4.6 Article

Assessing allergenic fungi in house dust by floor wipe sampling and quantitative PCR

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 521-530

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00732.x

Keywords

Fungi; House dust; Wipe sampling method; qPCR; Asthma; Allergy

Funding

  1. Foundation of UMDNJ
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  3. UMDNJ-SPH
  4. SJVC
  5. Yale University Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering
  6. Alfred P. Sloan foundation to J. Peccia
  7. Tokai University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present study, we modified an existing surface wipe sampling method for lead and other heavy metals to create a protocol to collect fungi in floor dust followed by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR)-based detection. We desired minimal inconvenience for participants in residential indoor environmental quality and health studies. Accuracy, precision, and method detection limits (MDLs) were investigated. Overall, MDLs ranged from 0.6 to 25 cell/cm(2) on sampled floors. Overall measurement precisions expressed as the coefficient of variation because of sample processing and qPCR ranged 6-63%. Median and maximum fungal concentrations in house dust in study homes in Visalia, Tulare County, California, were 110 and 2500 cell/cm(2), respectively, with universal fungal primers (allergenic and nonallergenic species). The field study indicated samplings in multiple seasons were necessary to characterize representative whole-year fungal concentrations in residential microenvironments. This was because significant temporal variations were observed within study homes. Combined field and laboratory results suggested this modified new wipe sampling method, in conjunction with growth-independent qPCR, shows potential to improve human exposure and health studies for fungal pathogens and allergens in dust in homes of susceptible, vulnerable population subgroups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available