Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 34, Issue 8, pp 999–1006 | Cite as

Volatile organic compounds and good laboratory practices in the in vitro fertilization laboratory: the important parameters for successful outcome in extended culture

  • Nupur Agarwal
  • Ratna Chattopadhyay
  • Sanghamitra Ghosh
  • Arpita Bhoumik
  • S. K. Goswami
  • Baidyanath ChakravartyEmail author
Embryo Biology

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to describe the role of implementing good laboratory practices to improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes which are of great interest for practitioners dealing with infertility.

Methods

Certain modifications were introduced in May 2015 in our IVF laboratory like high-efficiency particulate air CODA system, steel furniture instead of wooden, use of new disinfectants like oosafe, and restriction of personnel entry along with avoidance of cosmetics like perfume to improve pregnancy rates. Volatile organic compound (VOC) meter reading was monitored at two time points and five different places in the laboratory to compare the embryonic development parameters before (group A: July 2014–April 2015) and after (group B: July 2015–April 2016) remodeling.

Results

The IVF outcomes from 1036 cycles were associated in this study. Reduction in VOC meter readings, enhanced air quality, improvement in blastocyst formation rate, implantation, and clinical pregnancy rate were observed in the laboratory after implementation of new facilities. Results illustrated that the attention must be focused on potential hazards which expose laboratories to elevated VOC levels. Blastocyst formation rate increased around 18%. Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate increased by around 11, 10, and 8%, respectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, with proper engineering and material selection, we have been able to reduce chemical contamination and adverse effects on culture with optimized IVF results.

Support

None.

Keywords

VOC IVF outcomes Blastocyst Air quality Remodeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our computer section for their cooperation in compiling data for the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Experiments encompassing this study were performed in accordance with the Institutional Human Ethical Committee of Institute of Reproductive Medicine (IRM), HB-36/A/3, Salt Lake City, Sector III, Kolkata 700 106 for conducting the clinical study. The ethics committee operates according to the requirements of Good Clinical practice (GCP), Schedule Y, and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The protocol number for the clearance is IVFM-11- 02 dated 01 Feb 2012.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Khoudja R, Xu Y, Li T, et al. Better IVF outcomes following improvements in laboratory air quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:69–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Esteves SC, Bento FC. Implementation of air quality control in reproductive laboratories in full compliance with the Brazilian cells and germinative tissue directive. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lawrence C, Moritmer S, Havelock J, et al. VOC levels in a new IVF laboratory with both central and in-laboratory photo-catalytic air purification units. Alpha Newsletter. 2007;36:1–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dadvand P, Rankin J, Rushton S, et al. Association between maternal exposure to ambient air pollution and congenital heart disease: a register-based spatiotemporal analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:171–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meng Z, Zhang LZ. Chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in lymphocytes of workers exposed to sulfur dioxide. Mutat Res. 1990;241:15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubes J, Selevan SG, Evenson DP, et al. Episodic air pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen quality. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2776–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heitmann RJ, Hill MJ, James AN, et al. Live births achieved via IVF are increased by improvements in air quality and laboratory environment. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31:364–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Worrilow KC, Huynh HT, Gwozdziewicz JB, Schillings W, Peters AJ. A retrospective analysis: the examination of a potential relationship between particulate (P) and volatile organic compound (VOC) levels in a class 100 IVF laboratory cleanroom (CR) and specific parameters of embryogenesis and rates of implantation (IR). Fertil Steril. 2001;76:S15–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Worrilow KC, Huynh HT, Bower JB, Schillings W, Peters AJ. A retrospective analysis: seasonal decline in implantation rates (IR) and its correlation with increased levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Fertil Steril. 2002;78:S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Von Wyl S, Bersinger NA. Air quality in the IVF laboratory: results and survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:283–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown SK. Chamber assessment of formaldehyde and VOC emissions from wood-based panels. Indoor Air. 1999;9:209–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundgren B, Jonsson B, Ek-Olausson B. Materials emission of chemicals—PVC flooring materials. Indoor Air. 1999;9:202–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Bortoli M, Kephalopoulos S, Kirchner S, et al. State-of-the-art in the measurement of volatile organic compounds emitted from building products: results of European inter laboratory comparison. Indoor Air. 1999;9:103–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sparks LE, Guo Z, Chang JC, et al. Volatile organic compound emissions from latex paint—part 1—chamber experiment and source, model development. Indoor Air. 1999;9:10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srivastava PK, Pandit GG, Sharma S, et al. Volatile organic compounds in indoor environments in Mumbai, India. Sci Total Environ. 2000;255:161–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen J, Gilligan A, Esposito W, et al. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1742–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson JE, Boone WR, Bernard RS. The effects of volatile compounds (VC) on the outcome of in vitro mouse embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 1993;Suppl 1:S98–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stillman RJ, Rosenburg MJ, Sachs BP. Smoking and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:545–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall J, Gilligan A, Schimmel T, Cecchi M, Cohen J. The origin, effects and control of air pollution in laboratories used for human embryo culture. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(Suppl 4):146–55. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.suppl_4.146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Effectiveness and biocompatability of common IVF laboratory disinfectants on embryonic development William Lee (23296712). Supervised by Dr. Jim Catt, Dr. Sally Catt, Dr. Mulyoto Pangestu. Monash Medical Centre Clayton, Graduate Diploma in Reproductive Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, Wagley L, et al. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen R, Mortimer D, editors. Towards reproductive certainty: infertility and genetics beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon Press;1999. 378.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panizzo R. Air pollution linked to lower IVF success. Progress Educational trust http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_58675.asp (2010).
  23. 23.
    Mayer JF, Nehchiri F, Weedon VM, et al. Prospective randomized crossover analysis of the impact of an IVF incubator air filtration system (coda, GenX) on clinical pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 1999;Suppl. 1:S42–3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Munch EM, Sparks AE, Van Voorhis BJ, Duran EH. Lack of carbon filtration impacts early embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1009–17.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merton JS, Vermeulen ZL, Otter T, et al. Carbon-activated gas filtration during in vitro culture increased pregnancy rate following transfer of in vitro-produced bovine embryos. Theriogenology. 2007;67:1233–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boone WR, Johnson JE, Locke A-J, et al. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril. 1997;71:150–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esteves SC, Gomes AP, Verza S Jr. Control of air pollution in assisted reproductive technology laboratory and adjacent areas improves embryo formation, cleavage and pregnancy rates and decreases abortion rate: comparison between a class 100 (ISO5) and a class 1.000 (ISO 6) cleanroom for micromanipulation and embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(Suppl 2):S259–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knaggs P, Birch D, Drury S, et al. Full compliance with the EU directive air quality standards does not compromise IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:i164–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cutting RC, Pritchard J, Clarke HS, et al. Establishing quality control in the new IVF laboratory. Hum Fertil. 2004;7:119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen J, Alikani M, Gilligan A, et al. Setting up an ART laboratory. In: Gardner D, Weissman A, Howles C, Shoham Z, editors. Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques. London: Informa Healthcare; 2012. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boone WR, Higdon HL, Johnson JE. Quality management issues in the ART laboratory. JRSCB. 2010;1:30–107.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Piggot PJ, Hilbert DW. Sporulation of Bacillus subtilis. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2004;7:579–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Esteves SC, Bento FC. Air quality control in the ART laboratory is a major determinant of IVF success. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(4):596–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morbeck DE. Air quality in the assisted reproduction laboratory: a mini-review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1019–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dickey RP, Wortham JWE Jr, Potts A, Welch A. Effect of IVF laboratory air quality on pregnancy success. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:S151. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jindal SK, Polotsky AJ, Buyuk ER, Lieman HJ, Gilligan A. Improved pregnancy rates following introduction of engineering controls of lab air quality. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(Supplement):S403. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Forman M, Sparks AET, Degelos S, Koulianos G, Worrilow KC. Statistically significant improvements in clinical outcomes using engineered molecular media and genomically modeled ultraviolet light for comprehensive control of ambient air (AA) quality. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:e91. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nupur Agarwal
    • 1
  • Ratna Chattopadhyay
    • 1
  • Sanghamitra Ghosh
    • 1
  • Arpita Bhoumik
    • 1
  • S. K. Goswami
    • 1
  • Baidyanath Chakravarty
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Assisted ReproductionInstitute of Reproductive MedicineKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations