minutes maximizes DNA recovery from the purification column [35].
Lysis Buffer (e.g., Urea-based)	A potent chemical denaturant that disrupts non-covalent bonds in proteins and nucleic acids, working synergistically with physical lysis methods [34].

Strategies for Overcoming PCR Inhibition in Environmental Samples

The accurate detection and analysis of microbial communities from environmental bioaerosols is a cornerstone of public health, environmental monitoring, and ecological research. Filter-based bioaerosol sampling is a widely employed method for collecting airborne particulate matter and microorganisms from large volumes of air. However, the subsequent molecular analysis, particularly polymerase chain reaction (PCR), is notoriously vulnerable to failure due to the presence of PCR inhibitors co-extracted from complex environmental matrices. These substances can originate from the sample itself (e.g., humic substances from soil, phenolic compounds from plants) or from materials used in the sampling process, leading to reduced amplification efficiency, false-negative results, and a severe underestimation of microbial diversity and abundance. This application note details standardized protocols and strategic solutions to overcome PCR inhibition, thereby improving DNA yield and amplification reliability in filter-based bioaerosol research.

PCR inhibitors are a heterogeneous class of substances that interfere with the biochemical processes of nucleic acid amplification. Their impact can range from partial reduction of sensitivity to complete amplification failure. The mechanisms of inhibition are diverse and can affect different stages of the PCR process.

Common Inhibition Mechanisms

• Interference with DNA Polymerase Activity: Many inhibitors directly affect the DNA polymerase enzyme. For instance, hemoglobin in blood samples can block the enzyme's active site, while humic acids from soil can bind to the polymerase, preventing its proper function [36] [37]. Proteases present in some samples can degrade the enzyme entirely.
• Interaction with Nucleic Acids: Some inhibitors, such as fulvic acids and certain polysaccharides, bind directly to single- or double-stranded DNA. This binding can prevent denaturation, block primer annealing, or impede the polymerase's progression during elongation [36] [38].
• Coffactor Depletion: PCR is dependent on magnesium ions (Mg²⁺) as an essential cofactor for DNA polymerase. Inhibitors like EDTA (a common anticoagulant and component of elution buffers) and tannic acids can chelate Mg²⁺, making it unavailable for the enzymatic reaction [36].
• Fluorescence Quenching: In real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and digital PCR (dPCR), the accurate quantification of amplification relies on fluorescent signals. Substances like humic acid and hemoglobin can quench this fluorescence, leading to suppressed fluorescence readings and inaccurate quantification, which can be mistaken for polymerization inhibition [37] [38].

Bioaerosols collected from environmental settings contain a complex mixture of biological and non-biological particles. Key inhibitors include:

• Humic and Fulvic Acids: These are major inhibitors in samples influenced by soil or decaying organic matter. They are particularly challenging due to their chemical similarity to DNA, which allows them to co-purify with nucleic acids [37].
• Organic and Inorganic Compounds: Samples collected in agricultural or urban environments may contain agrochemicals, heavy metals, and industrial pollutants that inhibit PCR [39].
• Biological Materials: Complex polysaccharides from plant material, bile salts from fecal contamination, and cellular debris from dense microbial communities can all introduce inhibitory substances [36].

Optimized DNA Extraction for Filter-Based Bioaerosol Samples

Effective DNA extraction is the first critical step in mitigating PCR inhibition. The protocol must maximize lysis efficiency and DNA yield while minimizing the co-purification of inhibitors.

Multi-Component Lysis Protocol for Comprehensive Biomass Recovery

This protocol is optimized for low-biomass filter extracts and combines chemical, enzymatic, and mechanical lysis to ensure a representative recovery of DNA from diverse microorganisms [11].

• Materials:

  • Sample: Filter section (e.g., quartz or PTFE-coated glass fiber, ~22 cm²)
  • Lysis Buffer: e.g., from a commercial soil or microbiome kit
  • Proteinase K (20 mg/mL)
  • Metapolyzyme (lytic enzyme mix)
  • Lysozyme (if not contaminated)
  • Bead-beating tubes with 0.1 mm glass/zirconia beads
  • Water bath or incubator
  • Centrifuge

• Procedure:

  • Filter Processing: Aseptically cut a portion of the filter and place it into a bead-beating tube.
  • Initial Lysis: Add 3 mL of lysis buffer and vortex thoroughly to ensure the filter is fully saturated.
  • Enzymatic Lysis:
    • Add Proteinase K to a final concentration of 0.1-0.5 mg/mL.
    • Add Metapolyzyme according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    • Incubate at 56°C for 120 minutes with agitation.
  • Mechanical Lysis:
    • Subject the tube to bead-beating for 2-3 minutes at high speed.
    • Note: Bead-beating is crucial for lysing robust cells (e.g., Gram-positive bacteria, spores) but may fragment DNA. Optimize time based on target organisms.
  • Separation and Combined Processing:
    • Centrifuge the lysate briefly. The sample will separate into a supernatant (containing lysed cell contents and free DNA) and a pellet (containing filter debris and unlysed cells).
    • Process both fractions for DNA isolation. Combining DNA from both fractions has been shown to significantly improve final DNA yield and better represent the microbial community [27] [11].
  • DNA Purification: Proceed with a standard silica-column or magnetic bead-based purification protocol. Use large-volume adaptation kits if the initial lysate volume exceeds standard column capacities.

• Key Considerations:

  • Inhibitor Removal: Silica-based purification is generally effective at removing humic acids and other common inhibitors. For samples with very high inhibitor loads, an additional purification step, such as gel electrophoresis or size-exclusion chromatography, may be necessary.
  • Blanks: Always process blank (unexposed) filters alongside samples to monitor for contamination introduced during sampling or processing.

Strategic Approaches to Overcome PCR Inhibition

A multi-faceted approach is required to ensure successful amplification from challenging environmental samples. The following strategies can be employed individually or in combination.

Chemical and Enzymatic Additives (Amplification Facilitators)

The addition of specific compounds to the PCR master mix can neutralize the effects of many inhibitors.

• Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA): BSA is highly effective at binding a wide range of inhibitors, including humic acids, tannins, and phenolic compounds. It acts as a "competitive target," preventing inhibitors from interacting with the DNA polymerase [36] [38]. Use at a final concentration of 0.1-0.5 μg/μL.
• Betaine: Betaine can help to destabilize secondary structures in GC-rich templates and has been shown to improve amplification efficiency in the presence of inhibitors like bile salts and heparin [36].
• Non-Ionic Detergents: Tween 20 and Triton X-100 can stimulate Taq DNA polymerase activity and reduce false terminations, mitigating the effects of low concentrations of ionic detergents [36].

Selection of Inhibitor-Tolerant DNA Polymerases and Buffers

The choice of DNA polymerase is one of the most critical factors in overcoming inhibition. Different polymerases exhibit vastly different tolerances to inhibitors.

• Engineered Polymerase Blends: Many commercial polymerases are specifically engineered or formulated with inhibitor-resistant properties. These often consist of a blend of a high-processivity polymerase and a binding protein that stabilizes the enzyme.
• Comparative Performance: Studies have evaluated various polymerases across different inhibitory matrices. The table below summarizes the relative performance of selected inhibitor-resistant PCR chemistries.

