| Literature DB >> 24949256 |
Edward J Prokop1, John R Crigler1, Claire M Wells1, Alice A Young1, Tony L Buhr1.
Abstract
Response surface methodology using a face-centered cube design was used to describe and predict spore inactivation of Bacillus anthracis ∆Sterne and Bacillus thuringiensis Al Hakam spores after exposure of six spore-contaminated materials to hot, humid air. For each strain/material pair, an attempt was made to fit a first or second order model. All three independent predictor variables (temperature, relative humidity, and time) were significant in the models except that time was not significant for B. thuringiensis Al Hakam on nylon. Modeling was unsuccessful for wiring insulation and wet spores because there was complete spore inactivation in the majority of the experimental space. In cases where a predictive equation could be fit, response surface plots with time set to four days were generated. The survival of highly purified Bacillus spores can be predicted for most materials tested when given the settings for temperature, relative humidity, and time. These predictions were cross-checked with spore inactivation measurements.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus; Decontamination; Hot humid air; RSM; Spore
Year: 2014 PMID: 24949256 PMCID: PMC4052701 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-014-0021-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Face-centered cube design matrix with coded and original units
| 3 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 60.0 | 60 | 1 | 0 |
| 9 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 60.0 | 60 | 7 | 0 |
| 12 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 60.0 | 90 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 60.0 | 90 | 7 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.3 | 75 | 4 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.3 | 75 | 4 | 0 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.3 | 75 | 4 | 0 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.3 | 75 | 4 | 0 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.3 | 75 | 4 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 76.7 | 60 | 1 | 0 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 76.7 | 60 | 7 | 0 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 76.7 | 90 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 76.7 | 90 | 7 | 0 |
| 14 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 60.0 | 75 | 4 | 1 |
| 16 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 68.3 | 60 | 4 | 1 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 68.3 | 75 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 68.3 | 75 | 7 | 1 |
| 17 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 68.3 | 90 | 4 | 1 |
| 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 76.7 | 75 | 4 | 1 |
Parameter estimates for ∆Sterne and Al Hakam on APC
| | | | | |
| Intercept | 17.5984 | 0.9562 | 18.405 | 3.4646 × 10−7 |
| Block (b) | −0.7847 | 1.1276 | −0.696 | 0.5089 |
| 6.7224 | 0.8281 | 8.118 | 8.3006 × 10−5 | |
| 6.2954 | 0.8281 | 7.602 | 0.0001 | |
| 6.7968 | 0.8281 | 8.208 | 7.7356 × 10−5 | |
| −2.685 | 0.9636 | −2.786 | 0.0271 | |
| −3.449 | 0.9636 | −3.579 | 0.0090 | |
| −2.8576 | 0.9636 | −2.965 | 0.0209 | |
| −3.6926 | 1.3148 | −2.809 | 0.0262 | |
| −3.3049 | 1.3148 | −2.514 | 0.0402 | |
| −2.7348 | 1.3148 | −2.08 | 0.0761 | |
| | | | ||
| Intercept | 16.8775 | 1.5466 | 10.912 | 1.1998 × 10−5 |
| Block (b) | −0.7869 | 1.8239 | −0.431 | 0.6791 |
| 7.5240 | 1.3394 | 5.617 | 0.0008 | |
| 7.5517 | 1.3394 | 5.638 | 0.0008 | |
| 7.2767 | 1.3394 | 5.433 | 0.0010 | |
| −3.6367 | 1.5587 | −2.333 | 0.0524 | |
| −3.5525 | 1.5587 | −2.279 | 0.0567 | |
| −2.7313 | 1.5587 | −1.752 | 0.1232 | |
| −1.4004 | 2.1266 | −0.658 | 0.5313 | |
| −4.6715 | 2.1266 | −2.197 | 0.0640 | |
| −3.3409 | 2.1266 | −1.571 | 0.1602 | |
Df = 1 for estimates.
Figure 1Response surface plot for (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on APC at 4 days.
Parameter estimates for ∆Sterne and Al Hakam on antiskid
| | | | | |
| Intercept | 16.4509 | 1.2098 | 13.598 | 3.1872 × 10−8 |
| Block (b) | −0.9795 | 1.4042 | −0.698 | 0.5000 |
| 4.4938 | 0.8555 | 5.253 | 0.0003 | |
| 3.9625 | 0.8555 | 4.632 | 0.0007 | |
| 3.8248 | 0.8555 | 4.471 | 0.0009 | |
| −1.7352 | 1.6443 | −1.055 | 0.3139 | |
| −1.0571 | 1.6443 | −0.643 | 0.5335 | |
| −2.8849 | 1.6443 | −1.755 | 0.1071 | |
| | | | ||
| Intercept | 8.9575 | 0.6919 | 12.946 | 8.3652 × 10−9 |
| Block (b) | 3.2641 | 1.1984 | 2.724 | 0.0174 |
| 5.2788 | 0.7579 | 6.965 | 9.8472 × 10−6 | |
| 4.4240 | 0.7579 | 5.837 | 5.8096 × 10−5 | |
| 3.7842 | 0.7579 | 4.993 | 0.0002 | |
Df = 1 for estimates.
