Karlsson A S, Renström A, Hedrén M, Larsson K
Lung and Allergy Research, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Krolinska Institute, Stotcholm, Sweden.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2002 Dec;32(12):1776-81. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2002.01553.x.
Several allergen-sampling methods are used to assess level of personal or indirect exposure to cat in homes, schools and other public buildings and working environments.
To compare four different allergen-sampling methods (dust collectors, Petri dishes, person-carried pumps and intranasal samplers) by simultaneous sampling in classrooms and to compare the cat allergen levels between conventional classrooms and allergy prevention classrooms. Another aim was to relate the results to self-reported frequency of allergy and asthma symptoms among the children, to their perception of the school environment.
Among all compulsory schools (n = 257) in the Stockholm suburban area, 35 classrooms (five with implemented allergy prevention measures, seven with additional cleaning and 23 with normal cleaning routines) were chosen for allergen-sampling. Dust collectors (two models), Petri dishes, person-carried pumps and intranasal samplers were used simultaneously. All children (n = 829) received a self-administered questionnaire which included questions about home and school environment, allergic disease, asthma symptoms and pet contact.
The correlation between sampling methods was generally poor.Furthermore, there was no significant difference in allergen levels between allergy prevention and allergen avoidance classes compared to conventional classes. Median levels were generally, but not significantly, lower in classes with few cat owners, compared to classes with many cat owners. Children in allergy prevention classes were more satisfied with the indoor air quality and cleaning than children attending classes with fewer or no allergy prevention measures (P < 0.0001). Nine per cent of all children reported allergic symptoms while at school.
The lack of correlation between sampling methods used simultaneously demonstrates the difficulty in assessing allergen levels in schools and similar environments. The implemented intervention measures (allergy prevention/allergen avoidance) did not influence cat allergen levels at school.
有几种过敏原采样方法可用于评估家庭、学校及其他公共建筑和工作环境中个人对猫的直接或间接接触水平。
通过在教室中同步采样，比较四种不同的过敏原采样方法（集尘器、培养皿、个人携带式采样泵和鼻内采样器），并比较传统教室和预防过敏教室中的猫过敏原水平。另一个目的是将结果与儿童自我报告的过敏和哮喘症状频率及其对学校环境的感知联系起来。
在斯德哥尔摩郊区的所有义务教育学校（n = 257）中，选择35间教室（5间实施了预防过敏措施，7间增加了清洁工作，23间采用正常清洁程序）进行过敏原采样。同时使用了集尘器（两种型号）、培养皿、个人携带式采样泵和鼻内采样器。所有儿童（n = 829）都收到了一份自我填写的问卷，其中包括有关家庭和学校环境、过敏性疾病、哮喘症状和宠物接触情况的问题。
采样方法之间的相关性普遍较差。此外，与传统教室相比，预防过敏和避免过敏原的教室中的过敏原水平没有显著差异。与养猫主人多的班级相比，养猫主人少的班级的中位数水平通常较低，但不显著。与参加预防过敏措施较少或没有预防过敏措施的班级的儿童相比，预防过敏班级的儿童对室内空气质量和清洁程度更满意（P < 0.0001）。所有儿童中有9%报告在学校时有过敏症状。
同时使用的采样方法之间缺乏相关性，这表明在学校和类似环境中评估过敏原水平存在困难。实施的干预措施（预防过敏/避免过敏原）并未影响学校中的猫过敏原水平。
Zotero 插件