Table 1: Evaluation of Inhibitor-Resistant PCR Reagents in Different Sample Matrices [40]

PCR Chemistry / Reagent	Whole Blood	Soil	Sputum	Stool	Sand	Key Characteristic
Phire Hot Start II	Good	Good	Moderate	Moderate	Good	General robustness, fast cycling
Phusion Blood Direct	Excellent	Moderate	Good	Good	Moderate	Optimized for direct blood amplification
KAPA Blood PCR Kit	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Consistent across multiple matrices
Omni Klentaq	Good	Poor	N/A	N/A	N/A	Designed for blood and tissue

Sample and Template Dilution

A simple yet effective strategy is to dilute the DNA extract. This reduces the concentration of the inhibitor to a sub-inhibitory level. The primary drawback is the concomitant dilution of the target DNA, which may push low-concentration targets below the detection limit. This method is best suited for samples with a high target DNA concentration [36] [38].

Internal Amplification Controls (IAC) for Inhibition Monitoring

To distinguish true target absence from PCR failure due to inhibition, the use of an IAC is essential for diagnostic accuracy.

• Principle: A non-target DNA sequence is spiked into the PCR master mix at a known, low concentration. This control sequence is co-amplified with the same primers as the target or with a separate primer/probe set.
• Interpretation: In an uninhibited reaction, both the target and the IAC will amplify. If the target is absent (true negative), only the IAC will amplify. If the reaction is inhibited, neither will amplify, or the IAC will show a significantly delayed amplification signal (in qPCR), indicating a failed reaction that requires further cleanup or dilution [38].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Overcoming PCR Inhibition

Item	Function & Application	Example Products / Components
Inhibitor-Tolerant DNA Polymerase	Engineered enzyme blends resistant to common inhibitors in environmental samples.	Phire Hot Start II, Phusion Blood Direct, Q5 Hot Start, KAPA Robust
Enhanced PCR Buffer	Optimized buffer containing facilitator molecules to neutralize inhibitors.	PCRboost, STRboost, BSA (0.1-0.5 μg/μL), Betaine (0.5-1.5 M), Tween 20 (0.1-1%)
Multi-Component Lysis Kit	Kits combining chemical, enzymatic, and mechanical lysis for comprehensive biomass recovery from filters.	MetaSUB method [11], DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (with bead-beating), ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep Kit
Internal Amplification Control (IAC)	Non-target DNA sequence to distinguish true negatives from PCR inhibition.	Commercial IACs, custom-designed competitive templates
High-Efficiency Purification Kits	Silica-column or magnetic bead-based kits designed for efficient inhibitor removal.	DNeasy PowerWater Kit, AMPure XP beads, ZymoBIOMICS DNA Microprep Kit

PCR inhibition in environmental bioaerosol samples presents a significant analytical challenge, but it can be systematically overcome through an integrated approach. This involves employing a robust DNA extraction protocol that maximizes yield and representative lysis, utilizing specialized reagent systems including inhibitor-tolerant polymerases and chemical facilitators, and implementing rigorous quality control through internal amplification controls. By adopting these detailed strategies, researchers can significantly improve the DNA yield from filter-based samples and the reliability of their downstream molecular analyses, leading to more accurate and meaningful data in environmental microbiome studies.

In the field of bioaerosol research, a significant challenge is the inherently low biomass concentration of biological particles in the air, which often results in insufficient DNA yields for downstream genomic analyses [3] [9]. This limitation is particularly problematic for culture-independent methods such as quantitative PCR (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS), which require minimum DNA quantities for reliable results [7] [1]. While common strategies to increase DNA yield include extending sampling duration and improving extraction protocols, these approaches are not always feasible or effective [9]. Extended sampling duration, for instance, can lead to DNA degradation due to desiccation stress on collected microorganisms, potentially causing a net loss of genetic material over time [24] [9]. To address these challenges, the DNA pooling approach has emerged as a practical methodology for concentrating composite samples, enabling researchers to overcome the analytical limitations imposed by low DNA concentrations in environmental bioaerosol studies [9] [7]. This application note details the experimental basis, optimized protocols, and practical implementation of DNA pooling for bioaerosol research, providing a standardized framework for researchers seeking to enhance DNA recovery from low-yield samples.

Experimental Validation and Quantitative Evidence

The foundational research validating the DNA pooling approach comes from controlled experiments that directly compared conventional long-duration sampling with sequential sampling followed by DNA pooling. The key experimental design involved operating two identical sampling trains in parallel for 24 hours [9] [7]. One train collected bioaerosols continuously on a single filter, while the other collected sequentially on three filters that were replaced at 8-hour intervals. DNA was extracted from the single 24-hour filter alone, while extracts from the three sequential 8-hour filters were pooled into a single DNA solution [9] [7]. Quantitative analysis revealed substantially higher DNA yields from the pooled approach compared to continuous sampling.

Table 1: DNA Yield Comparison Between Continuous and Pooled Sampling Strategies

Sampling Strategy	Total Sampling Duration	Relative DNA Yield	Key Findings
Continuous Sampling	24 hours on a single filter	Reference value	Significant DNA loss observed due to extended exposure to air flow and desiccation
Pooled Sampling	3 × 8 hours on separate filters	Up to 600% higher [9]	Shorter exposure per filter minimized DNA degradation; pooling recovered sufficient biomass for genomic applications

A second spike experiment provided further evidence, where known quantities of GFP-tagged Shewanella oneidensis bacteria were introduced onto filters at different time points during ambient air sampling [9] [7]. Filters spiked at the beginning of a 20-hour sampling period showed significantly lower recovery compared to those spiked later, demonstrating that prolonged exposure to air flow directly causes DNA degradation.

Table 2: DNA Recovery in Spike Experiment with Shewanella oneidensis

Filter Spiking Time	Exposure Duration to Air Flow	DNA Recovery Efficiency	Interpretation
At sampling start (0 h)	20 hours	Lowest recovery	Extended exposure to air flow causes substantial DNA degradation
At 8 hours	12 hours	Intermediate recovery	Moderate degradation observed
At 14 hours	6 hours	Highest recovery	Minimal degradation due to shorter exposure

These findings collectively demonstrate that DNA pooling from multiple sequential samples effectively mitigates the degradation problems associated with long-duration sampling, providing a robust method for concentrating sufficient DNA from low-biomass bioaerosol environments [9].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Sampling Optimization for DNA Pooling

The DNA pooling methodology requires careful planning of sampling parameters to maximize efficiency. Based on experimental evidence, the following sampling protocol is recommended:

• Filter Selection: Use 0.22-µm polyether sulfone (PES) membrane filters (47 mm diameter) for optimal DNA recovery [3] [6]. PES filters have demonstrated superior performance for DNA extraction compared to other membrane materials.

• Sampling Duration: Implement sequential sampling intervals of 2-8 hours depending on environmental biomass concentrations [9] [1]. Shorter intervals (2-4 hours) are preferable in environments with higher expected degradation pressures (e.g., low humidity, high temperature).

• Flow Rate: Maintain a consistent flow rate between 150-300 L/min [3] [1]. Higher flow rates (300 L/min) enable better temporal resolution but may slightly reduce collection efficiency per volume of air sampled.

• Sample Replication: Collect a minimum of three sequential samples for pooling to ensure sufficient biomass accumulation while maintaining reasonable temporal resolution [9].