Figure 2Response surface plot for (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on antiskid at 4 days.
Parameter estimates for ∆Sterne and Al Hakam on InsulFab
| | | | | |
| Intercept | 17.0315 | 1.6808 | 10.1330 | 1.4082 × 10−6 |
| Block (b) | 2.0862 | 1.8155 | 1.1490 | 0.2772 |
| 3.0930 | 1.0630 | 2.9010 | 0.0156 | |
| 3.5849 | 1.0630 | 3.3720 | 0.0071 | |
| 3.7208 | 1.0630 | 3.5000 | 0.0057 | |
| −1.6774 | 2.0586 | −0.815 | 0.4341 | |
| −2.9997 | 2.0586 | −1.457 | 0.1757 | |
| −1.6517 | 2.0586 | −0.802 | 0.4410 | |
| | | | ||
| Intercept | 12.0283 | 1.0831 | 11.1050 | 2.5117 × 10−8 |
| Block (b) | 2.1611 | 1.9274 | 1.1210 | 0.2810 |
| 5.7042 | 1.2349 | 4.6190 | 0.0004 | |
| 4.3161 | 1.2349 | 3.4950 | 0.0036 | |
| 3.7813 | 1.2349 | 3.0620 | 0.0084 | |
Df = 1 for estimates.
Figure 3Response surface plot for (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on InsulFab at 4 days.
Parameter estimates for ∆Sterne and Al Hakam on nylon
| | | | | |
| Intercept | 0.0758 | 0.3034 | 0.2500 | 0.8126 |
| Block (b) | 2.1487 | 0.3841 | 5.5930 | 0.0025 |
| 6.0157 | 0.2809 | 21.4170 | 4.1152 × 10−6 | |
| 4.6424 | 0.2405 | 19.3010 | 6.8867 × 10−6 | |
| 1.3926 | 0.2405 | 5.7900 | 0.0022 | |
| 4.2282 | 0.2809 | 15.0540 | 2.3431 × 10−5 | |
| −0.8748 | 0.2809 | −3.1140 | 0.0264 | |
| −0.3611 | 0.2809 | −1.2860 | 0.2549 | |
| 5.3117 | 0.4940 | 10.7540 | 0.0001 | |
| 0.6467 | 0.4222 | 1.5320 | 0.1862 | |
| −2.3881 | 0.4222 | −5.6560 | 0.0024 | |
| | | | ||
| Intercept | −0.2778 | 0.5317 | −0.5220 | 0.6127 |
| Block (b) | 0.1487 | 0.6584 | 0.2260 | 0.8259 |
| 4.544 | 0.3822 | 11.8900 | 3.1850 × 10−7 | |
| 4.0575 | 0.3473 | 11.6830 | 3.7552 × 10−7 | |
| 3.9837 | 0.3883 | 10.2600 | 1.2560 × 10−6 | |
| 1.5441 | 0.7735 | 1.9960 | 0.0739 | |
| 2.6875 | 0.7264 | 3.7000 | 0.0041 | |
Df = 1 for estimates.
Figure 4Response surface plot for (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on nylon at 4 days.
Parameter estimates for ∆Sterne and Al Hakam on polypropylene
| | | | | |
| Intercept | 6.4025 | 1.8516 | 3.4578 | 0.0061 |
| Block (b) | 6.4256 | 2.0000 | 3.2128 | 0.0093 |
| 6.9452 | 1.1711 | 5.9306 | 0.0001 | |
| 2.2431 | 1.1711 | 1.9154 | 0.0844 | |
| 4.3604 | 1.1711 | 3.7234 | 0.0040 | |
| −1.0017 | 2.2678 | −0.4417 | 0.6681 | |
| 4.8915 | 2.2678 | 2.1570 | 0.0564 | |
| −2.3429 | 2.2678 | −1.0331 | 0.3259 | |
| | | | ||
| Intercept | 1.4271 | 0.1529 | 9.3320 | 0.0002 |
| Block (b) | 0.7180 | 0.2202 | 3.2600 | 0.0224 |
| 1.7227 | 0.1529 | 11.2640 | 9.6332 × 10−5 | |
| −0.1465 | 0.1529 | −0.9580 | 0.3822 | |
| 0.3641 | 0.1249 | 2.9160 | 0.0332 | |
| −0.0792 | 0.2823 | −0.2810 | 0.7903 | |
| 0.8467 | 0.2823 | 2.9990 | 0.0301 | |
| −0.5264 | 0.2777 | −1.8960 | 0.1165 | |
Df = 1 for estimates.
Figure 5Response surface plot for (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on polypropylene at 4 days.
Figure 690% lower confidence contour for spore inactivation of (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on APC.
Figure 790% lower confidence contour for spore inactivation of (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on antiskid.
Figure 890% lower confidence contour for spore inactivation of (a) ∆Sterne and (b) Al Hakam on InsulFab.
Figure 990% lower confidence contour for spore inactivation of ∆Sterne on (a) nylon and (b) polypropylene.