Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by THORNE, P. S.
Right arrow Articles by KULHANKOVA, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by THORNE, P. S.
Right arrow Articles by KULHANKOVA, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 31-36, 2003
© 2003 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Five Extraction Protocols for Quantification of Endotoxin in Metalworking Fluid Aerosol

PETER S. THORNE*, KAREN H. BARTLETT§, JOHN PHIPPS and KATARINA KULHANKOVA

College of Public Health, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, 100 Oakdale Campus, IREH, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-5000, USA

Received 16 July 2002; in final form 18 September 2002

Objectives: Occupational exposures to endotoxin-contaminated, water-based metalworking fluids (MWFs) are thought to contribute to cases of respiratory illness. Before occupational exposure limits for endotoxin can be proposed, accuracy and reproducibility of laboratory measurements must be established. The method most commonly used to quantify endotoxin is the Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay and this is the basis for the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method E2144-01. This study was conducted to generate multiple samples with similar mass and endotoxin loading in order to compare four alternative extraction methods with the ASTM method. Methods: Using an exposure chamber system that provides a uniform distribution of MWF mist, aerosols with three concentrations of endotoxins (4.5, 350 and 1141 EU/m3) were collected simultaneously on multiple filter samples. The filters were examined for endotoxin concentration using five different extraction protocols: extraction with 1 h shaking at 25°C in 30 ml pyrogen-free water (PFW) (protocol 1) or in PFW with 0.05% Tween-20 (protocol 2); or shaking at 68°C in 30 ml PFW (protocol 3) or PFW with Tween-20 (protocol 4); or extraction into 20 ml PFW with sonication at 25°C and pH adjustment to 7.5 (ASTM protocol). Results: The uniformity of the aerosol mass yielded coefficients of variation of 12.7, 7.7 and 1.4% for the low, medium and high exposure groups, respectively. The variance in the endotoxin extraction protocols was highest for the ASTM method for the low, medium and high concentration trials. Low, medium and high endotoxin groups were statistically different (P < 0.001), but there were no statistical differences between extraction protocols within these exposure levels. Conclusions: ASTM method E2144-01 yielded comparable estimations of MWF endotoxin aerosol concentrations but with higher variability than the four other extraction methods. This study shows that extraction into PFW at 25°C with or without Tween-20 was an improvement over the ASTM method in that the estimation was more precise and the method is simpler.

Keywords: endotoxin; exposure assessment; Limulus amebocyte lysate assay; ASTM; lipopolysaccharide; machining fluids; metalworking fluids; metal removal fluids


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.Home page
S. Spaan, G. Doekes, D. Heederik, P. S. Thorne, and I. M. Wouters
Effect of Extraction and Assay Media on Analysis of Airborne Endotoxin
Appl. Envir. Microbiol., June 15, 2008; 74(12): 3804 - 3811.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.Home page
S. Spaan, D. J. J. Heederik, P. S. Thorne, and I. M. Wouters
Optimization of Airborne Endotoxin Exposure Assessment: Effects of Filter Type, Transport Conditions, Extraction Solutions, and Storage of Samples and Extracts
Appl. Envir. Microbiol., October 1, 2007; 73(19): 6134 - 6143.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
P. S. Thorne, A. Adamcakova-Dodd, K. M. Kelly, M. E. O'Neill, and C. Duchaine
Metalworking Fluid with Mycobacteria and Endotoxin Induces Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis in Mice
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2006; 173(7): 759 - 768.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
J. DOUWES, P. THORNE, N. PEARCE, and D. HEEDERIK
Bioaerosol Health Effects and Exposure Assessment: Progress and Prospects
Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2003; 47(3): 187 - 200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.