Premium
Evaluation of home allergen sampling devices
Author(s) -
Sercombe J. K.,
LiuBrennan D.,
Garcia M. L.,
Tovey E. R.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
allergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.363
H-Index - 173
eISSN - 1398-9995
pISSN - 0105-4538
DOI - 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00657.x
Subject(s) - allergen , mite , sampling (signal processing) , house dust mite , airborne allergen , dust mites , medicine , toxicology , immunology , allergy , computer science , biology , botany , telecommunications , detector
Background: Simple, inexpensive methods of sampling from allergen reservoirs are necessary for large‐scale studies or low‐cost householder‐operated allergen measurement. Methods: We tested two commercial devices: the Indoor Biotechnologies Mitest Dust Collector and the Dräger Bio‐Check Allergen Control; two devices of our own design: the Electrostatic Cloth Sampler (ECS) and the Press Tape Sampler (PTS); and a Vacuum Sampler as used in many allergen studies (our Reference Method). Devices were used to collect dust mite allergen samples from 16 domestic carpets. Results were examined for correlations between the sampling methods. Results: With mite allergen concentration expressed as μ g/g, the Mitest, the ECS and the PTS correlated with the Reference Method but not with each other. When mite allergen concentration was expressed as μ g/m 2 the Mitest and the ECS correlated with the Reference Method but the PTS did not. In the high allergen conditions of this study, the Dräger Bio‐Check did not relate to any methods. Conclusions: The Mitest Dust Collector, the ECS and the PTS show performance consistent with the Reference Method. Many techniques can be used to collect dust mite allergen samples. More investigation is needed to prove any method as superior for estimating allergen exposure.