Mouse urinary allergen exposure among animal house workers
Urine of mice is the main source of allergenic proteins that can enter the human body via inhalation or dermal exposure. The allergens exposure also can spread from one environment to another through airborne dispersal then attach to clothing and skin, and surfaces that in contact. Mus m 1 is a p...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Monograph |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universiti Sains Malaysia
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.usm.my/62242/ http://eprints.usm.my/62242/1/NUR%20BADARIAH%20BINTI%20ABD%20RAHMAN%20-%20e.pdf |
| Summary: | Urine of mice is the main source of allergenic proteins that can enter the human body via
inhalation or dermal exposure. The allergens exposure also can spread from one
environment to another through airborne dispersal then attach to clothing and skin, and
surfaces that in contact. Mus m 1 is a prealbumin and a lipocalin-odorant binding protein
with size of 19 kDa and belong to the rodent family of major urinary proteints. The
objective of this research is to study the Mus m 1 concentration levels among animal
house workers. Mus m 1 were measured from personal and area airborne samples using
IOM sampler attached to a sampling pump via tubing for 3 to 8 hours. Wipe sampling was
utilised to measure Mus m 1 contamination on hard surface area of workplace using cotton
swab. Personal wipe sampling on hands and shoes were collected during pre-, mid- and
post-shift. The samples were extracted and analysed using ELISA. Questionnaire
enquiring about sociodemographic and job tasks were completed by subjects. Levels of
Mus m 1 were significantly higher in mid-shift and post-shift wipes of shoes samples (p =
0.043). There were significant difference of Mus m 1 contamination among mid-shift hands
wipe samples (p = 0.01) and mid-shift shoes wipe samples (p = 0.01) between laboratory
technicians and office workers. There was also strong significant correlation between midshift
among wipe hands and shoes (r = 1.000, p = 0.001). In conclusion, Mus m 1 was
detectable in personal and area monitoring of airborne sampling and dermal wipe
sampling. Correlation between airborne exposure and dermal had established the potential
pathways of Mus m 1 contamination from air to hard surfaces, hard surfaces to dermal and
from exposed to non-exposed area. |
|---|