Air quality in the clinical embryology laboratory: a mini-review

• Published in: Clinical medicine insights. Reproductive health Vol. 15; p. 2633494121990684
• Main Authors: Sciorio, Romualdo, Rapalini, Erika, Esteves, Sandro C.
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-01-2021; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Air quality; Air quality control; Airborne particulates; Biopsy; Chemical pollution; Embryology; Fertilization; Genetic screening; In vitro fertilization; Laboratories; Organic compounds; Particulate matter; Particulates; Quality control; Reproductive health; Review; Trophectoderm; VOCs; Volatile organic compounds; assisted reproductive technology (ART); air quality (AQ); volatile organic compounds (VOCs); in vitro fertilization (IVF); embryo culture
• ISSN: 2633-4941; 2633-4941; 1179-5581
• DOI: 10.1177/2633494121990684

The scope of the clinical embryology laboratory has expanded over recent years. It now includes conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques and complex and time-demanding procedures like blastocyst culture, processing of surgically retrieved sperm, and trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing. These procedures require a stable culture environment in which ambient air quality might play a critical role. The existing data indicate that both particulate matter and chemical pollution adversely affect IVF results, with low levels for better outcomes. As a result, IVF clinics have invested in air cleaning technologies with variable efficiency to remove particulates and volatile organic compounds. However, specific regulatory frameworks mandating air quality control are limited, as are evidence-based guidelines for the best air quality control practices in the embryology laboratory. In this review, we describe the principles and existing solutions for improving air quality and summarize the clinical evidence concerning air quality control in the embryology laboratory. In addition, we discuss the gaps in knowledge that could guide future research to improve clinical outcomes.