206.fm

Similar documents
605.fm


DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

16(1)-3(국문)(p.40-45).fm

304.fm

16(2)-7(p ).fm

82-01.fm


14.531~539(08-037).fm

10(3)-12.fm

< DC1A4C3A5B5BFC7E22E666D>

12(2)-04.fm

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

9(3)-4(p ).fm

10(3)-09.fm

untitled

12.077~081(A12_이종국).fm

8(2)-4(p ).fm

10(3)-02.fm

69-1(p.1-27).fm

10(3)-10.fm

82.fm

50(1)-09.fm

Lumbar spine

14(2) 02.fm

15.101~109(174-하천방재).fm

11(5)-12(09-10)p fm

10(1)-08.fm

fm

04_이근원_21~27.hwp

<35BFCFBCBA2E687770>

50(5)-07.fm

32(4B)-04(7455).fm

12(3) 10.fm

(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re


49(6)-06.fm

1..

416.fm

untitled


15(2)-07.fm

w w l v e p ƒ ü x mw sƒw. ü w v e p p ƒ w ƒ w š (½kz, 2005; ½xy, 2007). ù w l w gv ¾ y w ww.» w v e p p ƒ(½kz, 2008a; ½kz, 2008b) gv w x w x, w mw gv

인문사회과학기술융합학회

달생산이 초산모 분만시간에 미치는 영향 Ⅰ. 서 론 Ⅱ. 연구대상 및 방법 達 은 23) 의 丹 溪 에 최초로 기 재된 처방으로, 에 복용하면 한 다하여 난산의 예방과 및, 등에 널리 활용되어 왔다. 達 은 이 毒 하고 는 甘 苦 하여 氣, 氣 寬,, 結 의 효능이 있


서론 34 2

hwp

012임수진

< D B4D9C3CAC1A120BCD2C7C1C6AEC4DCC5C3C6AEB7BBC1EEC0C720B3EBBEC8C0C720BDC3B7C2BAB8C1A4BFA120B4EBC7D120C0AFBFEBBCBA20C6F2B0A E687770>

14(4) 09.fm

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 및 자아존중감과 스트레스와도 밀접한 관계가 있고, 만족 정도 에 따라 전반적인 생활에도 영향을 미치므로 신체는 갈수록 개 인적, 사회적 차원에서 중요해지고 있다(안희진, 2010). 따라서 외모만족도는 개인의 신체는 타

17.393~400(11-033).fm

<30332DB9E8B0E6BCAE2E666D>

A 617

03-서연옥.hwp

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

현대패션의 로맨틱 이미지에 관한 연구

07.045~051(D04_신상욱).fm

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

17 1 ( ) J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2007;17(1):31-42 Assessment of Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings Jee Yeon Jeong 1 Byung

Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ

82-02.fm


03이경미(237~248)ok

기관고유연구사업결과보고

상담학연구,, SPSS 21.0., t,.,,,..,.,.. (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

<30312DC0CCC7E2B9FC2E666D>

untitled

저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

54 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, I. 1.,,,,,,, (, 1998). 14.2% 16.2% (, ), OECD (, ) % (, )., 2, 3. 3

83-07.fm



레이아웃 1

19(1) 02.fm

untitled

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: IPA * Analysis of Perc

,......

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

18211.fm

11(1)-15.fm

(2)-02(최경자).fm

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

노영남

09È«¼®¿µ 5~152s

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )


untitled

31(3B)-07(7055).fm

26(3D)-17.fm

보건사회연구-25일수정


Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

서론

20(2)-07[25].fm

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

51(4)-13.fm

Transcription:

