Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

[Guest guest]

Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

München, FRG

ABSTRACT

The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

mycotoxins could become airborne.

In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

# # #

Pure Air Control Services

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that the technology for running a 24 hour air sample for

mold has been available for use. It makes sense that this would be far more

accurate then the 5 minute air trap analysis being routinely used now. It

is unfortunate that this is not being utilized more.

In a message dated 4/6/2007 7:06:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

tigerpaw2c@... writes:

Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

München, FRG

ABSTRACT

The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

mycotoxins could become airborne.

In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

# # #

Pure Air Control Services

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

I agree we need this mycotoxin method of mold analysis. It would be

very valuable. But it must be understood in it's proper context. Each

method of mold analysis provides valuable information but each is

limited to only certain specific details with specific collection

methods and times. For example, a 24 hour sample for current " mold "

analysis is not the same as the cited 24 hour sample for " mycotoxin "

analysis.

Traditional mold analysis detects only spores (the seeds) and not the

whole organism. Each method of spore detection varies as to what is

being counted (spores or colonies) and ability to detect even a few

fragments and to identify species and varieties. Long term samples of

more than a few minutes become grossly inaccurate, if not impossible,

because the collection device and lab microscopist can handle only a

limited quantity of spores. The equipment, collection times and

analytical methods are optimized to perform these specific functions.

PCR analysis can handle large quantities of material including 24 hr

or longer collection times. It can precisely identify species but for

only a limited number of molds, not most. PCR cannot quantify them so

you don't know " how much. "

The mycotoxin testing in the study is very different from the others

and I'm not aware of any commercial labs that are equipped and

experienced to analyze with this method. Also, the mycotoxin analysis

does not give the spore type and numbers that the current short-term

methods are (in)famous for. However, in some situations this may be

the only information that's needed.

This method may show a lot of promise but it is only another piece of

the 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle of mold testing. No single method is

comprehensive or definitive. The greater the types of information

desired the greater the types of samples collected and analyis

requested. Costs can increase from less than $100 to over $1000 per

LOCATION. Mulitiply location cost by the number of locations you want

information about to determine a total cost. In contrast to testing,

many problems can be fixed for less than $1000.

To control costs and still obtain desired information, there must be

a clear question that is identified and which can be answered by one

of (or several) methods. Then the method of collection and analysis

can be selected that best answers the question. Finally, the data

must be interpreted by the consultant. The lab should NEVER interpret

the data because they have no idea where the sample was collected, if

it was collected properly or any of the other information above.

Again, mycotoxin types and levels are very important information but

are only another part of what needs to be known to understand mold

exposure. And then there are the other issues of what are YOU

reactive to, at what levels, and with what impact.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> My understanding is that the technology for running a 24 hour air sample for

> mold has been available for use. It makes sense that this would be far more

> accurate then the 5 minute air trap analysis being routinely used now. It

> is unfortunate that this is not being utilized more.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/6/2007 7:06:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> tigerpaw2c@... writes:

>

>

> Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

> by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

>

> E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

>

> 1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

> Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

>

> 2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

>

> 3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

>

> 4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

> München, FRG

>

> ABSTRACT

>

> The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

> studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

> micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

> cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

> bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

> analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

> trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

> GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

>

> Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

> cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

> and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

> testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

> mycotoxins could become airborne.

>

> In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

> with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

> detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

> mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

>

> # # #

>

> Pure Air Control Services

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mycotoxin testing of air IS available - at high high cost - you needed to

fly people in to the site, as I understand it, but as its not in common use

yet, although it should be. It NEEDS to be. An affordable way to toxin

sample air for real human beings needs to be available.

I have had a lot to say on this subject in the past so I won't say it again,

but this issue in particular makes me really angry.

People who pretend that mold spore traps tell a complete story - especially

when the site has shown stachybotrys to be present, are so very wrong and so

very malignantly deceptive, its criminal.

They should be forced to live in their own 'safe' buildings for a while to

see how much they like (or can stand) it.

I am sure that none of them would live in one of these buildings, but they

insist they are safe. No way.

