Advertisement

Air Quality Management

  • Johan GunsEmail author
  • Ronny Janssens
Chapter

Abstract

To ensure quality and safety of tissues and cells, air quality in embryology laboratories is highly regulated. Qualification of air quality in ART laboratories should be done before use and on periodic intervals. Compliance to the defined classification of cleanliness has to be demonstrated at rest and in operation, in compliance with the ISO14644 standards. To ensure that people, processes, and the environment remain in control during operation, a monitoring program consisting of enumeration of particles and microorganisms should be in place. The monitoring program should establish the sampling frequency and locations and the number of samples per location, the sample volume, and test methods, based on risk assessment.

The ART laboratory should take measures to avoid volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air and incubators by selection of appropriate construction material, furniture, and disinfectants. VOCs can be removed from air by absorption in active carbon and permanganate filters or by photo oxidation and even cold plasma technology. Ideally, these systems should be installed in central air-handling systems; however, stand-alone units can be indicated in places where centralized air purification is not available.

Keywords

Air quality Airborne particulates GMP ISO 14644 ISO 14698 Volatile organic compounds 

References

  1. 1.
    Food and Drug Administration. Current good tissue practice for human cell, tissue, and cellular and tissue-based product establishments. 21CFR1271, subpart C-subpart D. 2009. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission. Implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. 2006/86/EC, L 294-32-L 294/50. 2006. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Union. EU Good Manufactering Practice. Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use. Annex 1 Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products (corrected version). 91/356/EEC, EudraLex – Volume 4 Good manufacturing practice (GMP) Guidelines. 2008. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Food and Drug Administration. Good tissue practice (cGTP) final rule questions and answers. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/TissueTissueProducts/QuestionsaboutTissues/ucm102994.htm. 2009. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  5. 5.
    Boone WR, Johnson JE, Locke AJ, Crane MM, Price TM. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:150–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen J, Gilligan A, Esposito W, Schimmel T, Dale B. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1742–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higdon HL, Blackhurst DW, Boone WR. Incubator management in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:703–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esteves SC, Gomes AP, Verza S. 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 (ISO 5) and a Class 1.001 (ISO 6) cleanroom for micromanipulation and embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merton JS, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Munch EM, Sparks AE, Duran HE, Van Voorhis BJ. Lack of carbon air filtration impacts early embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1009–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morbeck DE. Air quality in the assisted reproduction laboratory: a mini-review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Standard Organisation. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments – part 1: classification of air cleanliness by particle concentration. ISO14644-1:2015. 2015. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ensor DS, Foarde KK. The behavior of particles in cleanrooms. In: Dixon AM, editor. Environmental monitoring for cleanrooms and controlled environments. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 1–28.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Standard Organisation. Cleanrooms and associated environments – part 2: monitoring to provide evidence of cleanroom performance related to air cleanliness by particle concentration. ISO14644-2:2015. 2015. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Standard Organisation. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments – Biocontamination control – Part 1: General principles and methods. ISO14698-1:2003. 2003. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Sterile Drug Products. Produced by aseptic processing – current good manufactering practice. 2004. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clontz L. Microbial limit and bioburden tests. Validation approaches and global requirements. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    USP29-NF24 <1116> Microbiological control and monitoring of aseptic processing environments In: United States Pharmacopeia, Baltimore, 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kastrop PMM, de Graaf-Miltenburg LAM, Gutknecht DR, Weima SM. Microbial contamination of embryo cultures in an ART laboratory: sources and management. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ljungqvist B, Reinmuller B. Airborne viable particles and total number of airborne particles: comparative studies of active air sampling. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2000;54:112–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shintani H, Taniai E, Miki A, Kurosu S, Hayashi F. Comparison of the collecting efficiency of microbiological air samplers. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56:42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gangneux JP, et al. Bacterial and fungal counts in hospital air: comparative yields for 4 sieve impactor air samplers with 2 culture media. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1405–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee KS, et al. A field comparison of four samplers for enumerating fungal aerosols I. sampling characteristics. Indoor Air. 2004;14:360–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bonadonna L, Marconi A. A comparison of two air samplers for recovery of indoor bioaerosols. Aerobiologia. 1994;10:153–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whyte W, Green G, Albisu A. Collection efficiency and design of microbial air samplers. J Aerosol Sci. 2007;38:97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yao MS, Mainelis G. Investigation of cut-off sizes and collection efficiencies of portable microbial samplers. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2006;40:595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Standard Organisation. ISO 14698-1 Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments – Biocontamination control – Part 1: General principles and methods. ISO14698-1:2003. 2003. Ref Type: Bill/Resolution.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ljungqvist B, Reinmuller B. Monitoring of airborne viable particles. In: Dixon AM, editor. Environmental monitoring for cleanrooms and controlled environments. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 61–71.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deschenes PD. Viable environmental microbiological monitoring. In: Agalloco J, Carleton FJ, editors. Validation of pharmaceutical processes. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008. p. 357–69.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    USP29-NF24 <1116> Microbiological evaluation of clean rooms and other controlled environments. In: United States Pharmacopeia, Baltimore, 2010.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutton SVW. Microbial surface monitoring. In: Dixon AM, editor. Environmental monitoring for cleanrooms and controlled environments. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 71–92.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Herlong JL, Reubish K, Higdon HL, Boone WR. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of microorganisms in an assisted reproductive technology facility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:847–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    European Pharmacopoeia – Supplement 2000 <2.6> General methods. Biological tests in European Pharmacopoeia 2000.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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;13:146–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sutton SVW, Proud DW, Rachui S, Brannan DK. Validation of microbial recovery from disinfectants. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2002;56:255–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bleisteiner M. Disinfectants and culture media in hygiene monitoring. Une approche pratique contre la contamination microbiologique. Disinfectants and culture media in hygiene monitoring. 2009. Une approche pratique contre la contamination microbiologique, Belgian Cleanroom Workclub. Ref Type: Conference Proceeding.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moldenhauer J. Practical issues in designing and implementing an environmental control program. In: Moldenhauer J, editor. Environmental monitoring. A comprehensive handbook. Volume 1: PDA books; 2005. p. 7–26.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khoudja RY, Xu Y, Li T, Zhou C. Better IVF outcomes following improvements in laboratory air quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Legro RS, et al. Effect of air quality on assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perin PM, Maluf M, Czeresnia CE, Januario DA, Saldiva PH. Impact of short-term preconceptional exposure to particulate air pollution on treatment outcome in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen J, Gilligan A, Garrisi J. Setting up an ART laboratory. In: Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shomam Z, editors. Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques: laboratory and clinical perspectives. London: Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 17–24.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cutting R, Pritchard J, Clarke H, Martin K. Establishing quality control in the new IVF laboratory. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2004;7:119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cohen J, Gilligan A, Willadsen S. Culture and quality control of embryos. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alpha Environmental. alphaenvironmental.com. 2010. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  45. 45.
    Advanced Chemical Sensors. www.acsbadge.com. 10 A.D. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  46. 46.
    GenX Internationale. www.genxintl.com. 2010. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  47. 47.
    Zander IVF Inc. www.zanderivf.com. 2010. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  48. 48.
    MidAtlantic Diagnostics. http://www.midatlanticdiagnostics.com/products/lab/incubators/ultrapure.htm. 2010. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
  49. 49.
    Lawrence C. VOC levels in a new IVF laboratory with both central and in-laboratory photcatalytic air purification units. Alpha Sci Reprod Med. 2007;36:1–5.. http://www.alphascientists.com. 23-8-2010. Ref Type: Magazine Article.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Centre for Reproductive Medicine, UZ BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations