Volume 58, Issue 8 pp. 790-794

Four methods of sampling for dust mite allergen: differences in ‘dust’

E. R. Tovey

E. R. Tovey

Cooperative Research Centre for Asthma;

The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research;

Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
T. Z. Mitakakis

T. Z. Mitakakis

The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research;

Search for more papers by this author
J. K. Sercombe

J. K. Sercombe

Cooperative Research Centre for Asthma;

The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research;

Search for more papers by this author
C. H. Vanlaar

C. H. Vanlaar

Cooperative Research Centre for Asthma;

The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research;

Search for more papers by this author
G. B. Marks

G. B. Marks

The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research;

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 July 2003
Citations: 19
Dr Euan R. Tovey
The Woolcock Institute of Medical Research
Allergen Unit
Room 461, Blackburn Building D06
The University of Sydney
Sydney 2006
NSW
Australia

Abstract

Background: Measurement of exposure to the dust mite allergen Der p 1 is important in asthma research and is potentially useful in managing asthma. As no single measure can capture all characteristics of an exposure, it is important to recognize differences in the available methods of measuring exposure to Der p 1.

Methods: Fourteen bedrooms and living rooms were sampled using four methods for 1 week. Airborne allergen was sampled by static Institute of Occupational Medicine samplers. Settling dust was collected on Petri dishes and an adhesive–membrane system (A-book). Vacuumed reservoir dust samples were collected from floors at the end of 1 week. Der p 1 was measured in all samples by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, except A-books, in which it was measured by Halogen immunoassay.

Results: All four methods intercorrelated moderately (r range = 0.40–0.64, P = 0.04), except between allergen in reservoir dust (as μg/m2 and μg/g dust) and settling dust by Petri dishes (P = 0.2). Reservoir allergen, expressed as μg/m2, did not correlate with any measure, except reservoir allergen expressed as μg/g (r = 0.39, P = 0.04). No differences in these associations occurred between bedrooms and living rooms.

Conclusions: While the four methods examined correlated moderately, all have practical advantages and difficulties. No method can be considered as ideal for measuring individual exposure. For practicality, use of vacuum cleaner and Petri dish methods are recommended.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.