Environmental Health Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O.Box 95, Kuopio 70701, Finland.
Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018 May;28(3):231-241. doi: 10.1038/jes.2017.24. Epub 2017 Oct 4.
Different types of house dust samples are widely used as surrogates of airborne inhalation exposure in studies assessing health effects of indoor microbes. Here we studied-in a quantitative assessment-the representativeness of different house dust samples of indoor air (IA) and investigated seasonality and reproducibility of indoor samples. Microbial exposure was measured five times over 1 year in four rural and five urban Finnish homes. Six sampling methods were used: button inhalable aerosol sampler (actively collected personal and indoor air sampling), settled dust, floor dust, mattress dust and vacuum cleaner dust bag dust; the latter three referred to herein as "reservoir dust samples". Using quantitative PCR, we quantified the fungal species Cladosporium herbarum, the fungal group Penicillium/Aspergillus/Paecilomyces variotii, total fungal DNA, and Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. We observed significant differences in microbial levels between rural and urban homes, most pronounced for personal air samples. Fungal species and groups but not total fungal DNA in indoor air correlated moderately to well with reservoir dust and with personal air samples. For bacterial groups, the correlations between air and dust were generally lower. Samples of indoor air and settled dust reflected similarly seasonal variation in microbial levels and were also similar compositionally, as assessed by ratios of qPCR markers. In general, determinations from mattress dust and other reservoir samples were better reproducible in repeated assessments over time than from indoor air or settled dust. This study indicates that settled dust reflects the microbial composition of indoor air and responds similarly to environmental determinants. Reservoir dusts tend to predict better microbial levels in indoor air and are more reproducible. Sampling strategies in indoor studies need to be developed based on the study questions and may need to rely on more than one type of sample.
不同类型的房屋灰尘样本被广泛用作评估室内微生物对健康影响的研究中吸入暴露的替代物。在这里,我们在定量评估中研究了不同房屋灰尘样本对室内空气 (IA) 的代表性,并调查了室内样本的季节性和可重复性。在一年的时间里,我们在四个农村和五个芬兰城市家庭中五次测量了微生物暴露情况。使用了六种采样方法:按钮可吸入气溶胶采样器(主动采集个人和室内空气采样)、沉降灰尘、地板灰尘、床垫灰尘和真空吸尘器集尘袋灰尘;后三种在此称为“储尘样本”。使用定量 PCR,我们量化了真菌物种 Cladosporium herbarum、真菌组 Penicillium/Aspergillus/Paecilomyces variotii、总真菌 DNA 以及革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性细菌。我们观察到农村和城市家庭之间微生物水平存在显著差异,个人空气样本最为明显。室内空气中的真菌物种和组但不是总真菌 DNA 与储尘和个人空气样本中度到很好地相关。对于细菌组,空气和灰尘之间的相关性通常较低。室内空气和沉降灰尘样本的微生物水平反映了相似的季节性变化,并且通过 qPCR 标志物的比率评估,它们的组成也相似。一般来说,与室内空气或沉降灰尘相比,床垫灰尘和其他储尘样本在时间上的重复评估中具有更好的可重复性。本研究表明,沉降灰尘反映了室内空气的微生物组成,并且对环境决定因素的反应相似。储尘往往可以更好地预测室内空气中的微生物水平,并且具有更好的可重复性。室内研究中的采样策略需要根据研究问题进行制定,可能需要依赖于多种类型的样本。