Related resources
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Academic department(s)
Relationship between mite, cat, and dog allergens in reservoir dust and ambient air.
Custovic A, Simpson B, Simpson A, Hallam C, Craven M, Woodcock A
Allergy. 1999;54( 6):612-6.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Use our list of Related resources to find this item elsewhere. Alternatively, request a copy from the Library's Document supply service.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardized methods to measure allergen exposure are essential to assess the relationship between exposure, sensitization, and asthma.Most studies have measured allergen levels in reservoir dust, although airsamples may be more representative as a measure of inhaled allergen. Theaim of this study was to define the relationship between mite, cat, anddog allergen content in the reservoir dust and the levels in the ambientair. METHODS: Dust samples from the living-room floor (LF) and sofa (S)were collected in 127 homes: 62 without and 65 with pets (31 dogs, 34cats). Air samples were taken in the same room, with a high-volume pumpfor 1 h (flow 60 l/min). Der p 1, Fel d 1, and Can f 1 were determined bymAb-based ELISA. RESULTS: Airborne Der p 1 was below the detection limit(0.8 ng/m3) in all homes, with reservoir levels (GM and range) being 1.14microg/g (0.2-66) and 1.15 microg/g (0.2-127) in LF and S, respectively.Airborne Can f 1 was detected in 40/62 homes without pets (range 0.6-12.4ng/m3) and in all homes with dogs (range 0.5-99 ng/m3). In the multiplelinear regression analysis, Can f 1 level in the LF was an independentcorrelate of the airborne Can f 1 (P=0.01, homes with dogs; P=0.04, homeswithout dogs). Fel d 1 was detected in the air in 16/62 homes without pets(range 0.16-1.8 ng/m3) and in all homes with cats (range 0.4-22.3 ng/m3).Fel d 1 level in the LF was an independent correlate of the airborne Fel d1 in homes without cats (P=0.008), but airborne levels in homes with catsdid not correlate with reservoir levels. CONCLUSIONS: The aerodynamics ofeach allergen must be taken into account when assessing exposure: whilelevels in reservoir dust are the best available index for mite allergens,airborne levels might be more suitable for defining exposure to pets. Ifair samples are difficult to obtain, levels of Can f 1 and Fel d 1 in theLF samples should be used as a surrogate measure of personalexposure.
Keyword(s)
Animals; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Housing; Regression Analysis; analysis: Air; analysis: Allergens; analysis: Dust; immunology: Cats; immunology: Dogs; immunology: Mites