Sampling for indoor fungi - 24/08/11

Doi : 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.11.021

Jay M. Portnoy, MD ^⁎, Charles S. Barnes, PhD, Kevin Kennedy, BA, EHS
Section of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, The Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, USA

Reprint requests: Jay M. Portnoy, MD, Section of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, The Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO 64108

Abstract

Background

A great deal of concern has arisen recently regarding the potential adverse effects of indoor fungi. Our understanding of this complex problem has been hampered by a lack of standardized protocols for performing an indoor assessment for fungi. Without such standards, it is difficult to compare results from one study with those from another or to measure the effect of indoor fungal contamination on a building and its occupants.

Methods

We reviewed the medical literature and here describe a hypothesis-driven approach to planning, sampling, and interpreting the results of indoor assessments for fungi.

Results

Fungi cause 3 primary adverse effects: (1) they can damage a building, (2) they can render a building unpleasant to live in by looking and smelling bad, and (3) they might cause adverse health effects in sensitive individuals. Sampling methods used to test hypotheses include air sampling for spores, measurement of allergens in house dust, and determination of microbially generated volatile organic compounds, ergosterols, glucans, and mycotoxins, as well as environmental conditions that lead to fungal contamination.

Conclusions

Standardized approaches for performing and reporting assessments of indoor fungi are essential if our understanding of this complex field is to improve.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Fungi, mold, Stachybotrys species, environmental sampling, surface sampling, air sampling, ergosterol, glucan, mycotoxin, microbially generated volatile organic compounds

Abbreviations : CFU, COC, EIA, MVOC

Plan

This activity is available for CME credit. See page 41A for important information.
(Supported by a grant from GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC)
Series editor: Harold S. Nelson, MD
Supported in part by a grant from Housing and Urban Development as part of its Healthy Homes Initiative.
Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: J. M. Portnoy has received grants/research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sepracor, Aventis, and AstraZeneca; he is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sepracor, Aventis, and AstraZeneca; and he is on the Speakers' Bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Sepracor, Aventis, and AstraZeneca. C. S. Barnes–none disclosed. K. Kennedy–none disclosed.