Lab. Anim. Res. 2010: 26(2), 165-171 Prevalence of Laboratory Animal Allergy in Laboratory Workers Tae Jong Son 1, Jung Hwan Bae 1, Chae Seo Rhee 2 and Won Keun Seong 1, * 1 Division of Biosafety Evaluation and Control, National Institute of Health, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Seoul, Korea 2 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea This study was designed to analyze the prevalence rates of laboratory animal allergy (LAA) in laboratory workers who perform researches with animals, and detect the mouse urinary allergen (Mus m 1) level in animal facilities for the purpose of establishing program for prevention of exposure to allergen. Study subjects were 240 employees who were working for two animal research institutions in Korea. Then the questionnaire and skin prick tests (SPTs) using twenty allergens were conducted with them. Presence of Mus m 1 in each air borne sample collected from animal facility was determined by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Through 240 questionnaire sheets, we found that; (1) 17.0% of workers in the direct exposure group answered that they had allergic symptoms due to laboratory animals; and (2) 6.2% of them had asthmatic symptoms. Twenty one subjects (27.6%) among the subjects with common allergens positive result and five subjects (6.6%) among the subjects with negative result showed a positive response to LAA under the SPTs. The Mus m 1 concentration (1.9 ng/m ) in the sample collected during cage exchange in mouse breeding room was up to 2.8 times higher than its concentration (0.48 ng/m ) in the sample collected at the stationary state. We suggest that LAA management programs including control of exposure to laboratory animal allergens should be considered as a measure to reduce the incidence of LAA and relieve the laboratory worker s allergic sensitivity to laboratory animals. Key words: Laboratory animal allergy, mus m 1, aero-allergen, exposure assessment Received 1 March 2010; Revised version received 17 May 2010; Accepted 10 June 2010 x»(laboratory Animal Allergy) x wš w xá w z ƒw w. x w» 11~44% 4~ 22% ƒ š (Robert and Gregg, 200). x ƒ 125,000 š (Seward, 1999; 2001), x w y l» š (Gordon et al., 2001). x» w šƒ t z,, sww ƒ x *Corresponding author: Won Keun Seong, Division of Biosafety Evaluation and Control, National Institute of Health, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 194 Tongil-lo, Eunpyung-gu, Seoul 122-701, Korea Tel: +82-2-80-2970 Fax: +82-2-80-2280 E-mail: wksung@nih.go.kr» w ww, x» w ƒ w (Cockcroft et al., 1981; Aoyama et al., 1992; Patel et al., 2000). p 17 w ü 5,641 ww ³» xy mw 2.1% ƒ x w» y w (Aoyama et al., 1992). ü» ü 16 x w ³ x w 1.% ƒ y» ƒ šw (Moon et al., 200). w xá š. x» Jackson 2,700 m y wš, ü 60 m xá» œ š. x ü w x x wš x ƒ 165

166 Tae Jong Son et al. wš. x w xá ƒ w x ƒ, x w» z w ƒ š. ù»,, w ƒ ü w, x w Á v ƒ. ü x ü w x xá w x» v w» y w» w xá» ü x w» xy wš x y ü x sƒw. y w ( x», x», q, i,, 1, 2, t, l, ) 10 x w (,,,» v, š, w l,,,, mö), k ( ), š ( ) w v w 107 w œ» w ww. v q 2cm 20 w n wš 15 ù z» w w q s³ k w (w s³ / k s³ ) 0.5 q w. w s³ / k s³ 0.5 1 w 1+, 1 2+, 1 jš 2 +, 2 4+ w 2+ q w (Jang et al., 2009). ¼ t t ü x Á 240 w š,» ü x w 177, x w 6 w. 240 y w v š w 107 ( : 76, : 1 ).» ü Á s³ ù 1.5, 60.8%, x s³.8 (Table 1). w z 2006 11 29 ( q-2865y; z w m ). lò lm x w» v w.,», x w.» w y x w» xy, x» w w. t t ü x Á 240 w. v Allergie ergo (Allergopharma, Germany) ü 10 Ò l j œ» x w v Korpi (2004) xw ww. Gelatin filter TM ( µm pore size, 80 mm diameter, Sartorius-stedim Biotech, Germany)ƒ œ» e AirPortMD8 TM (Sartorius-stedim Biotech, Germany) w t t sƒ x ü,, k š ƒ 480 L œ» s w. k(stationary status) f w f w k(working status) œ» s w z p vl 20 o C w. ñ œ» x s w p vl 40 0.05% tween-20 sw 20 ml phosphate buffered saline (ph7.4) š 10 kw. vl,000 rpm 20 w sw d w. sw jp Vivaspin TM (Sartorius-stedim Biotech., Germany) w w, 00 µl w 4 o C w. ñn x ü d (MUP; Mouse urinary allergen, Mus m 1) k jp Mus m 1 ELISA kit TM (Indoor Biotechnologies, UK) w ww. Poly-clonal rabbit anti-mus