DNA Extraction with Enhanced Lysis

Proper extraction techniques are critical for maximizing DNA yield from low-biomass filters. The following protocol includes optimizations validated for bioaerosol samples:

• Biomass Retrieval: Rather than direct extraction from the filter, first remove biomass by washing the filter in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with 0.01% Triton-X 100, then concentrate onto a 0.2-µm PES membrane [1]. This approach significantly improves DNA recovery compared to direct filter extraction.

• Enhanced Lysis: Implement a high-temperature sonication step (65°C for 30 minutes) before bead-beating [9]. This optimization has been shown to increase DNA yields by up to 600% compared to standard protocols.

• Extraction Kits: Use commercial DNA extraction kits such as MOBIO PowerWater or Qiagen DNeasy with modifications to include the enhanced lysis step [9] [6].

• DNA Elution: Elute DNA in low-EDTA TE buffer or nuclease-free water, using a reduced volume (50-100 µL) to concentrate the final extract [1].

Pooling Methodology

• Quantification: Quantify DNA from each individual extract using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) rather than spectrophotometry, as fluorometry provides more accurate measurements for low-concentration samples [9] [7].

• Pooling Ratio: Combine equal volumes of each DNA extract rather than equal masses, as this approach has shown better reproducibility for heterogeneous environmental samples [9].

• Quality Control: Assess pooled DNA quality using qPCR amplification of universal marker genes (16S rRNA for bacteria, 18S rRNA for fungi) to confirm suitability for downstream applications [9] [41].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive DNA pooling workflow, from sample collection through to analysis:

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for DNA Pooling Protocols

Item Category	Specific Recommendations	Function and Application Notes
Filter Membranes	0.22-µm PES (47 mm) [3] [6]; Gelatin filters [42]	PES offers optimal DNA recovery; gelatin filters are soluble for easier extraction but require careful handling
DNA Extraction Kits	MOBIO PowerWater [9]; Qiagen DNeasy [3]	Optimized for environmental samples; modify protocols to include enhanced lysis steps
Elution Buffers	TE Buffer (low EDTA) [1]; Nuclease-free water [42]	Low EDTA concentration improves downstream PCR efficiency
Lysis Enhancement	Triton-X 100 (0.01%) [1]; Sonication water bath [9]	Detergent improves cell removal from filters; 65°C sonication significantly increases yield
Quantification Tools	Fluorometric assays (Qubit) [9] [7]	Essential for accurate measurement of low-concentration DNA samples
PCR Reagents	16S/ITS primers [41]; PMA dye (for viability assessment) [42]	Universal markers for community analysis; PMA differentiates viable cells

Implementation Considerations

Advantages and Limitations

The DNA pooling approach offers several key advantages for bioaerosol research. Most importantly, it significantly increases total DNA yield from low-biomass environments, enabling genomic analyses that would otherwise be impossible [9]. Additionally, it reduces the bias introduced by DNA degradation during extended sampling periods, potentially providing a more accurate representation of the microbial community [9] [7]. The method also offers flexibility in experimental design, allowing researchers to balance temporal resolution with analytical sensitivity through adjustment of sampling intervals [1].

However, researchers should also consider several limitations. The pooling approach necessarily reduces temporal resolution, as individual time points are combined [9]. There is also an increase in laboratory processing time and consumable usage due to multiple extractions [7]. Additionally, any systematic errors in individual extractions are propagated through the pooling process, potentially affecting final results [9].

Applicability to Different Research Scenarios

The DNA pooling method is particularly well-suited for several research scenarios. In longitudinal studies with stable microbial communities, where temporal resolution can be sacrificed for comprehensive community analysis, pooling provides an efficient strategy [1]. For baseline assessments of low-biomass environments like outdoor air or clean rooms, where biomass concentrations are consistently minimal, pooling may be essential for obtaining sufficient DNA [3] [6]. The method is also valuable in method validation studies, where maximum DNA recovery is prioritized over temporal dynamics [42].

The DNA pooling approach represents a significant methodological advancement for bioaerosol research, effectively addressing the critical challenge of low DNA yield in filter-based sampling. By combining sequential sampling with optimized extraction and pooling protocols, researchers can successfully recover sufficient DNA for sophisticated genomic applications, including qPCR and next-generation sequencing. The experimental evidence demonstrates that this approach not only increases total DNA yield but also mitigates the degradation effects associated with long-duration sampling. As molecular analyses continue to drive advancements in aeromicrobiology, the DNA pooling methodology provides an essential tool for uncovering the composition, dynamics, and functional potential of airborne microbial communities.

Benchmarking Performance: Validating Your Optimized Workflow

Bioaerosol sampling serves as a critical first step in understanding airborne microbial communities for public health, ecological studies, and pharmaceutical development. The selection between filtration and liquid impingement directly impacts DNA yield, microbial diversity data, and subsequent analytical success. This application note provides a structured comparison of these predominant methods, focusing on their efficiency in recovering genetic material for molecular analyses. We synthesize recent research findings to guide researchers in selecting and optimizing protocols for improved DNA yield from low-biomass air samples, a common challenge in aeromicrobiology.

Quantitative Sampler Performance Comparison

The choice of sampling method introduces specific biases in DNA concentration, microbial diversity, and sample stability. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from comparative studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Filtration and Liquid Impingement Samplers

Sampler Type	Specific Sampler	DNA Yield/Recovery	Impact on Microbial Diversity	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Filtration	Personal Environmental Monitor (PEM) with polycarbonate filter	Higher DNA concentration per volume of air sampled [26]	Recovered significantly more bacterial genera than cyclone sampler; better for Gram-positive bacteria [26] [4]	High collection efficiency (>95% for particles >0.5 µm); simple to use [6]	Desiccation stress on cells during long sampling periods [32] [24]
Filtration	Polycarbonate (PC) Filter	High DNA recovery in controlled tests [4]	Effective for biodiversity studies [4]	High DNA yield; particles collected on surface, easing extraction [4]	Potential for cell damage and DNA loss with extended sampling [24]
Filtration	Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE) Filter	Lower DNA Loss Percentage (DLP) compared to PC filters [24]	N/A	Better preserves bacterial viability and culturability vs. PC [24]	Performance declines with sampling time [24]
Liquid Impingement	Cyclone Sampler (e.g., Coriolis μ)	Lower DNA concentration per volume of air sampled [26]	Recovered more fungal genera; potential bias against Gram-positive bacteria in water [26] [4]	Higher flow rates allow shorter sampling times; good for fine-scale studies [26] [43]	Evaporation of collection liquid; potential for re-aerosolization [32]
Liquid Impingement	BioSampler with Tween Mixture (TM)	Lower DNA loss (36.27% DLP at 120 min with replenishment) [24]	N/A	Excellent preservation of viability (89.91%) and culturability (69.64%) with replenishment [24]	Requires replenishment system for optimal long-term performance [24]

Experimental Protocols for Sampler Evaluation

Protocol: Comparing DNA Yield and Microbial Diversity

This protocol is adapted from a controlled chamber study comparing filter and cyclone samplers [26].

