BACKGROUND: Simple, inexpensive methods of sampling from allergen reservoirs are necessary for large-scale studies or low-cost householder-operated allergen measurement. METHODS: We tested two commercial devices: the Indoor Biotechnologies Mitest Dust Collector and the Drager Bio-Check Allergen Control; two devices of our own design: the Electrostatic Cloth Sampler (ECS) and the Press Tape Sampler (PTS); and a Vacuum Sampler as used in many allergen studies (our Reference Method). Devices were used to collect dust mite allergen samples from 16 domestic carpets. Results were examined for correlations between the sampling methods. RESULTS: With mite allergen concentration expressed as microg/g, the Mitest, the ECS and the PTS correlated with the Reference Method but not with each other. When mite allergen concentration was expressed as microg/m2 the Mitest and the ECS correlated with the Reference Method but the PTS did not. In the high allergen conditions of this study, the Drager Bio-Check did not relate to any methods. CONCLUSIONS: The Mitest Dust Collector, the ECS and the PTS show performance consistent with the Reference Method. Many techniques can be used to collect dust mite allergen samples. More investigation is needed to prove any method as superior for estimating allergen exposure.
BACKGROUND: Simple, inexpensive methods of sampling from allergen reservoirs are necessary for large-scale studies or low-cost householder-operated allergen measurement. METHODS: We tested two commercial devices: the Indoor Biotechnologies Mitest Dust Collector and the Drager Bio-Check Allergen Control; two devices of our own design: the Electrostatic Cloth Sampler (ECS) and the Press Tape Sampler (PTS); and a Vacuum Sampler as used in many allergen studies (our Reference Method). Devices were used to collect dust mite allergen samples from 16 domestic carpets. Results were examined for correlations between the sampling methods. RESULTS: With mite allergen concentration expressed as microg/g, the Mitest, the ECS and the PTS correlated with the Reference Method but not with each other. When mite allergen concentration was expressed as microg/m2 the Mitest and the ECS correlated with the Reference Method but the PTS did not. In the high allergen conditions of this study, the Drager Bio-Check did not relate to any methods. CONCLUSIONS: The Mitest Dust Collector, the ECS and the PTS show performance consistent with the Reference Method. Many techniques can be used to collect dust mite allergen samples. More investigation is needed to prove any method as superior for estimating allergen exposure.
Authors: Jay Portnoy; Jeffrey D Miller; P Brock Williams; Ginger L Chew; J David Miller; Fares Zaitoun; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kevin Kennedy; Charles Barnes; Carl Grimes; Désirée Larenas-Linnemann; James Sublett; David Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; David Khan; David Lang; Richard Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Christopher Randolph; Diane Schuller; Sheldon Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.347
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
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; Elizabeth Matsui; Jay Portnoy; P Brock Williams; Charles Barnes; Kevin Kennedy; David Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David Khan; David Lang; Richard Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Christopher Randolph; Diane Schuller; Sheldon Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace; James Sublett; Jonathan Bernstein; Carl Grimes; J David Miller; James Seltzer Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Victoria H Arrandale; Michael Brauer; Jeffrey R Brook; Bert Brunekreef; Diane R Gold; Stephanie J London; J David Miller; Halûk Özkaynak; Nola M Ries; Malcolm R Sears; Frances S Silverman; Tim K Takaro Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 9.031