Literature DB >> 15104790

Comparison of two dust collection methods for reservoir indoor allergens and endotoxin on carpets and mattresses.

K Wickens1, J Lane, R Siebers, T Ingham, J Crane.   

Abstract

Variable methods of dust collection may lead to uncertainty in the measurement of biomarkers. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of two different dust collection devices on dust weight, Der p 1, Fel d 1, and endotoxin levels. We compared: (1) a nylon mesh sock inserted between the furniture attachment and the vacuum hose (the reference method) and (2) the ALK device. Duplicate dust samples were collected for 2 min from 2 m(2) of 37 living room floors and from each longitudinal half of 37 mattresses. Measurement of Der p 1 and Fel d 1 were by double monoclonal antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and endotoxin by a Limulus Amobocyte Lysate assay. Geometric mean ratios (95% confidence intervals) were calculated to show the differences between sampling devices for each measurement. Compared with the ALK device, the reference method collected significantly more dust from floors (sevenfold) and mattresses (threefold) and more total Der p 1, Fel d 1, and endotoxin in both sites. Floor, but not mattress, Der p 1 concentrations were also significantly higher (threefold) using our reference method. We recommend that, in order to minimize sampling device bias, allergen and endotoxin are expressed as a concentration, and that the bed is considered the major source of allergen exposure. Practical Implications Dust sampling equipment can influence the dust yield. In order to have confidence in comparisons of allergen and endotoxin reservoir levels between centers, standardization in the use of sampling equipment is important.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15104790     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00253.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indoor Air        ISSN: 0905-6947            Impact factor:   5.770


  9 in total

1.  Comment on "distribution features of biological hazardous pollutants in residential environments in Korea [Lee et al., Environ Sci Pollut Res (2014) 21:1146-1152]".

Authors:  Rob Siebers
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  A side-by-side comparison of three allergen sampling methods in settled house dust.

Authors:  Megan Sandel; Johnna S Murphy; Sherry L Dixon; John L Adgate; Ginger L Chew; Samuel Dorevitch; David E Jacobs
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Quantitative measurement of airborne cockroach allergen in New York City apartments.

Authors:  W A Esposito; G L Chew; J C Correa; S N Chillrud; R L Miller; P L Kinney
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 5.770

4.  A comparison of subject room dust with home vacuum dust for evaluation of dust-borne aeroallergens.

Authors:  Charles Barnes; Jay M Portnoy; Christina E Ciaccio; Freddy Pacheco
Journal:  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 6.347

5.  Endotoxin in inner-city homes: associations with wheeze and eczema in early childhood.

Authors:  Matthew S Perzanowski; Rachel L Miller; Peter S Thorne; R Graham Barr; Adnan Divjan; Beverley J Sheares; Robin S Garfinkel; Frederica P Perera; Inge F Goldstein; Ginger L Chew
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 10.793

6.  Endotoxin Exposure: Predictors and Prevalence of Associated Asthma Outcomes in the United States.

Authors:  Peter S Thorne; Angelico Mendy; Nervana Metwali; Päivi Salo; Caroll Co; Renee Jaramillo; Kathryn M Rose; Darryl C Zeldin
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 21.405

7.  Feasibility of using subject-collected dust samples in epidemiologic and clinical studies of indoor allergens.

Authors:  Samuel J Arbes; Michelle Sever; Ben Vaughn; Jigna Mehta; Jeffrey T Lynch; Herman Mitchell; Jane A Hoppin; Harvey L Spencer; Dale P Sandler; Darryl C Zeldin
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Predictors of microbial agents in dust and respiratory health in the Ecrhs.

Authors:  Christina Tischer; Jan-Paul Zock; Maria Valkonen; Gert Doekes; Stefano Guerra; Dick Heederik; Deborah Jarvis; Dan Norbäck; Mario Olivieri; Jordi Sunyer; Cecilie Svanes; Martin Täubel; Elisabeth Thiering; Giuseppe Verlato; Anne Hyvärinen; Joachim Heinrich
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 3.317

9.  Concentration of the genera Aspergillus, Eurotium and Penicillium in 63-microm house dust fraction as a method to predict hidden moisture damage in homes.

Authors:  Christoph Baudisch; Ojan Assadian; Axel Kramer
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 3.295

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.