• Objective: To quantitatively compare the DNA yield and microbial diversity recovered by filtration and liquid impingement samplers in a low-biomass environment.
• Materials:
  • Personal Environmental Monitor (PEM) with polycarbonate filters (e.g., 25 mm diameter, 1.0 µm pore size).
  • Two-stage cyclone sampler (e.g., Coriolis μ).
  • Environmental chamber or target sampling environment.
  • DNA extraction kit suitable for low-biomass samples (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Kit).
  • Quantitative PCR (qPCR) system and reagents.
  • Next-generation sequencing platform (e.g., for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing).
• Procedure:
  • Sampler Setup: Deploy the PEM and cyclone samplers following manufacturer instructions. For the cyclone, use phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) as the collection liquid to minimize bias against Gram-positive bacteria [4].
  • Co-located Sampling: Run samplers simultaneously in the same location for identical durations (e.g., 2-4 hours). Ensure the total air volume sampled is recorded for each device.
  • Sample Processing:
    • PEM Filters: Aseptically remove the filter from the cassette and place it directly in a tube for DNA extraction.
    • Cyclone Sampler: Centrifuge the collected liquid (e.g., 10,000 × g for 20 min) to concentrate the biomass. Discard the supernatant and use the pellet for DNA extraction. Alternatively, for rapid in-field processing, concentrate the sample using syringe filters [43].
  • DNA Extraction and Quantification: Extract DNA from all samples using the same standardized kit and protocol. Quantify the total DNA yield using a fluorometric method (e.g., Qubit).
  • Downstream Analysis:
    • Perform qPCR on a universal bacterial gene (e.g., 16S rRNA) to quantify the bacterial load.
    • Perform 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to assess the taxonomic composition and alpha- and beta-diversity of the samples.
• Data Analysis:
  • Normalize DNA concentration and qPCR results by the volume of air sampled.
  • Use statistical tests (e.g., t-test, Wilcoxon test) to compare normalized DNA yields between sampler types.
  • Analyze sequencing data using diversity indices (e.g., Shannon, Chao1) and ordination methods (e.g., PCoA) to visualize differences in community structure.

Protocol: Assessing Nucleic Acid Stability During Long-Term Sampling

This protocol evaluates the integrity of genetic material during extended sampling, a critical factor for molecular studies [32] [24].

• Objective: To determine the impact of prolonged sampling time on DNA stability and recovery for filter and liquid impingement methods.
• Materials:
  • Button Sampler with MCE and PC filters.
  • BioSampler with collection media: Deionized (DI) water, PBS, and Tween mixture (TM).
  • Aerosol generator and pure culture of a test bacterium (e.g., Escherichia coli).
  • Nucleic acid extraction kit.
  • Equipment for viability and culturability assays (flow cytometer, agar plates).
• Procedure:
  • Experimental Setup: Generate a stable aerosol of the test bacterium in a chamber.
  • Time-Course Sampling: Operate the samplers for different time intervals (e.g., 15, 30, 60, 120 minutes). For the BioSampler, include a condition where the collection medium is replenished periodically to counteract evaporation [24].
  • Sample Analysis:
    • Viability and Culturability: Analyze liquid samples using flow cytometry (with live/dead staining) and culture-based methods (colony-forming unit counts).
    • DNA Loss Quantification: Extract DNA from both the primary sample (liquid or filter) and any washes of the collection vessel/filter. Calculate the DNA Loss Percentage (DLP) as: DLP = [1 - (DNA in primary sample / Total DNA recovered)] × 100% [24].
• Data Analysis:
  • Plot viability, culturability, and DLP against sampling time for each sampler and medium.
  • Perform correlation analysis between DLP and viability/culturability metrics.

Sampler Selection Workflow

The following diagram outlines a decision-making pathway for selecting the appropriate bioaerosol sampling method based on research objectives and practical constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful bioaerosol sampling requires careful selection of sampling media and materials, as these directly impact downstream DNA yield and quality.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Bioaerosol Sampling

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Polycarbonate (PC) Filters	Flat, smooth surface filter for high DNA recovery in molecular studies [26] [4].	Particles collected on surface, easing elution. May induce stress in sensitive bacteria during long sampling [24].
Mixed Cellulose Ester (MCE) Filters	Membrane filter for improved bacterial viability and culturability vs. PC [24].	Lower DNA Loss Percentage; better preservation of bioactivity for some bacteria [24].
Gelatin Filters	Soluble filter that dissolves in warm liquid, potentially enhancing recovery of stressed microbes [4].	Can be dissolved, avoiding physical elution. Requires controlled temperature conditions [4].
Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS)	Liquid collection matrix for impingement [4].	Prevents osmotic shock, improving recovery of Gram-positive bacteria compared to water [4].
Tween Mixture (TM)	A specialized collection medium containing a surfactant for liquid impingement [24].	Significantly preserves viability and culturability, reduces re-aerosolization, and minimizes DNA loss when used with replenishment [24].
Centrifuge	Standard method for concentrating biomass from liquid impingers post-sampling [43] [4].	Provides high biomass recovery. Requires laboratory setting and can be time-consuming [43].
Syringe Filters	Alternative, rapid method for in-field concentration of liquid impingement samples [43].	Allows for quick processing and stabilization of samples in the field without compromising microbial diversity for sequencing [43].

Filtration and liquid impingement offer complementary strengths for bioaerosol DNA studies. Filter-based methods, particularly with polycarbonate membranes, provide high DNA yields and are robust for capturing bacterial diversity, especially from Gram-positive organisms. Liquid impingement, especially with optimized media like PBS or Tween mixture and replenishment, excels in preserving cell viability and is suited for high-flow rate, short-duration sampling. The optimal choice is not universal but depends critically on the research question, target microorganisms, and required downstream analyses. By applying the standardized protocols and selection framework provided here, researchers can make informed decisions to significantly improve the yield and quality of DNA obtained from bioaerosol sampling.

The analysis of bioaerosols using molecular methods provides critical insights into public health, air quality, and microbial ecology. Filter-based sampling is a widely used method for collecting airborne biological material due to its high collection efficiency and ease of use. However, the low biomass nature of air presents significant challenges for obtaining sufficient DNA yields of adequate quality for downstream applications, particularly shotgun metagenomic sequencing. This application note details standardized metrics and optimized protocols for quantifying improvements in DNA yield and quality from filter-based bioaerosol sampling, providing researchers with a framework for methodological optimization and validation.

Key Metrics for DNA Yield and Quality

Evaluating the success of DNA extraction from bioaerosol samples requires a multifaceted approach, assessing both quantity and quality. The table below summarizes the core metrics used for this evaluation.

Table 1: Core Metrics for Assessing DNA Yield and Quality from Bioaerosol Samples

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Measurement Technique	Interpretation and Significance
DNA Quantity	Total DNA Yield (ng)	Fluorometry (e.g., Qubit, Picogreen)	Absolute amount of DNA recovered; critical for low-input sequencing [11].
	DNA Concentration (ng/µL)	Spectrophotometry (e.g., Nanodrop)	Must be interpreted with quality ratios; can be inflated by RNA or contaminants.
DNA Quality/Purity	260/280 Ratio	Spectrophotometry	~1.8 indicates pure DNA; lower values suggest protein contamination.
	260/230 Ratio	Spectrophotometry	~2.0 indicates pure DNA; lower values suggest chaotropic salt or organic solvent carryover.
Method Performance	DNA Loss Percentage (DLP)	Calculated: (1 - (DNA recovered / DNA expected)) * 100	Quantifies DNA loss during sampling and extraction; negatively correlated with viability and culturability [24].
Functional Quality	Mock Community Profiling	Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing	Assesses lysis efficiency and taxonomic bias by measuring recovery of known organisms [27] [11].
	Fragment Analyzer / Bioanalyzer	Electropherogram	Visualizes DNA fragment size distribution; identifies degradation or excessive fragmentation.