On 4/8/07, bobbinsbiomed@... <bobbinsbiomed@...> wrote:

>

>

> My understanding is that the technology for running a 24 hour air sample

> for

> mold has been available for use. It makes sense that this would be far

> more

> accurate then the 5 minute air trap analysis being routinely used now. It

> is unfortunate that this is not being utilized more.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/6/2007 7:06:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>

> tigerpaw2c@... <tigerpaw2c%40> writes:

>

> Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

> by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

>

> E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

>

> 1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

> Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

>

> 2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

>

> 3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

>

> 4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

> München, FRG

>

> ABSTRACT

>

> The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

> studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

> micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

> cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

> bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

> analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

> trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

> GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

>

> Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

> cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

> and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

> testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

> mycotoxins could become airborne.

>

> In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

> with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

> detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

> mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

>

> # # #

>

> Pure Air Control Services

>

> ************************************** See what's free at

> http://www.aol.com.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'll be redundant and throw this in again - I missed the beginning of this

thread, so I'm not sure who asked the question, but if you can find a tester who

has an Omni 3000 and can do the analysis of what it sampled, you can get the DNA

of what's in the air. This is a relatively new machine and the air sampling it

does in 10 min of collection is purported to be equivalent to many hours of

passive collection (might even be days' worth, but my memory is so choppy these

days). The post office now uses this machine to sample for anthrax since it got

into their system. The manufacturer is Sceptre Industries (if I've spelled that

correctly), and they do list the handful of people who have them for commercial

use - they also have loaned out a few of them to researchers, so if you can find

one of them (not listed on the site), you may just be paying for their time to

do the test and the analysis - which is already price-y. Finding a professional

who is paying the cost of the

machine may be prohibitive for individuals at this point, but perhaps the folks

who have them would consider a different price for homes then they charge

sampling at businesses, which I assume is their primary market - can't hurt to

ask

~Haley.

LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote:

Mycotoxin testing of air IS available - at high high cost - you needed to

fly people in to the site, as I understand it, but as its not in common use

yet, although it should be. It NEEDS to be. An affordable way to toxin

sample air for real human beings needs to be available.

I have had a lot to say on this subject in the past so I won't say it again,

but this issue in particular makes me really angry.

People who pretend that mold spore traps tell a complete story - especially

when the site has shown stachybotrys to be present, are so very wrong and so

very malignantly deceptive, its criminal.

They should be forced to live in their own 'safe' buildings for a while to

see how much they like (or can stand) it.

I am sure that none of them would live in one of these buildings, but they

insist they are safe. No way.

On 4/8/07, bobbinsbiomed@... <bobbinsbiomed@...> wrote:

>

>

> My understanding is that the technology for running a 24 hour air sample

> for

> mold has been available for use. It makes sense that this would be far

> more

> accurate then the 5 minute air trap analysis being routinely used now. It

> is unfortunate that this is not being utilized more.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/6/2007 7:06:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

>

> tigerpaw2c@... <tigerpaw2c%40> writes:

>

> Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

> by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

>

> E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

>

> 1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

> Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

>

> 2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

>

> 3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

>

> 4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

> München, FRG

>

> ABSTRACT

>

> The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

> studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

> micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

> cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

> bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

> analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

> trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

> GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

>

> Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

> cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

> and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

> testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

> mycotoxins could become airborne.

>

> In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

> with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

> detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

> mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

>

> # # #

>

> Pure Air Control Services

>

> ************************************** See what's free at

> http://www.aol.com.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Haley,

Its my impression that the companies that use and operate the Omni3000 are

high priced security consulting firms,

rather than IAQ consultants. These machines are used to fight bioterror.

So, its very expensive, I gathered. (Although I had some interesting

conversations with these folks when I called around about it - they had all

heard about the work being done with high volume sampling for mold toxins in

the indoor environment and supported it.)

If anybody knows of any *IAQ* consultants who are doing mycotoxin testing

currently (I know the TTUHSC group was - but they have lost their funding)

using high volume air sampling - do they know specifics? (names, phone

numbers, etc?)

I think large urban governments should invest in one of these machines so

they can do surveys of homes suspected to have serious mycotoxin issues.

Thats the best way to make this technology available rapidly to the people

who need it the most.

