4.6 Article

Determinants of house dust endotoxin in three European countries - the AIRALLERG study

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 70-79

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00461.x

关键词

children; endotoxin; house dust; housing characteristics; questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparison of endotoxin levels between study populations and countries is limited as a result of differences in sampling, extraction, and storage procedures. The objective of this study is to assess the levels and determinants of endotoxin in mattress and living room floor dust samples from three European countries, namely, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, using a standardized sampling, storage, and analysis protocol. The mattress and living room floor dust was collected from the homes of 1065 German, Dutch, and Swedish (pre-)school children. All the samples were collected in the cool season and analyzed for endotoxin in a central laboratory. The determinants were assessed by a standardized questionnaire. The endotoxin concentrations in mattress and living room floor dust were found to be the highest in German homes and lowest in the Swedish ones. Differences between the geometric means were small (factor 1.1-1.7). Most of the associations between endotoxin concentrations and potential determinants were not statistically significant and heterogeneous across countries. However, keeping pets and having more than four persons living in the home were consistently associated with up to 1.7-fold higher endotoxin concentrations in mattress and floor dust. Furthermore, having carpets or rugs, and opening the windows frequently was associated with up to 3.4-fold and 1.3-fold higher endotoxin concentrations in living room floor dust, respectively. The proportion of variance explained by the questionnaire variables was generally low. In conclusion, the data on housing characteristics did not accurately predict the endotoxin concentrations in house dust, and could only partly explain the differences between countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据