Beyond these core metrics, the DNA Loss Percentage (DLP) is a critical composite metric for evaluating the entire sampling-to-extraction workflow. One study found DLP was negatively correlated with bacterial viability (r = -0.762) and culturability (r = -0.638), highlighting that methods which better preserve cell integrity also result in higher DNA recovery [24].

Experimental Factors Influencing DNA Metrics

Experimental parameters during sampling and extraction directly impact the metrics described above. The following table synthesizes key findings from recent research on how these factors affect DNA yield and quality.

Table 2: Impact of Experimental Factors on DNA Yield and Quality

Experimental Factor	Impact on DNA Yield & Quality	Key Research Findings
Sampling Duration	↓ Longer duration can reduce yield and diversity.	Prolonged continuous sampling reduces species detection, likely due to desiccation stress on the filter [5] [27]. Shorter times preserve viability and culturability [24].
Filter Material	↓ Varies with material; influences lysis efficiency and DNA retention.	Quartz filters are compatible with metagenomic profiling [5]. For endotoxin recovery, PVC filters underperform compared to PC, MCE, Teflon, or glass fiber [44]. MCE filters showed lower DLP than PC filters [24].
Particle Size Selection	↓ Larger size fractions capture more microbial diversity.	Larger particle size selectors (e.g., PM10 inlets) capture a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi, compared to PM2.5 inlets [5] [27].
Extraction Method	↓ Lysis strategy is crucial for yield and representation.	A multi-component method (chemical, enzymatic, mechanical lysis) improved DNA yields and reported higher diversity from subway air samples compared to other methods [11]. Phenol-chloroform extraction yielded 4x more DNA from quartz filters than some commercial kits [27].
Extraction Comprehensiveness	↓ Incomplete processing of filter extract biases results.	Processing both the pellet and supernatant fractions from a filter extract results in higher DNA yields and can reveal different taxonomic profiles, preventing bias [11].
Sampling Stress	↓ Harsh conditions damage cells and DNA.	Longer sampling times significantly reduce bacterial culturability and viability, leading to higher DLP [24]. Liquid impingement with a protective medium like a Tween mixture (TM) preserved viability and reduced DLP [24].

Detailed Protocol: A Multi-Component DNA Isolation Method

This protocol is adapted from an optimized, custom method developed for shotgun metagenomic sequencing of low-biomass aerosol samples [11]. It emphasizes comprehensive lysis and processing of the entire filter extract to maximize yield and representation.

Materials and Equipment

• Sampling Equipment: High-volume air sampler (e.g., Tisch Environmental) with a PM10 size-selective inlet.
• Filters: Quartz fiber filters, 102 mm diameter (pre-baked at 500°C for 5 hours to eliminate contaminants).
• Extraction Kit Components: Lysing Matrix E tubes (MP Biomedicals), Proteinase K, PBS buffer.
• Enzymes: Metapolyzyme (Sigma-Aldrich).
• Purification Reagents: Phenol:Chloroform:Isoamyl Alcohol (25:24:1), Glycogen, 3M Sodium Acetate (pH 5.2), 100% and 70% Ethanol.
• Lab Equipment: Centrifuge, vortexer, thermomixer, fume hood, fluorometer, and a Fragment Analyzer.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Filter Processing:

  • Aseptically cut a 22 cm² portion of the exposed quartz filter and place it in a 50 mL sterile centrifuge tube.
  • Add 3 mL of PBS buffer supplemented with 0.05% Tween 20 to fully submerge the filter.
  • Vortex vigorously for 15 minutes to dislodge biomass.
  • Centrifuge at 4000 x g for 10 minutes. Following centrifugation, the sample separates into a supernatant (containing lysed cells and free DNA) and a pellet (containing intact cells and particles). Both fractions must be processed to avoid bias [11].

• Dual-Stream Biomass Lysis:

  • Pellet Fraction: Resuspend the pellet in 800 µL of lysis buffer from a commercial kit (e.g., NucleoSpin Soil) and transfer to a Lysing Matrix E tube. Add 25 µL of Metapolyzyme and 25 µL of Proteinase K. Incubate at 56°C for 120 minutes with agitation [27]. Subsequently, perform bead-beating for 45 seconds at 6 m/s.
  • Supernatant Fraction: To the 3 mL supernatant, add 1.5 mL of fresh lysis buffer and 25 µL of Proteinase K. Incubate at 56°C for 120 minutes.

• Nucleic Acid Purification:

  • Combine the lysed pellet and supernatant fractions.
  • Add 2 volumes of phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol, vortex, and centrifuge at 13,000 x g for 5 minutes.
  • Transfer the upper aqueous phase to a new tube.
  • Add 1 µL of glycogen (20 mg/mL), 0.1 volumes of 3M sodium acetate, and 2.5 volumes of 100% ethanol to precipitate DNA. Incubate at -20°C for 1 hour.
  • Centrifuge at 13,000 x g for 30 minutes, wash the pellet with 1 mL of 70% ethanol, and air-dry.
  • Resuspend the DNA in 25 µL of nuclease-free water.

• Quality Control and Quantification:

  • Quantify DNA yield using a fluorometric method (e.g., Qubit dsDNA HS Assay).
  • Assess purity by measuring 260/280 and 260/230 ratios with a spectrophotometer.
  • Evaluate DNA integrity and fragment size distribution using a Fragment Analyzer or Bioanalyzer.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of this protocol, highlighting the critical parallel processing of the pellet and supernatant fractions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The table below lists key reagents and materials used in the optimized protocol, along with their critical functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Filter-Based Bioaerosol DNA Extraction

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples/Notes
Quartz Fiber Filters	Particle collection substrate in HVS.	Widely used in air quality networks; compatible with metagenomic profiling [5] [27].
Metapolyzyme	Enzymatic lysis of microbial cell walls.	A multi-enzyme cocktail targeting bacterial and fungal walls; improves DNA yield from complex communities [11].
Proteinase K	Protease that degrades proteins and inactivates nucleases.	Essential for comprehensive lysis; incubation time optimization (e.g., 120 min) is crucial [27].
Lysing Matrix E Tubes	Mechanical lysis using beads.	Contains a mixture of ceramic, silica, and glass beads for efficient cell disruption.
Phenol:Chloroform:Isoamyl	Liquid-liquid extraction to purify DNA from proteins and other cellular components.	Requires careful handling in a fume hood; effective for complex environmental samples [11].
Glycogen	Carrier to co-precipitate low concentrations of nucleic acids.	Critical for visualizing the pellet and improving DNA recovery from low-biomass samples.
Tween Mixture (TM)	Protective sampling medium in liquid impingement.	Used in BioSamplers to preserve bacterial viability and reduce DNA loss during sampling [24].

Rigorous quantification of DNA yield and quality is fundamental for advancing bioaerosol research. By adopting the standardized metrics—especially DNA Loss Percentage and mock community profiling—and implementing the detailed, multi-component protocol outlined in this application note, researchers can significantly improve the reliability and comparability of their data. This structured approach to method evaluation and optimization ensures that the resulting DNA is of sufficient quantity and quality to power robust shotgun metagenomic studies, thereby unlocking deeper insights into the airborne microbiome.