m 1 capture antibody biotinylated rabbit anti-mus m 1 antibody w Hollander (1997) w x xw ww, z d» Tecan Sunrise TM (ReTiSoft, Canada) w 492 nm Ÿ O.D (Optical Density) d w. Mus m 1 t v(0.16~2.5 ng/ml) w Intra-assay x z w š, w inter-assay x 10z ww. Mus m 1 sƒ w»w» w z w w (LOD; Limit of detection) w. w 2-fold ƒ û t w s³ (Mean absorbance of blanks)+2 t r (Standard deviation) w (Korpi et al., 2004). Mus m 1 t 2 w v z w Ÿ 492 nm q d Mus m 1 17 pg/ml š, w 0.05 ng/ m. Mus m 1 w intraassay s³.9%, inter-assay 1.4%. w, v Mus m 1 d m w SPSS TM version 18.0k (SPSS Inc, USA) w. 95% OR (Odds ratio) wš, P<0.05 m w š q w. Occupational allergy to laboratory animals 167 lò lm Á w» ü 240 w w 48.% ƒ y» xw, x w 4.5%, x w 42.9%ƒ y» w. x w w» x 17.0%ƒ ü». l ƒƒ 6.2% 4.8%. w» xy 17.0%(25/147) š, 1» 1.8%(5 /5 ), 15.4%(5 ~10 /5 ), 7.5%(10 /5 ) x w» (Table 1). 107 76 ww v y w w» ƒ x w» 27.6%(21 /76 ) š, y w» x w w» 6.6%(5 /76 ) m w w (P<0.01) (Figure 1). Table 1. Comparison and sensitization rate of workers with and without laboratory animals by questionnaire Questionnaire (n=240) Direct (n=177) Indirect (n=6) OR a 95% CI b Demographics Gender Male (n) 79 15 Female (n) 98 48 Average age 0 Years of working with animals.8 - Sensitization Environment allergen 77 (4.5%) 27 (42.9%) 1.06 0.797-1.48 Animal allergen 0 (17.0%) - Asthma 11 (6.2%) (4.8%) 1.456 1.079-1.96 Expose to mice, h <5 hours 15/109 (1.8%) - 1 5 to 10 hours 2/1 (15.4%) - 1.19 0.175-1.146 10 hours /8 (7.5%) -.760 0.14-1.008 a Odds Ratio, b Confidence interval.

168 Tae Jong Son et al. Figure 1. The positive rate of laboratory animal allergy in positive population to common allergen was 27.6% (21/76) and that of negative population to common allergen was 6.6% (5/ 76), respectively, showed with statistical significance (P<0.01). Ò l ñ x ü Mus m 1 480 L œ» s w w (0.05 ng/m ) d w. ü y k œ» Mus m 1 1.18 ng/m w, s³ 0.48 ng/m. f k ü œ» Mus m 1 0.219~.285 ng/m š, s³ 1.9 ng/m d y œ» Mus m 1 ƒ 2.8 ƒw (P<0.05) (Table 2). y ü w w d, k ü Mus m 1 0.188 ng/m w. x ü f œ» Mus m 1 0.175~5.810 ng/m š s³.09 ng/m d (Table 2). x w w xá š,» ü x w» 11~44% š š (Harrison, 2001; Wolfle and Bush, 2001; Robert and Gregg, 200). ü x w ƒ ƒw x ƒ š x w» ƒ g w» š. wš w» ü x w x w» xy w.» ü 240 y w w» ƒ x w (4.5%) w (42.9%) ƒ, x w x w w» 17.0%» ü x w» w w xy (Table 1). x 4~22% š (Robert and Gregg, 200), ü 6.2% ü 4.8% ƒ l, ü ƒ x» w w wz ƒ v w. q» ü x w, x w š» 107 y w 10 x w 10 w v ww. v» w» (8%) ƒ, w w» ƒƒ 8.9, 6.5% w» Table 2. Mus m 1 aero-allergen concentration during different tasks of laboratory animal care taking Mus m 1 concentration (ng/m ) Area Status No. of samples a Mean Range Office room 10 ND b ND Anteroom 10 0.188±0.001 ND-0.188 Mouse breeding room Stationary c 10 0.48±0.161* ND-1.18 Cleaning room 10 ND ND Mouse breeding room 101.9±0.26* 0.219-.285 Cleaning room Working d 10.09±0.697 0.175-5.810 a The collected sample was 480 L, b No detection, c No working with laboratory animals, d Working with laboratory animals, *P<0.05 compared to stationary/working status.

