Literature DB >> 22138998

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

Paula A Krauter1, Greg F Piepel, Raymond Boucher, Matt Tezak, Brett G Amidan, Wayne Einfeld.   

Abstract

Recovery of spores from environmental surfaces varies due to sampling and analysis methods, spore size and characteristics, surface materials, and environmental conditions. Tests were performed to evaluate a new, validated sponge wipe method using Bacillus atrophaeus spores. Testing evaluated the effects of spore concentration and surface material on recovery efficiency (RE), false-negative rate (FNR), limit of detection (LOD), and their uncertainties. Ceramic tile and stainless steel had the highest mean RE values (48.9 and 48.1%, respectively). Faux leather, vinyl tile, and painted wood had mean RE values of 30.3, 25.6, and 25.5, respectively, while plastic had the lowest mean RE (9.8%). Results show roughly linear dependences of RE and FNR on surface roughness, with smoother surfaces resulting in higher mean REs and lower FNRs. REs were not influenced by the low spore concentrations tested (3.10 × 10(-3) to 1.86 CFU/cm(2)). Stainless steel had the lowest mean FNR (0.123), and plastic had the highest mean FNR (0.479). The LOD(90) (≥1 CFU detected 90% of the time) varied with surface material, from 0.015 CFU/cm(2) on stainless steel up to 0.039 on plastic. It may be possible to improve sampling results by considering surface roughness in selecting sampling locations and interpreting spore recovery data. Further, FNR values (calculated as a function of concentration and surface material) can be used presampling to calculate the numbers of samples for statistical sampling plans with desired performance and postsampling to calculate the confidence in characterization and clearance decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22138998      PMCID: PMC3264127          DOI: 10.1128/AEM.07403-11

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


  29 in total

1.  Responding to a bioterrorist attack: environmental investigation of anthrax in New Jersey.

Authors:  David J Valiante; Donald P Schill; Eddy A Bresnitz; Gregory A Burr; Kenneth R Mead
Journal:  Appl Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2003-10

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.  Adhesion of bacillus spores in relation to hydrophobicity.

Authors:  U Rönner; U Husmark; A Henriksson
Journal:  J Appl Bacteriol       Date:  1990-10

4.  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

5.  Decontamination assessment of Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus subtilis, and Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores on indoor surfaces using a hydrogen peroxide gas generator.

Authors:  J V Rogers; C L K Sabourin; Y W Choi; W R Richter; D C Rudnicki; K B Riggs; M L Taylor; J Chang
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.772

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

Authors:  Mark P Buttner; Patricia Cruz; Linda D Stetzenbach; Amy K Klima-Comba; Vanessa L Stevens; Peter A Emanuel
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Bacillus anthracis contamination and inhalational anthrax in a mail processing and distribution center.

Authors:  W T Sanderson; R R Stoddard; A S Echt; C A Piacitelli; D Kim; J Horan; M M Davies; R E McCleery; P Muller; T M Schnorr; E M Ward; T R Hales
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.772

8.  Determination of the efficacy of two building decontamination strategies by surface sampling with culture and quantitative PCR analysis.

Authors:  Mark P Buttner; Patricia Cruz; Linda D Stetzenbach; Amy K Klima-Comba; Vanessa L Stevens; Tracy D Cronin
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 9.  Laboratory studies on surface sampling of Bacillus anthracis contamination: summary, gaps and recommendations.

Authors:  G F Piepel; B G Amidan; R Hu
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 3.772

10.  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

View more
  9 in total

1.  Biological Validation of a Chemical Effluent Decontamination System.

Authors:  Christopher K Cote; Jessica M Weidner; Christopher Klimko; Ashley E Piper; Jeremy A Miller; Melissa Hunter; Jennifer L Shoe; Jennifer C Hoover; Brian R Sauerbry; Tony Buhr; Joel A Bozue; David E Harbourt; Pamela J Glass
Journal:  Appl Biosaf       Date:  2021-03-19

2.  Alternative fast analysis method for cellulose sponge surface sampling wipes with low concentrations of Bacillus Spores.

Authors:  Ahmed Abdel-Hady; M Worth Calfee; Denise Aslett; Sang Don Lee; Barbara Wyrzykowska-Ceradini; F Robbins Delafield; Kathleen May; Abderrahmane Touati
Journal:  J Microbiol Methods       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 2.363

3.  Evaluation of standardized sample collection, packaging, and decontamination procedures to assess cross-contamination potential during Bacillus anthracis incident response operations.

Authors:  M Worth Calfee; Jenia Tufts; Kathryn Meyer; Katrina McConkey; Leroy Mickelsen; Laura Rose; Chad Dowell; Lisa Delaney; Angela Weber; Stephen Morse; Jasmine Chaitram; Marshall Gray
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Extraction of Aerosol-Deposited Yersinia pestis from Indoor Surfaces To Determine Bacterial Environmental Decay.

Authors:  Ian M Gut; Ryan A Bartlett; John J Yeager; Brian Leroux; Shanna Ratnesar-Shumate; Paul Dabisch; David K R Karaolis
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Evaluating Composite Sampling Methods of Bacillus Spores at Low Concentrations.

Authors:  Becky M Hess; Brett G Amidan; Kevin K Anderson; Janine R Hutchison
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Factors influencing environmental sampling recovery of healthcare pathogens from non-porous surfaces with cellulose sponges.

Authors:  Laura J Rose; Hollis Houston; Marla Martinez-Smith; Amanda K Lyons; Carrie Whitworth; Sujan C Reddy; Judith Noble-Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Considerations for estimating microbial environmental data concentrations collected from a field setting.

Authors:  Erin E Silvestri; Cynthia Yund; Sarah Taft; Charlena Yoder Bowling; Daniel Chappie; Kevin Garrahan; Eletha Brady-Roberts; Harry Stone; Tonya L Nichols
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 5.563

8.  Evaluating the long-term persistence of Bacillus spores on common surfaces.

Authors:  Kyle S Enger; Jade Mitchell; Bharathi Murali; Dawn N Birdsell; Paul Keim; Patrick L Gurian; David M Wagner
Journal:  Microb Biotechnol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 5.813

9.  European survey and evaluation of sampling methods recommended by the standard EN ISO 18593 for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas fluorescens on industrial surfaces.

Authors:  Thomas Brauge; Lena Barre; Guylaine Leleu; Stéphane André; Catherine Denis; Aurélie Hanin; Bastien Frémaux; Morgan Guilbaud; Jean-Marie Herry; Nadia Oulahal; Béatrice Anger; Christophe Soumet; Graziella Midelet
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Lett       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.742

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.