Filter-based bioaerosol sampling is a foundational technique for analyzing airborne microbial communities. However, the sampling and processing methodologies employed can significantly bias the resulting microbial diversity profiles, impacting the biological relevance of the data obtained. Within the broader thesis of improving DNA yield from filter-based sampling, this application note details how specific parameters—sampling time, filter material, and extraction protocol—directly influence the apparent structure of microbial communities. Ensuring that these profiles accurately reflect the environmental source is critical for applications in public health, microbial ecology, and drug development. This protocol provides a standardized workflow to minimize bias and maximize the fidelity of diversity assessments.

Impact of Sampling Duration and Filter Material on DNA Yield and Diversity

Table 1: Impact of Sampling Parameters on DNA Yield and Microbial Diversity

Parameter	Condition Tested	Effect on DNA Yield	Impact on Microbial Diversity	Citation
Sampling Duration	Prolonged continuous sampling	Reduced species detection [5] [27]	Lower observed microbial diversity [5] [27]	[5] [27]
Particle Size Selector	Use of PM10 vs. PM2.5 inlets	Captures broader microbial content [5] [27]	Broader diversity, particularly for fungi [5] [27]	[5] [27]
Filter Material	Quartz vs. PTFE-coated Glass Fiber	Quartz yielded DNA suitable for metagenomics [27]	Comparable diversity profiles achieved [27]	[27]
Sampling Time (Viability)	120 min sampling (Liquid Impingement)	Increased DNA Loss Percentage (DLP) [24]	Reduced culturability and viability [24]	[24]

Comparative Performance of Bioaerosol Samplers

Table 2: Nucleic Acid Stability and Sampling Efficiency of Different Sampler Types

Sampler Type	Collection Principle	Sampling Efficiency (>80% for noted particle sizes)	Effect on Nucleic Acids During Long-Term Sampling	Citation
Isopore Membrane Filter	Filtration	Not specified (Used as reference)	Indications of DNA degradation for 1 μm particles [32]	[32]
SASS 3100	Filtration	0.8, 1, and 3 μm [32]	Indications of DNA degradation for 1 μm particles [32]	[32]
SKC BioSampler	Liquid Impingement	0.8, 1, and 3 μm [32]	Decrease in nucleic acid yields [32]	[32]
Coriolis μ	Wetted-Wall Cyclone	3 μm (Lower for 0.8 and 1 μm) [32]	Decrease in nucleic acid yields [32]	[32]
BioSpot-VIVAS	Condensation Growth	0.8, 1, and 3 μm [32]	Reduced sampling efficiency for bacteria vs. virus [32]	[32]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Optimized DNA Extraction from Quartz Filters for Metagenomic Profiling

This protocol is designed for ultra-low biomass samples from high-volume air samplers (HVS) and is critical for maximizing DNA yield and subsequent diversity analysis [27].

• Equipment & Reagents: Quartz fiber filters (e.g., from HVS), Phenol-chloroform, Proteinase K, Metapolyzyme, NucleoSpin Soil Kit (Macherey-Nagel) or DNeasy PowerWater Kit (Qiagen), Lysis Buffer.
• Procedure:
  • Filter Processing: Aseptically cut a portion (approx. 22 cm²) of the quartz filter and place it in a sterile tube.
  • Lysis: Add 3 mL of lysis buffer to fully wet the filter. Manually agitate the suspension. The resulting mixture will separate into a supernatant and a pellet fraction; both must be processed separately.
  • Enzymatic Treatment:
    • Pellet Fraction: Treat the pellet fraction with metapolyzyme and proteinase K. Incubate at 56°C for 120 minutes.
    • Supernatant Fraction: Avoid lysozyme and lyticase due to high risk of introducing contamination. The supernatant can be processed directly.
  • DNA Extraction: Combine the treated pellet and supernatant fractions. Perform DNA extraction using the phenol-chloroform method, which has been shown to yield 4 times higher DNA compared to commercial kits for these samples.
  • Purification & Storage: Purify the extracted DNA and elute in a suitable buffer (e.g., AE buffer). Quantify DNA using a fluorometric method. Store at -80°C.

Protocol 2: Bioaerosol Sampling and In-Situ Processing with Liquid Collection

This protocol, adapted for the NIOSH SC251 Biosampler, is suitable for RNA/DNA recovery in field settings [29].

• Equipment & Reagents: NIOSH SC251 Biosampler, Lysis buffer, Cool box with ice packs, Vortex mixer, Isopropanol, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
• Procedure:
  • Sampler Setup: Charge the pump fully. Decontaminate the sampler by immersing components in isopropanol for one hour and air-drying in a biosafety cabinet.
  • Field Sampling: Place the sampler at the target location (e.g., breathing height, 1.48 meters). Run the sampler for a defined period (e.g., 60 minutes) at the prescribed flow rate.
  • Sample Collection: After sampling, press the "Hold" button to stop the pump. Record the total runtime. Aseptically remove the collection tubes (15 mL tube or 1.5 mL cryovial) and immediately place them in a cool box maintained at 4-8°C.
  • On-Site Lysis and Storage:
    • For a 15 mL tube: Add 1000 µL of lysis buffer. Vortex for 2 minutes. Store on dry ice or at -80°C upon reaching the lab.
    • For a 1.5 mL cryovial: Add 500 µL of lysis buffer. Vortex for 2 minutes. Store on dry ice or at -80°C.
  • Transport: Transport samples to the laboratory on ice as soon as possible for further processing.

Protocol 3: Assembling a Custom Portable Filter-Based Bioaerosol Sampler

This protocol is for constructing an autonomous, high-flow-rate sampler for prolonged genomic studies, using Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components [6].

• Equipment & Reagents: Counter-rotating fan (e.g., San Ace60), Automotive Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor, Arduino microcontroller, 3D-printed ABS plastic filter holder, 0.22-µm polyether sulfone (PES) membrane filter, Temperature/RH/pressure sensors.
• Procedure:
  • Assembly: Construct the sampler core by coupling the counter-rotating fan to the MAF sensor. The Arduino microcontroller controls the fan speed via PWM signals based on the MAF sensor's analog input.
  • Calibration: Derive a calibration curve for the MAF sensor and program a third-order polynomial function into the Arduino. The sampler should run a 30-second calibration with each new filter to determine pressure drop and automatically adjust the fan to maintain the desired flow rate (e.g., 150 L/min).
  • Housing: House the core in a weatherproof enclosure made of aluminium profiles and sealed acrylic panels.
  • Operation: Load a sterile 0.22-µm PES membrane filter into the 3D-printed holder. The system can operate autonomously outdoors for up to 24 hours, logging environmental data onto a microSD card. This setup can recover up to 4 ng of DNA, sufficient for genomic applications.

