4.6 Review

Indoor mold, toxigenic fungi, and Stachybotrys chartarum: Infectious disease perspective

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY REVIEWS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 144-+

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CMR.16.1.144-172.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Damp buildings often have a moldy smell or obvious mold growth, some molds are human pathogens. This has caused concern regarding health of moldy envoirments and has resulted in many studies of moisture- and mold-damaged buildings. Recently, there have been reports of severe illness as a result of indoor mold exposure, particulary due to Stachybotrys chartarum nile many authors describe a direct relationship between fungal contamination and illness, close examination of the literature reveals a confusing picture Here we review the evidence regarding indoor mold exposure and mycotoxicosis, with an emphasis on S. chartarum. We also examine possible end-organ effects, including pulmonary, immunologic, neurologic, and oncologic disorders. We discuss the Cleveland infant idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage reports in detail, since they provided important impetus for concerns about Stachy-botrys. Same valid concerns exist regarding the relationship between indoor mold exposure and human disease, Review of the literature reveals certain fungus-disease associations in humans, including ergotism (Claviceps species), alimentary toxic aleukia (Fusarium), and liver disease (Aspergillys). While many papers suggest a similar relationship between Stachybotrys and human disease, the studies nearly uniformly suffer from significant methodological flaws, making their findings inconclusive. As a result, we have not found well-substantiated supportive evidence of serious illness,due, to Stachybotrys exposure in the contemporary environment. To address issues of indoor mold-related illness, there is an urgent need for studies using objective markers of illness, relevant animal models, proper epidemiologic techniques, and examination of confounding factors.

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