Literature DB >> 23607553

Comparative performance of contact plates, electrostatic wipes, swabs and a novel sampling device for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus on environmental surfaces.

J K Lutz1, J Crawford, A E Hoet, J R Wilkins, J Lee.   

Abstract

AIMS: To evaluate the performance of four sampling methods [contact plates, electrostatic wipes (wipe), swabs and a novel roller sampler] for recovery of Staphylococcus aureus from a stainless steel surface. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Stainless steel test plates were inoculated with Staph. aureus, dried for 24 h and sampled using each of the four methods. Samples were either incubated directly (roller, contact plate) or processed using elution and membrane filtration (swab, wipe). Performance was assessed by calculating the apparent sampling efficiency (ASE), analytical sensitivity (Sn) and percentage of replications with positive growth. The wipe demonstrated the best performance across all inoculating concentrations (ASE(48 h) = 18%; Sn(48 h) = 7 CFU per 100 cm(2)). The swab performed well when corrected for area actually sampled (ASE(48 h) = 24%; Sn(48 h) = 76 CFU per 100 cm(2)). Of the contact-based methods, the newly developed roller sampler outperformed the contact plate (roller: ASE(48 h) = 10%; Sn(48 h) = 17 CFU per 100 cm(2); contact plate: ASE(48 h) = 0·04%; Sn(48 h) = 1412 CFU per 100 cm(2)); both contact samplers performed better at higher inoculating concentrations (6E3 CFU per 100 cm(2) for the roller and 6E6 CFU per 100 cm(2) for the contact plate). Overall, the electrostatic wipe produced the highest number of replications resulting in positive growth (74%(24 h), 91%(48 h)).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that selection of the sampling method must be carefully considered, given that different methods have varying performance. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This is the first study assessing static wipes for sampling and one that uses a more real-world-relevant 24-h drying time. The results help with infection control, and environmental health professionals choose better sampling methodologies. Journal of Applied Microbiology
© 2013 The Society for Applied Microbiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23607553     DOI: 10.1111/jam.12230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Microbiol        ISSN: 1364-5072            Impact factor:   3.772


  6 in total

1.  Screening and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus from ophthalmology clinic surfaces: a proposed surveillance tool.

Authors:  Rachel E Reem; Joany Van Balen; Armando E Hoet; Colleen M Cebulla
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  Semi-direct lysis of swabs and evaluation of their efficiencies to recover human noroviruses GI and GII from surfaces.

Authors:  Ann De Keuckelaere; Ambroos Stals; Mieke Uyttendaele
Journal:  Food Environ Virol       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Experimental Study to Develop a Method for Improving Sample Collection to Monitor Laryngoscopes after Reprocessing.

Authors:  Savina Ditommaso; Monica Giacomuzzi; Elisa Ricciardi; Carla Zotti
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2018-08-21

4.  Microbial and metabolic succession on common building materials under high humidity conditions.

Authors:  Simon Lax; Cesar Cardona; Dan Zhao; Valerie J Winton; Gabriel Goodney; Peng Gao; Neil Gottel; Erica M Hartmann; Chris Henry; Paul M Thomas; Scott T Kelley; Brent Stephens; Jack A Gilbert
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 17.694

5.  An Advanced Tape-Stripping Approach for High-Efficiency Sampling on Non-Absorbent Surfaces.

Authors:  Pengcheng Zhao; Pak-To Chan; Nan Zhang; Yuguo Li
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Evaluation of Methods for Sampling of Staphylococcus aureus and Other Staphylococcus Species from Indoor Surfaces.

Authors:  Anne Mette Madsen; Hoang U T Phan; Mathias Laursen; John K White; Katrine Uhrbrand
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 2.179

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.