Objectives: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
Keywords: Dermatophagoides farinae; Tyrophagus putrescentiae; cat allergen Fel d 1; dog allergen Can f 1; exposure assessment; house dust mite; mouse allergen Mus m 1.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.