Workflow and Pathway Diagrams

Bioaerosol Analysis Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Filter-Based Bioaerosol Diversity Studies

Item	Function/Application	Key Characteristics	Citation
Quartz Fiber Filters	Particulate collection in HVS	High collection efficiency (>99.9%); compatible with metagenomic DNA extraction.	[5] [27]
Polyether Sulfone (PES) Membrane Filter (0.22 µm)	Particulate collection in custom samplers	Recovers sufficient DNA for genomics; used in portable autonomous samplers.	[6]
Dissolvable Membrane Filters (e.g., HAFM)	Green sampling and characterization	High capture efficiency; dissolves for direct sample analysis, maximizing transfer.	[45]
Lysis Buffer (with Tween Mixture)	Sample preservation & cell lysis	Liquid impingement medium; preserves viability and reduces DNA loss when replenished.	[29] [24]
Metapolyzyme & Proteinase K	Enzymatic lysis for robust cells	Treats pellet fraction from quartz filters; enhances DNA yield from spores/fungi.	[27]
Phenol-Chloroform	DNA extraction from quartz filters	Superior yield for ultra-low biomass samples compared to commercial kits.	[27]

Air quality monitoring networks are extensively deployed worldwide, routinely measuring parameters like particulate matter (PM). However, these systems typically overlook the biological components of aerosols, known as bioaerosols, which include bacteria, fungi, viruses, and environmental DNA (eDNA) and are highly relevant to public health [27]. The installation of dedicated bioaerosol monitoring systems is often hindered by cost and operational complexity. This case study explores the repurposing of existing high-volume air sampler (HVS) infrastructure—a cornerstone of air quality networks—for bioaerosol research. We focus on protocols and methodological improvements aimed at overcoming the central challenge of obtaining sufficient DNA yield from the ultra-low biomass collected on standard air quality filters for robust metagenomic analysis [27].

Methodologies: From PM Collection to Metagenomic Analysis

Core Setup: Utilizing High-Volume Samplers (HVS)

High-volume air samplers are commonly used in air quality monitoring stations for the gravimetric determination of particulate matter mass fractions [27].

• Typical Operation: HVS units filter large volumes of ambient air (often at a rate of 500 L/min) through large filters (e.g., 110-150 mm diameter circles or 203 x 254 mm sheets) [27].
• Filter Media: Quartz or glass fiber filters, sometimes with a PTFE coating, are standard due to their high collection efficiency (>99.9%) and suitability for various chemical analyses [27] [46].
• Particle Size Selection: These samplers can be equipped with size-selective inlets (e.g., PM~2.5~ or PM~10~) to target specific fractions of particulate matter. Studies indicate that larger particle size selectors (e.g., PM~10~) capture a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi [27].

Optimized DNA Extraction Protocol for Quartz Filters

A critical step in leveraging HVS networks for bioaerosol studies is the efficient extraction of DNA from quartz filters, which are challenging due to their low biomass content and material properties. The following optimized protocol, based on recent research, significantly improves DNA yield [27]:

• Filter Processing:

  • A portion of the quartz filter (approximately 22 cm²) is cut using sterilized tools.
  • The filter portion is placed in a sterile tube, and 3 mL of lysis buffer is added to ensure complete wetting.

• Fraction Separation:

  • After initial handling and vortexing, the sample separates into a supernatant and a pellet. Both fractions contain DNA and must be processed separately.

• Enzymatic Lysis:

  • Pellet Fraction: Treat with a multilytic enzyme mix (e.g., metapolyzyme) and proteinase K. Incubate at the enzyme's optimal temperature for 120 minutes.
  • Supernatant Fraction: Avoid common enzymes like lysozyme and lyticase, as they have been identified as sources of contamination in blank controls. The addition of proteinase K is sufficient.
  • Note: Harsh mechanical lysis like bead-beating was avoided to prevent DNA fragmentation.

• DNA Extraction and Purification:

  • The gold standard phenol-chloroform extraction method, modified for low biomass, is recommended. This method has been shown to yield 4 times higher DNA concentrations compared to commercial kits like the NucleoSpin Soil Kit or DNeasy PowerWater Kit when processing quartz filters [27].
  • The extracted DNA from both fractions is combined, purified, and concentrated for downstream analysis.

Experimental Workflow for Protocol Validation

The methodology for validating the use of HVS in bioaerosol studies involves a structured experimental design to test key parameters. The workflow below outlines the comparative experiments used to assess the feasibility of using HVS filters for bioaerosol analysis. It evaluates the impact of sampling duration, particle size, filter material, and a comparison with a dedicated bioaerosol sampler.

Complementary Bioaerosol Sampling for Specific Applications

For research questions requiring analysis of culturable organisms or specific pathogen detection, complementary sampling with dedicated bioaerosol samplers is recommended. A standard field protocol for such sampling includes [29]:

• Sampler: Use a device like the NIOSH BC 251 BioSampler.
• Collection: Samplers are run at a breathing height (e.g., 1.48 meters) for a set duration (e.g., 60 minutes). The collection fluid contains a lysis buffer to stabilize genetic material.
• Post-Processing: After collection, samples are vortexed thoroughly and immediately stored at -80°C until RNA/DNA extraction can be performed.
• Decontamination: To prevent cross-contamination, samplers are meticulously cleaned between uses by immersion in isopropanol for one hour and air-dried in a biosafety cabinet [29].

Key Findings and Data

Impact of Sampling Strategy on DNA Recovery

Experimental data reveals that sampling strategy significantly influences the resulting DNA yield and microbial diversity profile.

Table 1: Impact of Sampling Duration and Strategy on DNA Yield and Diversity

Experiment Variable	Key Finding	Implication for Protocol
Continuous vs. Consecutive Sampling	Prolonged continuous sampling reduces species detection compared to multiple consecutive short-duration samples [27].	For diversity studies, consecutive daily sampling is superior to a single, long, continuous sample.
Particle Size Selection (PM2.5 vs. PM10)	PM10 inlets capture a broader range of microbial content, particularly fungi, due to the larger size fraction of many fungal spores [27].	Use a PM10 inlet for a more comprehensive community profile, especially if fungi are of interest.
Filter Material (Quartz vs. PTFE-glass fiber)	The filter material must be compatible with the optimized DNA extraction protocol, with quartz fibers being the primary focus of the validated method [27].	Adhere to the specified filter material for which the DNA extraction protocol was optimized.

Furthermore, a foundational study investigating DNA recovery from filter-based bioaerosol sampling found no significant DNA loss when comparing a single 24-hour filter to a pooled DNA sample from three sequential 8-hour filters collected in parallel. This suggests that DNA degradation on filters over extended sampling periods (e.g., 24 hours) may be minimal for non-viable DNA analysis [7].

Comparison with Dedicated Bioaerosol Samplers

A critical validation step involved comparing the performance of HVS against a dedicated bioaerosol sampler.