On 4/9/07, Haley <myhaze@...> wrote:

>

> I'll be redundant and throw this in again - I missed the beginning of

> this thread, so I'm not sure who asked the question, but if you can find a

> tester who has an Omni 3000 and can do the analysis of what it sampled, you

> can get the DNA of what's in the air. This is a relatively new machine and

> the air sampling it does in 10 min of collection is purported to be

> equivalent to many hours of passive collection (might even be days' worth,

> but my memory is so choppy these days). The post office now uses this

> machine to sample for anthrax since it got into their system. The

> manufacturer is Sceptre Industries (if I've spelled that correctly), and

> they do list the handful of people who have them for commercial use - they

> also have loaned out a few of them to researchers, so if you can find one of

> them (not listed on the site), you may just be paying for their time to do

> the test and the analysis - which is already price-y. Finding a professional

> who is paying the cost of the

> machine may be prohibitive for individuals at this point, but perhaps the

> folks who have them would consider a different price for homes then they

> charge sampling at businesses, which I assume is their primary market -

> can't hurt to ask

>

> ~Haley.

>

> LiveSimply <quackadillian@... <quackadillian%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> Mycotoxin testing of air IS available - at high high cost - you needed to

> fly people in to the site, as I understand it, but as its not in common

> use

> yet, although it should be. It NEEDS to be. An affordable way to toxin

> sample air for real human beings needs to be available.

>

> I have had a lot to say on this subject in the past so I won't say it

> again,

> but this issue in particular makes me really angry.

>

> People who pretend that mold spore traps tell a complete story -

> especially

> when the site has shown stachybotrys to be present, are so very wrong and

> so

> very malignantly deceptive, its criminal.

>

> They should be forced to live in their own 'safe' buildings for a while to

> see how much they like (or can stand) it.

>

> I am sure that none of them would live in one of these buildings, but they

> insist they are safe. No way.

>

> On 4/8/07, bobbinsbiomed@... <bobbinsbiomed%40aol.com> <

> bobbinsbiomed@... <bobbinsbiomed%40aol.com>> wrote:

> >

> >

> > My understanding is that the technology for running a 24 hour air sample

> > for

> > mold has been available for use. It makes sense that this would be far

> > more

> > accurate then the 5 minute air trap analysis being routinely used now.

> It

> > is unfortunate that this is not being utilized more.

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/6/2007 7:06:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> >

> > tigerpaw2c@... <tigerpaw2c%40> <tigerpaw2c%40>

> writes:

> >

> > Airborne Mycotoxin Sampling and Screening Analysis

> > by E Johanning, M Gareis, K Nielsen, R Dietrich and E Märtlbauer

> >

> > E Johanning1*, M Gareis2, K Nielsen3, R Dietrich4 and E Märtlbauer4

> >

> > 1Fungal Research Group (FRG, Inc.), Occupational and Environmental

> > Life Science, Albany, N.Y. USA.

> >

> > 2Institute for Microbiology und Toxicology, BAFF, Kulmbach, FRG

> >

> > 3Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

> >

> > 4Institute of Hygiene und Technology of Milk, L.M. University of

> > München, FRG

> >

> > ABSTRACT

> >

> > The indoor mycotoxins inhalation exposure of patients (n=25) was

> > studied using a high-volume air sampler (60 cfm x 24 h) with a

> > micropore-paper filter (8x11 inches). The filters were evaluated for

> > cytotoxicity caused by mycotoxins using the MTT-cell culture

> > bioassay and by culture identification. A subset of samples was

> > analyzed with an enzyme-immuno assay for occurrence of macrocyclic

> > trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys chartarum and HPLC-DAD and

> > GC-MS analyses for different mycotoxins.

> >

> > Highly toxic air samples (IC50 & #8804; 31 mg/ml) were found in seven

> > cases; moderate toxicities (IC50 > 31 to & #8804; 125 mg/ml) in 14 cases,

> > and four cases were not toxic compared to controls. The subset

> > testing demonstrated that macrocyclic trichothecenes and other

> > mycotoxins could become airborne.

> >

> > In conclusion, an inhalation risk could be confirmed (84% of cases)

> > with the 24-hour high volume air sampling test method due to the

> > detection of airborne cytotoxic fungal particles and specific

> > mycotoxins, including trichothecenes produced by Stachybotrys fungi.

> >

> > # # #

> >

> > Pure Air Control Services

> >

> > ************************************** See what's free at

> > http://www.aol.com.

> >

> >

>