BACKGROUND: Risk analysis of laboratory animal work presupposes allergen monitoring with sensitive methods. Commercial ELISA kits have recently become available for the detection of mouse (Mus m 1) and rat (Rat n 1) urinary allergen from settled dust samples and air samples with high allergen levels. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to enhance the sensitivities of the commercial ELISA kits for low aeroallergen levels (less than 1 ng/m(3)) and to test these methods with air samples collected from an animal facility. METHODS: Personal and stationary air samples were collected from an animal facility during various tasks of laboratory animal work and from various premises of the animal facility. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the ELISA assays were improved with a careful choice of analysis parameters and reagents. The detection limits of 0.1 ng/m(3) for Mus m 1 and 0.8 ng/m(3) for Rat n 1 were established. The sensitized assays enabled detection of mouse and rat aeroallergens also from premises in which animals or dirty cages were not present during sampling. CONCLUSION: These sensitive assays will help to perform risk assessment in laboratory animal work. However, there remains a lack of standardized analytic procedures and occupational exposure limits for laboratory animal allergens.
BACKGROUND: Risk analysis of laboratory animal work presupposes allergen monitoring with sensitive methods. Commercial ELISA kits have recently become available for the detection of mouse (Mus m 1) and rat (Rat n 1) urinary allergen from settled dust samples and air samples with high allergen levels. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to enhance the sensitivities of the commercial ELISA kits for low aeroallergen levels (less than 1 ng/m(3)) and to test these methods with air samples collected from an animal facility. METHODS: Personal and stationary air samples were collected from an animal facility during various tasks of laboratory animal work and from various premises of the animal facility. RESULTS: The sensitivities of the ELISA assays were improved with a careful choice of analysis parameters and reagents. The detection limits of 0.1 ng/m(3) for Mus m 1 and 0.8 ng/m(3) for Rat n 1 were established. The sensitized assays enabled detection of mouse and rat aeroallergens also from premises in which animals or dirty cages were not present during sampling. CONCLUSION: These sensitive assays will help to perform risk assessment in laboratory animal work. However, there remains a lack of standardized analytic procedures and occupational exposure limits for laboratory animal allergens.
Authors: Karin A Pacheco; Cecile S Rose; Lori J Silveira; Michael V Van Dyke; Kelly Goelz; Kristyn MacPhail; Lisa A Maier Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Susan Feistenauer; Ingrid Sander; Jörg Schmidt; Eva Zahradnik; Monika Raulf; Markus Brielmeier Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: D' Ann L Williams; Meredith C McCormack; Elizabeth C Matsui; Gregory B Diette; Shawn E McKenzie; Alison S Geyh; Patrick N Breysse Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Lindsay J Underhill; Sonali Bose; D'Ann L Williams; Karina M Romero; Gary Malpartida; Patrick N Breysse; Elizabeth M Klasen; Juan M Combe; William Checkley; Nadia N Hansel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 3.390