(data not-shown). ƒ x y w» w ƒ y w. ù ƒ x w x w w v x» (6.0%) (.0%) m w w, (1.0%) w ƒ(p<0.05) šw (Jang et al., 2009).» ü x w x w x w» wš.» ü x w x w» w» ü x w x w ƒ wš. x w w» x w w x x x w» ü x w»z». w x ü k ü œ» Mus m 1 ƒ 0.188 ng/m w š (Table 2), x w w x k mw x w w e w. x» w» ü x w» y w w w sƒ. w» 17%,, w» 11~26% w š (Bland et al., 1986; Venables et al., 1988; Aoyama et al., 1992; Cullinan et al., 1994; Hollander et al., 1996).» 1 5 w (1.8%; 15 /109 ), 5 10 (15.4%; 2 /1 ), 10 (7.5%; /8 ) x ¼» ƒw, w m w w (Table 1). ù Elliott (2007) x w x» ƒw š w, x ƒ» w w. x Occupational allergy to laboratory animals 169 w» y w r x w ƒ v w. total IgE» k ùkü t š x w w» total IgE ƒ ƒ (Renstrom et al., 1994; Hollander et al., 1996). total IgE eƒ, w w v ƒ š (Krakowiak et al., 2007). q total IgE d 5, w» w wš. w x w total IgE 150 KIU/L v mw x w w» ƒ 75% q (Jang et al., 2009). w y w w» ƒ w w» y w w» 4 y w, m w (P<0.01) (Figure 1). q total IgE e y w» x x» dw ƒ. x œ» x sƒw» w ü 480 L œ» s w Mus m 1 d w (LOD; 0.05 ng/m ). 1 15z y w 1z y 0.5~0.8 L œ» w 1 450~720 L œ» y w», s 480 L x ü œ» ƒ 1 x ü y w œ» d. ü Mus m 1 y e k f 2.8 ƒ (Table 2). f œ» Mus m 1 0.175~5.810 ng/m, 70% wš ü y Mus m 1 ƒ w w d (Table 2). x ü œ» x y w ƒ e k x ü œ» 10 Gordon (1994) šw. w Jones (1995) x ü ƒ 15% 65%¾ ƒ œ»

