The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Indoor Air. 2012 Oct;22(5):405-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00770.x. Epub 2012 Feb 28.
Indoor microbial exposure has been related to allergy and respiratory disorders. However, the lack of standardized sampling methodology is problematic when investigating dose-response relationships between exposure and health effects. In this study, different sampling methods were compared regarding their assessment of microbial exposures, including culturable fungi and bacteria, endotoxin, as well as the total inflammatory potential (TIP) of dust samples from Danish homes. The Gesamtstaubprobenahme (GSP) filter sampler and BioSampler were used for sampling of airborne dust, whereas the dust fall collector (DFC), the electrostatic dust fall collector (EDC), and vacuum cleaner were used for sampling of settled dust. The GSP assessed significantly higher microbial levels than the BioSampler, yet measurements from both samplers correlated significantly. Considerably higher levels of fungi, endotoxin, and TIP were found in the EDC compared with the DFC, and regarding fungi, the EDC correlated more strongly and significantly with vacuumed dust than the DFC. Fungi in EDC and vacuum dust correlated most strongly with airborne dust, and in particular, the measurements from the EDC associated well with those from GSP. Settled dust from the EDC was most representative of airborne dust and may thus be considered as a surrogate for the assessment of indoor airborne microbial exposure.
Significant discrepancies between sampling methods regarding indoor microbial exposures have been revealed. This study thus facilitates comparison between methods and may therefore be used as a frame of reference when studying the literature or when conducting further studies on indoor microbial exposure. Results also imply that the relatively simple EDC method for the collection of settled dust may be used as an alternative to otherwise tedious and time-consuming airborne dust sampling.
室内微生物暴露与过敏和呼吸道疾病有关。然而，在研究暴露与健康影响之间的剂量-反应关系时，缺乏标准化的采样方法是有问题的。在这项研究中，比较了不同的采样方法，以评估它们对微生物暴露的评估，包括可培养真菌和细菌、内毒素以及丹麦家庭灰尘样本的总炎症潜力 (TIP)。Gesamtstaubprobenahme (GSP) 过滤器采样器和 BioSampler 用于采集空气中的灰尘，而灰尘沉降收集器 (DFC)、静电灰尘沉降收集器 (EDC) 和真空吸尘器用于采集沉降灰尘。GSP 评估的微生物水平明显高于 BioSampler，但两者的测量值相关性显著。EDC 中的真菌、内毒素和 TIP 水平明显高于 DFC，而且就真菌而言，EDC 与真空吸尘器收集的灰尘的相关性更强且更显著，而不是 DFC。EDC 和真空吸尘器中的真菌与空气中的灰尘相关性最强，尤其是 EDC 的测量值与 GSP 的测量值相关性良好。EDC 的沉降灰尘最能代表空气中的灰尘，因此可以被认为是评估室内空气中微生物暴露的替代物。
已经揭示了采样方法之间关于室内微生物暴露的显著差异。因此，本研究促进了方法之间的比较，并且可以用作研究文献或进行室内微生物暴露进一步研究的参考框架。结果还表明，收集沉降灰尘的相对简单的 EDC 方法可替代繁琐且耗时的空气灰尘采样。
