Literature DB >> 15574898

Evaluation of the Biological Sampling Kit (BiSKit) for large-area surface sampling.

Mark P Buttner1, Patricia Cruz, Linda D Stetzenbach, Amy K Klima-Comba, Vanessa L Stevens, Peter A Emanuel.   

Abstract

Current surface sampling methods for microbial contaminants are designed to sample small areas and utilize culture analysis. The total number of microbes recovered is low because a small area is sampled, making detection of a potential pathogen more difficult. Furthermore, sampling of small areas requires a greater number of samples to be collected, which delays the reporting of results, taxes laboratory resources and staffing, and increases analysis costs. A new biological surface sampling method, the Biological Sampling Kit (BiSKit), designed to sample large areas and to be compatible with testing with a variety of technologies, including PCR and immunoassay, was evaluated and compared to other surface sampling strategies. In experimental room trials, wood laminate and metal surfaces were contaminated by aerosolization of Bacillus atrophaeus spores, a simulant for Bacillus anthracis, into the room, followed by settling of the spores onto the test surfaces. The surfaces were sampled with the BiSKit, a cotton-based swab, and a foam-based swab. Samples were analyzed by culturing, quantitative PCR, and immunological assays. The results showed that the large surface area (1 m2) sampled with the BiSKit resulted in concentrations of B. atrophaeus in samples that were up to 10-fold higher than the concentrations obtained with the other methods tested. A comparison of wet and dry sampling with the BiSKit indicated that dry sampling was more efficient (efficiency, 18.4%) than wet sampling (efficiency, 11.3%). The sensitivities of detection of B. atrophaeus on metal surfaces were 42 +/- 5.8 CFU/m2 for wet sampling and 100.5 +/- 10.2 CFU/m2 for dry sampling. These results demonstrate that the use of a sampling device capable of sampling larger areas results in higher sensitivity than that obtained with currently available methods and has the advantage of sampling larger areas, thus requiring collection of fewer samples per site.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15574898      PMCID: PMC535137          DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.12.7040-7045.2004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol        ISSN: 0099-2240            Impact factor:   4.792


  6 in total

1.  Enhanced detection of surface-associated bacteria in indoor environments by quantitative PCR.

Authors:  M P Buttner; P Cruz-Perez; L D Stetzenbach
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Secondary aerosolization of viable Bacillus anthracis spores in a contaminated US Senate Office.

Authors:  Christopher P Weis; Anthony J Intrepido; Aubrey K Miller; Patricia G Cowin; Mark A Durno; Joan S Gebhardt; Robert Bull
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-11       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Monitoring airborne fungal spores in an experimental indoor environment to evaluate sampling methods and the effects of human activity on air sampling.

Authors:  M P Buttner; L D Stetzenbach
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  A field investigation of Bacillus anthracis contamination of U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Washington, D.C., buildings during the anthrax attack of October 2001.

Authors:  James A Higgins; Mary Cooper; Linda Schroeder-Tucker; Scott Black; David Miller; Jeffrey S Karns; Erlynn Manthey; Roger Breeze; Michael L Perdue
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Swab materials and Bacillus anthracis spore recovery from nonporous surfaces.

Authors:  Laura Rose; Bette Jensen; Alicia Peterson; Shailen N Banerjee; Matthew J Srduino
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.883

6.  Surface sampling methods for Bacillus anthracis spore contamination.

Authors:  Wayne T Sanderson; Misty J Hein; Lauralynn Taylor; Brian D Curwin; Gregory M Kinnes; Teresa A Seitz; Tanja Popovic; Harvey T Holmes; Molly E Kellum; Sigrid K McAllister; David N Whaley; Edward A Tupin; Timothy Walker; Jennifer A Freed; Dorothy S Small; Brian Klusaritz; John H Bridges
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.883

  6 in total
  25 in total

1.  Impact of processing method on recovery of bacteria from wipes used in biological surface sampling.

Authors:  Autumn S Downey; Sandra M Da Silva; Nathan D Olson; James J Filliben; Jayne B Morrow
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Evaluation of a macrofoam swab protocol for the recovery of Bacillus anthracis spores from a steel surface.

Authors:  L R Hodges; L J Rose; A Peterson; J Noble-Wang; M J Arduino
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Quality sample collection, handling, and preservation for an effective microbial forensics program.

Authors:  Bruce Budowle; Steven E Schutzer; James P Burans; Douglas J Beecher; Thomas A Cebula; Ranajit Chakraborty; William T Cobb; Jacqueline Fletcher; Martha L Hale; Robert B Harris; Michael A Heitkamp; Frederick Paul Keller; Cheryl Kuske; Joseph E Leclerc; Babetta L Marrone; Thomas S McKenna; Stephen A Morse; Luis L Rodriguez; Nancy B Valentine; Jagjit Yadev
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Surface sampling of spores in dry-deposition aerosols.

Authors:  Jason M Edmonds; Patricia J Collett; Erica R Valdes; Evan W Skowronski; Gregory J Pellar; Peter A Emanuel
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Diversity of anaerobic microbes in spacecraft assembly clean rooms.

Authors:  Alexander Probst; Parag Vaishampayan; Shariff Osman; Christine Moissl-Eichinger; Gary L Andersen; Kasthuri Venkateswaran
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Validation of a nylon-flocked-swab protocol for efficient recovery of bacterial spores from smooth and rough surfaces.

Authors:  Alexander Probst; Rainer Facius; Reinhard Wirth; Christine Moissl-Eichinger
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Effect of Surface Sampling and Recovery of Viruses and Non-Spore-Forming Bacteria on a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Model for Fomites.

Authors:  Mark H Weir; Tomoyuki Shibata; Yoshifumi Masago; Dena L Cologgi; Joan B Rose
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 9.028

8.  False-negative rate and recovery efficiency performance of a validated sponge wipe sampling method.

Authors:  Paula A Krauter; Greg F Piepel; Raymond Boucher; Matt Tezak; Brett G Amidan; Wayne Einfeld
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 4.792

9.  National validation study of a cellulose sponge wipe-processing method for use after sampling Bacillus anthracis spores from surfaces.

Authors:  Laura J Rose; Lisa Hodges; Heather O'Connell; Judith Noble-Wang
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Use of a foam spatula for sampling surfaces after bioaerosol deposition.

Authors:  Rafal Lewandowski; Krystyna Kozlowska; Malgorzata Szpakowska; Malgorzata Stepinska; Elzbieta A Trafny
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 4.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.