Institut für Prävention und Arbeitsmedizin der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IPA), Kompetenz-Zentrum für Allergologie/Immunologie, Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Institut für Prävention und Arbeitsmedizin der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IPA), Kompetenz-Zentrum für Epidemiologie, Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Feb 20;64(2):165-174. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxz090.
Most studies on indoor allergen exposure used vacuumed surface samples for quantification. One alternative is electrostatic dust collectors (EDCs), which sample previously airborne settled dust. The aim of this study was to compare allergen quantification using two different sampling methods, with respect to repeatability, and to determine how well the results agree with one another.
Four times a year, measurements were made from samples that were either collected from the vacuuming of surfaces, or from EDCs, from 20 German day-care centers totaling 167 rooms. Overall, 504 vacuumed samples collected from smooth floors, 435 samples from carpets, 291 samples from upholstered furniture and beds, and 605 EDC samples were analyzed using six fluorescence enzyme immunoassays recognizing Fel d 1, Can f 1, Mus m 1, domestic mite (DM), Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Dp), and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Tp) antigens. Variances and correlations among the repeat measurements over the course of the year within each sample type, and the correlations between surface samples and the corresponding EDC samples were calculated.
Repeat measurements over the year correlated significantly with one another. However, only Fel d 1, Can f 1, and DM in the EDC samples; DM, Dp, Tp, and Fel d 1 in the upholstered furniture samples; and DM in the carpet samples show representative results of single measurements according to their variance ratios (within-room/between-room variance <1). The highest correlation between surface and EDC samples was found for Fel d 1 on the upholstered furniture (r 0.52), followed by Can f 1 on the upholstered furniture and Can f 1 on carpets (r 0.47 and 0.45, respectively). The maximum correlation for mite antigens was between carpet samples and EDC (DM r 0.27, Dp r 0.33). Mus m 1 and Tp antigens for the most part did not correlate to the EDC results.
Both vacuumed dust from upholstered furniture and EDC samples were suitable for repeatable quantification of several allergens in day-care centers within a year. However, there was little agreement among the different collection methods, especially for Mus m 1 and certain mite antigens. Therefore, the method and location used for collection may greatly influence allergen exposure assessment and study results.
大多数室内过敏原暴露研究使用真空表面样本进行定量分析。另一种选择是静电集尘器（EDC），它可以采集先前空气中沉降的灰尘。本研究的目的是比较两种不同采样方法的过敏原定量结果，以评估其重复性，并确定彼此之间的一致性程度。
每年四次，从德国 20 家日托中心的 167 个房间中采集的表面吸尘样本或 EDC 样本进行测量。总共分析了 504 个从光滑地板上采集的真空吸尘样本、435 个从地毯上采集的样本、291 个从软垫家具和床上采集的样本以及 605 个 EDC 样本，使用 6 种荧光酶免疫测定法识别户尘螨（Fel d 1）、猫毛皮屑（Can f 1）、屋尘（Mus m 1）、屋尘螨（DM）、粉尘螨（Dp）和腐食酪螨（Tp）抗原。在每个样本类型中，计算了年内重复测量之间的方差和相关性，以及表面样本与相应的 EDC 样本之间的相关性。
年内的重复测量彼此之间显著相关。然而，只有 EDC 样本中的户尘螨（Fel d 1）、猫毛皮屑（Can f 1）和 DM；软垫家具样本中的屋尘螨（DM）、粉尘螨（Dp）、腐食酪螨（Tp）和户尘螨（Fel d 1）；以及地毯样本中的屋尘螨（DM），根据其变异比（室内/室间变异<1），显示出单个测量的代表性结果。表面样本和 EDC 样本之间的相关性最高的是软垫家具上的户尘螨（r 0.52），其次是软垫家具上的猫毛皮屑（Can f 1）和地毯上的猫毛皮屑（Can f 1）（r 0.47 和 0.45）。对于螨抗原，地毯样本与 EDC 之间的相关性最高（DM r 0.27，Dp r 0.33）。对于大多数情况下，Mus m 1 和 Tp 抗原与 EDC 结果无相关性。
一年内，从软垫家具和 EDC 采集的真空灰尘都适合重复定量分析日托中心的多种过敏原。然而，不同采集方法之间的一致性较差，特别是对于 Mus m 1 和某些螨抗原。因此，采集方法和位置可能会极大地影响过敏原暴露评估和研究结果。