170 Tae Jong Son et al. ƒ 6 šw» x y w ƒ w. x» w, (MUP; Mouse urinary protein) ƒ ng/m ü x» w w ƒ 5ng/m ƒw š š (Gordon et al., 2001). x x ƒ x w k ü œ» Mus m 1 ƒ 0.5 ng/m ƒ w dw. ù x w ù x w s» ng/m Mus m 1 ƒ š. x x w s» ƒ» ƒ w x l w. x w» ü x w» xy x ü Mus m 1 œ» d w œ» y w. w x ü x x w» ƒ w e ƒ w. q p» ü x w x w w x» w š y w (Jang et al., 2009),» ü x w ƒ š.» ü x w» y w d x x x w š w x» ƒ ƒ v w. ü w x ü x ƒ x x w» ƒ g z ƒw.» ü x w w x» y ƒ v w. q ƒ ü w w. k Aoyama, K., Ueda, A., Manda, F., Matsushita, T., Ueda, T. and Yamauchi, C. (1992) Allergy to laboratory animals: an epidemiological study. Br. J. Ind. Med. 49, 41-47. Bland, S.M., Levine, M.S., Wilson, P.D., Fox, N.L. and Rivera, J.C. (1986) Occupational allergy to laboratory animals: An epidemiologic survey. J. Occup. Med. 28, 1151-1157. Cockcroft, A., Edwards, J., McCarthy, P. and Andersson, N. (1981) Allergy in laboratory animal workers. Lancet 1, 827-80. Cullinan, P., Lowson, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Gordon, S., Tee, R.D. and Venables, K.M. (1994) Work related symptoms, sensitization and estimated exposure in workers not previously exposed to laboratory rats. Occup. and Environ. Med. 51, 589-592. Elliott, L., Heederik, D., Marshall, S., Peden, D. and Loomis, D. (2007) Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals. Occup. and Environ. Med. 62, 766-771. Gordon, S., Fisher, S.W. and Raymond, R.H. (2001) Elimination of mouse allergens in the working environment: Assessment of individually ventilated cage systems and ventilated cabinets in the containment of mouse allergens. J. Allergy Clin. immumol. 108(2), 288-294. Gordon, S., Tee, R.D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Lowson, D., Harris, J. and Newman Taylor, A.J. (1994) Measurement of airborne rat urinary allergen in an epidemiological study. Clin. Exp. Allergy 24, 1070-1077. Harrison, D.J. (2001) Controlling exposure to laboratory animal allergens. ILAR J. 42(1), 17-6. Hollander, A., Doekes, G. and Heederik, D. (1996) Cat and dog allergy and total IgE as risk factors of laboratory animal allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 98, 545-554. Hollander, A., Van Run, P., Spithoven, J., Heederik, D. and Doekes, G. (1997) Exposure of laboratory animal workers to airborne rat and mouse urinary allergens. Clin. Exp. Allergy 27, 617-626. Jang, J.H., Kim, D.W., Kim, S.W., Kim, D.Y., Seong, W.K., Son, T.J. and Rhee, C.S. (2009) Allergic rhinitis in laboratory animal workers and its risk factors. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 102, 7-77. Jones, R., Kacergis, J., MacDonald, M., McKnight, F., Turner, W., Ohman, J. and Paigen, B. (1995) The effect of relative humidity on mouse allergen levels in an environmentally controlled mouse room. J. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. 56, 98-401. Korpi, A., Mantyjarvi, R., Rautiainen, J., Kaliste, E., Kalliokoski, P. and Renström, A. (2004) Detection of mouse and rat urinary aeroallergens with an improved ELISA. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 11, 677-682. Krakowiak, A., Wiszniewska, M., Krawczyk, P., Szulc, B., Wittczak, T., Walusiak, J. and Palczynski, C. (2007) Risk factors associated with airway allergic diseases from exposure to laboratory animal allergens among veterinarians. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 80, 465-475. Moon, J.Y., Kim, C.W., Cho, J.H., Chang, J.H., Choi, S.Y., Kwon, N.Y. and Hong, C.S. (200) Laboratory animal allergy in laboratory animal workers. J. Kor. Asthma Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2, 515-524.

Occupational allergy to laboratory animals 171 Patel, N.J., Olson, P., Lumby, D., Fine, J.P. and Bush, R.K. (2000) Laboratory animal allergy. (Abastract) J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 105, S72. Renstrom, A., Malmberg, P., Larsson, K., Sundblad, B.M. and Larsson, P.H. (1994) Prospective study of laboratory-animal allergy: factors predisposing to sensitization and development of allergic symptoms. Allergy 49, 548-552. Robert, K.B. and Gregg, M.S. (200) Laboratory animal allergies: An Update. ILAR J. 44(1), 28-51. Seward, J.P. (1999) Occupational allergy to animals. J. Occup. Med. 14, 285-02. Seward, J.P. (2001) Medical surveillance of allergy in laboratory animal handler. ILAR J. 42, 47-52. Venables, K.M., Upton, J.L., Hawkins, E.R., Tee, R.D., Longbottom, J.L. and Newman Taylor, A.J. (1988) Smoking, atopy, and laboratory animal allergy. Br. J. Indust. Med. 45, 667-671. Wolfle, T.L. and Bush, R.K. (2001) The science and pervasiveness of laboratory animal allergy. ILAR J. 42(1), 12-16.