A survey of television meteorologists about their sources for and understanding of pollen counts.

BACKGROUND: Pollen counts are widely used by television stations in news programming but little is known about the sources for and quality of this information. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to survey television meteorologists about their sources for pollen counts and to assess their general understanding of these data. METHODS: Sixty-seven meteorologists employed by television stations in the nation's 20 largest Designated Market Areas (DMAs) were contacted by telephone. A brief survey was administered verbally and their responses were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-seven meteorologists indicated that their station used pollen counts in news programming. Most were aware of their station's source for this information and reported that viewers contacted them about the pollen count. Few meteorologists, however, knew the type of instrument that was used to obtain pollen samples they aired and only 10 selected the correct definition of a pollen count from a list of three choices. CONCLUSIONS: Pollen counts are an important element in television news programming that are poorly understood by the meteorologists who present them to the public. Allergists are encouraged to better educate the personnel at stations to which they supply pollen counts.

A comparison of pollen recovery by three models of the Rotorod sampler.

BACKGROUND: During the past 15 years, three models of the Rotorod Sampler have been manufactured for aeroallergen sampling. Although several studies have considered pollen recovery by specific Rotorod models, none explored inter-model sampling differences. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this present investigation was to compare pollen recovery by three Rotorod models that are widely used by allergists. METHODS: Two Model 85s, two Model 95s, and two Model 40s were installed 1.5 m above the flat rooftop of a surburban 3-story office building. Fifty atmospheric samples collected between June and August 1996 were analyzed according to the standard conventions suggested by the manufacturer. Differences in pollen recovery were evaluated using an analysis of variance followed by Duncan's multiple range test. RESULTS: Pollen counts ranged from 7.4 to 406.8 pollen grains per cubic meter of air. Differences in pollen recovery by the six devices were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Pollen counts obtained with three models of the Rotorod Sampler were generally similar and could be compared directly. This study demonstrated continuity in the performance of the Rotorod Sampler over successive generations of the device.