Literature DB >> 19205475

Comparison of Swiffer wipes and conventional drag swab methods for the recovery of Salmonella in swine production systems.

Bayleyegn Molla Zewde1, Rebecca Robbins, Melanie J Abley, Brandon House, W E Morgan Morrow, Wondwossen A Gebreyes.   

Abstract

The main goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of Swiffer wipes in comparison to conventional drag swabs for the recovery of Salmonella. A total of 800 samples (400 Swiffer wipes and 400 drag swabs) were aseptically collected from randomly selected swine barns before disinfection with specific biocides and within 2 h after disinfection. From each barn, 10 samples of each swab type and negative controls were collected. Salmonellae were isolated from 43 (10.8%) of 400 drag swabs and 34 (8.5%) of 400 Swiffer wipes. There was a significant reduction in Salmonella postdisinfection as identified with both sampling procedures irrespective of the type of biocide used (P < 0.05). With the drag swabs, salmonellae were detected in 15% of the samples before disinfection versus 6.5% after disinfection, whereas with the Swiffer wipes, 13 and 4% of the samples were positive pre- and postdisinfection, respectively. Of the total 720 fecal samples collected from pigs placed in the disinfected barns, 132 (18.3%) were Salmonella positive. About 65 and 98% of the Salmonella isolates from swine barns and fecal samples, respectively, were resistant to one or more of the antimicrobials tested. Multidrug resistance was found in 35.7% of the isolates from barn swabs and 56.4% of the isolates from fecal samples. Results of this study suggest that the conventional drag swab method results in better recovery of Salmonella than does the Swiffer wipe method and thus could be a useful sampling method in monitoring Salmonella. Pentaresistant Salmonella (mainly R-type ACSSuT) was more common in fecal samples than in environmental samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19205475     DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.1.142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Food Prot        ISSN: 0362-028X            Impact factor:   2.077


  5 in total

1.  Salmonella enterica in commercial swine feed and subsequent isolation of phenotypically and genotypically related strains from fecal samples.

Authors:  Bayleyegn Molla; Allyson Sterman; Jennifer Mathews; Valeria Artuso-Ponte; Melanie Abley; William Farmer; Päivi Rajala-Schultz; W E Morgan Morrow; Wondwossen A Gebreyes
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Prevalence of porcine noroviruses, molecular characterization of emerging porcine sapoviruses from finisher swine in the United States, and unified classification scheme for sapoviruses.

Authors:  Kelly A Scheuer; Tomoichiro Oka; Armando E Hoet; Wondwossen A Gebreyes; Bayleyegn Z Molla; Linda J Saif; Qiuhong Wang
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Characterization and prevalence of a new porcine Calicivirus in Swine, United States.

Authors:  Qiuhong Wang; Kelly Scheuer; Zhenwen Ahang; Wondwoosen A Gebreyes; Bayleyegn Z Molla; Armando E Hoet; Linda J Saif
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.883

4.  Longitudinal study of Salmonella shedding in naturally infected finishing pigs.

Authors:  A F A Pires; J A Funk; C A Bolin
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 4.434

5.  Does Flooring Substrate Impact Kennel and Dog Cleanliness in Commercial Breeding Facilities?

Authors:  Judith Stella; Moriah Hurt; Amy Bauer; Paulo Gomes; Audrey Ruple; Alan Beck; Candace Croney
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-21       Impact factor: 2.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.