A side-by-side comparison of three allergen sampling methods in settled house dust.

Megan Sandel,Ginger L Chew,Samuel Dorevitch,Sherry L Dixon,Johnna S Murphy,David E Jacobs,John L Adgate

doi:10.1038/jes.2014.30

Abstract

Understanding allergen exposure and potential relationships with asthma requires allergen sampling methods, but methods have yet to be standardized. We compared allergen measurements from dust collected from 200 households with asthmatics and conducted a side-by-side vacuum sampling of settled dust in each home's kitchen, living room and subject's bedroom by three methods (EMM, HVS4 and AIHA). Each sample was analyzed for dust mite, cockroach, mouse, rat, cat and dog allergens. The number of samples with sufficient dust mass for allergen analysis was significantly higher for Eureka Mighty Mite (EMM) and high volume small surface sampler (HVS4) compared with American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) in all rooms and surfaces tested (all P<0.05). The allergen concentration (weight of allergen divided by total weight of dust sampled) measured by the EMM and HVS4 methods was higher than that measured by the AIHA. Allergen loadings (weight of allergen divided by surface area sampled) were significantly higher for HVS4 than for AIHA and EMM. Cockroach and rat allergens were rarely detected via any method. The EMM method is most likely to collect sufficient dust from surfaces in the home and is relatively practical and easy. The AIHA and HVS4 methods suffer from insufficient dust collection and/or difficulty in use.

Highlights

Indoor exposure to allergens is an important risk factor in asthma development,[1] and is associated with allergen sensitization,[2] the relevant aspects of exposure remain unclear
The National Academy of Sciences has called for the establishment of ‘‘effective mechanisms for medical professionals to acquire assessments of potential exposure to indoor allergens in residential environments.’’3 two recent reviews have found that home-based multi-trigger multi-component interventions are effective.[4,5]
We selected three leading methods of settled dust sampling for allergens, the Eureka Mighty Mite (EMM),[31] HVS432 and a widely used method referenced in a publication from the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).[33]

Summary

Introduction

Indoor exposure to allergens is an important risk factor in asthma development,[1] and is associated with allergen sensitization,[2] the relevant aspects of exposure (e.g., timing, dose) remain unclear. The National Academy of Sciences has called for the establishment of ‘‘effective mechanisms for medical professionals to acquire assessments of potential exposure to indoor allergens in residential environments.’’3 two recent reviews have found that home-based multi-trigger multi-component interventions are effective.[4,5] Further work is needed to help focus those interventions because there is not yet a standardized method for measuring allergens in settled dust Despite this lack of standardization, dust sampling is important in assessing exposure to allergens in the home.[6] the proliferation of sampling and analytical methods used in different studies may be part of the reason why the observed associations between allergen exposure and asthma remain inconsistent across studies. Other methods have included wiping with a variety of different media, adhesive (press) tape or plate samplers or using electrostatic media[12] Other methods use different locations for sampling, such as intranasal samplers,[19] air sampling via filtration, impingement or impaction through slits or sieves,[20] patch, tape and vacuum sampling of skin,[21] dust fall[22] and simple visual assessment.[23]

Methods

Results

Conclusion