4.6 Article

Evaluation of a low-cost electrostatic dust fall collector for indoor air endotoxin exposure assessment

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 18, 页码 5621-5627

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00619-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [018996]
  2. NIH [P30 ES05605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exposure to endotoxin in home environments has become a key issue in asthma and allergy research. Most studies have analyzed floor or mattress dust endotoxin, but its validity as a proxy for airborne exposure is unknown, while active airborne dust sampling is not feasible in large-scale population studies because of logistic and financial limitations. We therefore developed and evaluated a simple passive airborne dust collection method for airborne endotoxin exposure assessment. We explored an electrostatic dust fall collector (EDC), consisting of a 42- by 29.6-cm-sized folder with four electrostatic cloths exposed to the air. The EDC was tested during two 14-day periods in seven nonfarm and nine farm homes and in farm stables. In parallel, active airborne dust sampling was performed with Harvard impactors and floor dust collected by vacuuming, using nylon sampling socks. The endotoxin levels could be measured in all EDC cloth extracts. The levels (in EU/m(2)) between EDCs used simultaneously or in different sampling periods in the same home correlated strongly (r > 0.8). EDC endotoxin also correlated moderately to strongly (r = 0.6 to 0.8) with the endotoxin measured by active airborne dust sampling and living room floor dust sampling and-in farm homes-with the endotoxin captured by the EDC in stables. In contrast, endotoxin levels measured by floor dust sampling showed only a poor correlation with the levels measured by active airborne dust sampling. We therefore conclude that measuring endotoxin levels with the EDC is a valid measure of average airborne endotoxin exposure, while reproducibility over time is at least equivalent to that of reservoir dust analyses.

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