Table 2: Benchmarking HVS against a Dedicated Bioaerosol Sampler

Performance Metric	High-Volume Sampler (HVS)	Dedicated Sampler (e.g., SASS 3100)
Flow Rate	High (~500 L/min) [27]	Adjustable, typically lower (e.g., up to 300 L/min) [27]
Primary Use	Particulate matter (PM) collection for gravimetric and chemical analysis [27]	Specifically designed for bioaerosol collection [27]
Comparative Performance	Can yield microbial diversity profiles comparable to specialized bioaerosol samplers like the SASS 3100 [27]	Considered a standard for bioaerosol collection; used as a benchmark for validation [27]

Enhancement of DNA Yield via Extraction Additives

Historical data supports the use of additional lysis steps to improve DNA yield from low-biomass environmental samples. Research has demonstrated that incorporating a 30-minute water-bath sonication at an optimized temperature (e.g., 65°C) prior to the bead-beating step in commercial DNA extraction kits can significantly increase the yield of total DNA and specific gene markers (bacterial 16S and fungal 18S) from filter samples [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Successful implementation of this approach requires specific reagents and materials tailored to handling ultra-low biomass environmental samples.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Function/Application	Specific Example / Note
High-Volume Air Sampler	Collection of particulate matter from large air volumes onto filters.	Standard in air quality networks. Use with PM10 inlet for broader diversity [27].
Quartz Fiber Filters	Collection substrate for airborne particles in HVS.	Compatible with the described phenol-chloroform DNA extraction method [27].
Lysis Buffer	Initial cell rupture and DNA stabilization upon collection or processing.	Used in both HVS filter processing and liquid-based bioaerosol samplers [29].
Enzymes (Metapolyzyme, Proteinase K)	Enhanced lysis of difficult-to-break cells (e.g., spores) in the pellet fraction during DNA extraction.	Critical for maximizing DNA yield from filters; 120-minute incubation is optimal [27].
Phenol-Chloroform	Gold standard organic extraction method for purifying DNA from complex environmental samples.	Outperformed commercial kits for quartz filters, yielding 4x more DNA [27].
Mock Microbial Community	Positive control for evaluating the efficiency and accuracy of the entire DNA extraction and sequencing pipeline.	e.g., ZymoBIOMICS Microbial Community Standard [27].
Blank Filters	Negative control for identifying and monitoring contamination introduced during laboratory analysis.	Should undergo identical processing as experimental samples [27].

This case study demonstrates that existing air quality monitoring networks present a powerful, untapped resource for large-scale bioaerosol research. By employing an optimized DNA extraction protocol specifically designed for quartz filters and adopting validated sampling strategies—such as consecutive daily sampling with PM~10~ inlets—researchers can effectively bypass the high costs and logistical barriers associated with dedicated bioaerosol sampling. The ability to repurpose HVS filters for metagenomic analysis allows for the integration of biological data into routine air quality assessments, paving the way for a more comprehensive understanding of the aerobiome and its impacts on public health and the environment [27].

Conclusion

Optimizing DNA yield from filter-based bioaerosol sampling is not a single-step fix but a holistic process that integrates informed sampler selection, meticulous protocol execution, and rigorous validation. The key takeaways underscore that shorter, optimized sampling durations often outperform prolonged sampling by reducing DNA loss, the choice of filter material and DNA extraction kit directly impacts recoverable biomass, and method validation is critical for accurate ecological and public health interpretations. For future directions, the integration of novel, dissolvable filters and real-time optical detection methods presents a promising frontier for automated, high-throughput bioaerosol analysis. These advancements will significantly enhance our capability in clinical settings for pathogen surveillance, in drug development for monitoring manufacturing environments, and in fundamental research for understanding the aerobiome's role in health and disease.

References

• 1. Experimental parameters defining ultra-low biomass ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-021-00209-4]
• 2. Perspectives on Sampling and New Generation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10176311/]
• 3. An Optimized Active Sampling Procedure for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10006969/]
• 4. Bioaerosol biomonitoring: Sampling optimization for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6850074/]
• 5. Integrating air microbiome for comprehensive air quality ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225012763]
• 6. An Optimized Active Sampling Procedure for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/5/2836]
• 7. Protocol Improvements for Low Concentration DNA-Based ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141158]
• 8. AirDNA sampler: An efficient and simple device enabling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10309600/]
• 9. Protocol Improvements for Low Concentration DNA-Based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4664469/]
• 10. Performance evaluation of high-volume electret filter air ... [https://environmentalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40793-020-00362-x]
• 11. Performance evaluation of a new custom, multi-component ... [https://environmentalmicrobiome.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40793-019-0349-z]
• 12. Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23052-8]
• 13. Optimization of pore size and filter material for better ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1422269/full]
• 14. Optimizing target-to-total DNA ratio in eDNA studies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12579850/]
• 15. Sampling efficiency and nucleic acid stability during long ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-024-12735-7]
• 16. Effect of sampling duration on culturable and viable ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850222001033]
• 17. Low-Input DNA Extraction Guide: Best Kits, QC & Sample ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-low-input-dna-extraction.html]
• 18. Comparison of Five Membrane Filters to Collect ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33331057/]
• 19. Efficiency of bioaerosol samplers: a comparison study [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10453-020-09686-0]
• 20. DNA Purification | DNA Extraction Methods [https://www.promega.com/resources/guides/nucleic-acid-analysis/dna-purification/]
• 21. Recovery of microbial DNA by agar-containing solution ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46890-7]
• 22. Microbial DNA extraction of high-host content and low ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9811202/]
• 23. High molecular weight DNA extraction strategies for long‐ ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9177515/]
• 24. Effect of Sampling Time and Sampling Media During Filter ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44408-025-00021-1]
• 25. Rapid measurement tools or fast identification of bioaerosols [https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/article/rapid-measurement-tools-fast-identification-bioaerosols/153686/]
• 26. Comparison of two methods for bioaerosol sampling and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132323004857]
• 27. Integrating air microbiome for comprehensive air quality ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343473/]
• 28. Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for the Direct ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/22/3736]
• 29. Bioaerosol Sampling Protocol [https://www.protocols.io/view/bioaerosol-sampling-protocol-hcb4b2sqx.html]
• 30. On-Site Bioaerosol Sampling and Airborne Microorganism ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6374/14/3/122]
• 31. Impact of Sampling and Storage Stress on the Recovery of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9563239/]
• 32. Sampling efficiency and nucleic acid stability during long- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11127824/]
• 33. Bioaerosol Sampling Devices and Pretreatment for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/5/965]
• 34. Sonication-assisted protein extraction improves proteomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12286572/]
• 35. FAQ: Why do I need to incubate my column for 5 minutes ... [https://www.neb.com/en-us/faqs/2018/07/03/why-do-i-need-to-incubate-my-column-for-5-minutes-with-elution-buffer-nuclease-free-water?srsltid=AfmBOoq5knlrhDJ_ptskndvGSS5i0Gqb7tKhGg5asZ_SHP4n2fznNmnv]
• 36. Inhibit inhibition: PCR inhibition and how to prevent it [https://www.bioecho.com/blog/inhibit-inhibition-pcr-inhibition-and-how-to-prevent-it]
• 37. PCR inhibition in qPCR, dPCR and MPS—mechanisms and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7072044/]
• 38. for Strategies in... - Amerigo Scientific Overcoming PCR Inhibition [https://www.amerigoscientific.com/resource-strategies-for-overcoming-pcr-inhibition-in-diagnostic-analysis.html]
• 39. Bioaerosols in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Approach for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/15/5/1003]
• 40. Evaluation of Inhibitor -Resistant Real-Time PCR Methods... | PLOS One [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073845]
• 41. An Overview of Bioinformatics Tools for DNA Meta ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/9/185]
• 42. Efficiencies of filtration sampling and extraction for recovery ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850224000570]
• 43. Sampling Optimisation for Molecular Microbial Ecology [https://repository.essex.ac.uk/24506/]
• 44. experiments using laboratory-generated bioaerosols [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40916356/]
• 45. Green dissolvable filter-inspired sampling and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343725015507]
• 46. Bioaerosol Sampling: Classical Approaches, Advances ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9344602/]