ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: High-efficiency particulate-arrest-filter vacuum cleaners are recommended to allergy sufferers although their use increases personal cat allergen exposure. We aimed to measure personal mite allergen exposure during vacuum cleaning by nasal air sampling and to compare exposures while vacuuming and emptying the vacuum cleaner bag. METHODS: Five brand new high-efficiency vacuum cleaners were selected. An old, previously used vacuum cleaner with its original microfilter in situ was used as a control. Nasal air samples were taken prior to and during vacuum cleaning in 10 homes. Samples were processed by HALOgen assay. Personal mite and cat allergen exposure was measured as the dust compartments were emptied. RESULTS: There was an increase in personal mite allergen exposure with vacuum cleaning, which approached significance (P = 0.058). There was no difference between the high-efficiency vacuum cleaners and the control vacuum cleaner (P = 0.141). When the dust compartments were emptied, personal mite and cat allergen exposure increased (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS. The increase in personal mite allergen exposure while vacuum cleaning in an area with mild to moderate mite allergen exposure is small. High-efficiency vacuum cleaners confer no benefit and cannot currently be recommended to allergy sufferers as a means of reducing personal mite allergen exposure.
Subject(s)
Air Pollution, Indoor/analysis , Air Pollution, Indoor/prevention & control , Allergens/analysis , Environmental Exposure/analysis , Environmental Monitoring , Household Articles , Hypersensitivity/prevention & control , Allergens/immunology , Animals , Cats , Environmental Exposure/adverse effects , Household Work , Humans , Hypersensitivity/immunology , Mites/immunology , Nasal Lavage Fluid , Probability , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Domestic air filtration units have previously been shown to cause a dramatic fall in airborne pet allergen levels in homes with pets. Clinical trials of air filtration units, however, have failed to reveal a significant beneficial effect. Personal pet allergen exposure during air filtration unit use has never been measured. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of air filtration on inhaled cat allergen exposure in homes with cats. METHODS: Nasal air samplers were worn to measure personal cat allergen exposure. The study was carried out in five homes with cats on 4 separate days examining four experimental conditions (cat absent or present, air filtration off or on). The two operators collected four baseline samples and two 15-min samples/h over three consecutive hours. Cat allergen-bearing particles were detected by immunoblotting and allergen concentrations measured by amplified enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the quantity of the inhaled Fel d 1 when the air cleaner was used with the cat in the room. Fel d 1 halo counts (detransformed means) were 29.3 at baseline, 11.8 after 1 h, 10.0 after 2 h and 14.1 after 3 h, with no change on control days (P = 1.00). With the cat elsewhere in the house, a marginal, but statistically significant reduction was observed only after 3 h with the use of air cleaner (Fel d 1 halo count: baseline 12.4; 3 h 5.5; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The use of air filtration units appears to result in a much smaller reduction of inhaled cat allergen exposure than suggested by previous studies using standard air samplers. Cat removal remains the best advice to cat-allergic patients who experience symptoms upon exposure.
