4.5 Article

Birch pollen rupture and the release of aerosols of respirable allergens

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
Volume 34, Issue 10, Pages 1591-1596

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02078.x

Keywords

birch; particulate aerosol; pollen allergens; pollen rupture; respirable particles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Birch pollen allergens have been implicated as asthma triggers; however, pollen grains are too large to reach the lower airways where asthmatic reactions occur. Respirable-sized particles containing birch pollen allergens have been detected in air filters, especially after rainfall but the source of these particles has remained speculative. Objective To determine the processes by which birch pollen allergens become airborne particles of respirable size with the potential to contribute to airways inflammation. Methods Branches with attached male catkins were harvested and placed in a controlled emission chamber. Filtered dry air was passed through the chamber until the anthers opened, then they were humidified for 5 h and air-dried again. Flowers were disturbed by wind generated from a small electric fan. Released particles were counted, measured and collected for immuno-labelling and high-resolution microscopy. Results Birch pollen remains on the dehisced anther and can rupture in high humidity and moisture. Fresh pollen takes as long as 3 h to rupture in water. Drying winds released an aerosol of particles from catkins. These were fragments of pollen cytoplasm that ranged in size from 30 nm to 4 mum and contained Bet v 1 allergens. Conclusion When highly allergenic birch trees are flowering and exposed to moisture followed by drying winds they can produce particulate aerosols containing pollen allergens. These particles are small enough to deposit in the peripheral airways and have the potential to induce an inflammatory response.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available