Literature DB >> 30452937

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

Ahmed Abdel-Hady1, M Worth Calfee2, Denise Aslett1, Sang Don Lee3, Barbara Wyrzykowska-Ceradini1, F Robbins Delafield1, Kathleen May1, Abderrahmane Touati1.   

Abstract

Environmental sampling is a critical component of the post decontamination verification process following a bioterrorism event. The current work was performed to produce a less labor-intensive method for processing cellulose sponge-wipes used for sampling areas potentially contaminated with low concentrations (i.e., post-decontamination) of Bacillus anthracis spores. An alternative fast-analysis processing method was compared to the processing protocol validated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the Laboratory Response Network (LRN). Glazed tile coupons (1102 cm2) were inoculated with 50, 500, or 5000 spores of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk), then sampled with cellulose sponges. Sampling was limited to a 25- by 25-cm area and performed in the same manner as the CDC sampling method. Samples were then processed using either the alternative "Fast Analysis" method or the "CDC method". Three different analysts repeated the tests at each concentration utilizing each method. Mean recoveries, labor time, and potentially hazardous waste produced were compared for the two methods. The mean percent recoveries and standard errors for the samples processed using the "CDC method" were 39.9 ± 6.7, 43 ± 7.6, and 36.8 ± 10.1 for the 5000, 500, and 50 spore loading levels, respectively; compared to 54.2 ± 12.9, 64.2 ± 21.7, and 45.2 ± 8.6 for the "Fast Analysis" method. At each titer tested the "Fast Analysis" method resulted in a statistically significant higher percent recovery. Furthermore, analysts processed samples utilizing the "Fast Analysis" method in less than half the time and generated half as much potentially hazardous waste compared to the "CDC method". Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30452937      PMCID: PMC6359940          DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Recovery efficiencies of anthrax spores and ricin from nonporous or nonabsorbent and porous or absorbent surfaces by a variety of sampling methods*.

Authors:  Dody A Frawley; Marian N Samaan; Robert L Bull; James M Robertson; Alfred J Mateczun; Peter C B Turnbull
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2008-07-14       Impact factor: 1.832

Review 3.  Bacillus thuringiensis as a surrogate for Bacillus anthracis in aerosol research.

Authors:  Jenia A M Tufts; M Worth Calfee; Sang Don Lee; Shawn P Ryan
Journal:  World J Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.312

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Evaluation of a wipe surface sample method for collection of Bacillus spores from nonporous surfaces.

Authors:  Gary S Brown; Rita G Betty; John E Brockmann; Daniel A Lucero; Caroline A Souza; Kathryn S Walsh; Raymond M Boucher; Mathew Tezak; Mollye C Wilson; Todd Rudolph
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Evaluation of rayon swab surface sample collection method for Bacillus spores from nonporous surfaces.

Authors:  G S Brown; R G Betty; J E Brockmann; D A Lucero; C A Souza; K S Walsh; R M Boucher; M S Tezak; M C Wilson; T Rudolph; H D A Lindquist; K F Martinez
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.772

8.  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

9.  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

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Comparison of surface sampling methods for an extended duration outdoor biological contamination study.

Authors:  Anne M Mikelonis; Ahmed Abdel-Hady; Denise Aslett; Katherine Ratliff; Abderrahmane Touati; John Archer; Shannon Serre; Leroy Mickelsen; Sarah Taft; M W Calfee
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Sponge Whirl-Pak Sampling Method and Droplet Digital RT-PCR Assay for Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces in Public and Working Environments.

Authors:  Davide Cardinale; Maria Tafuro; Andrea Mancusi; Santa Girardi; Federico Capuano; Yolande Thérèse Rose Proroga; Federica Corrado; Jacopo Luigi D'Auria; Annachiara Coppola; Giuseppe Rofrano; Palmiero Volzone; Pio Galdi; Sabato De Vita; Alfonso Gallo; Elisabetta Suffredini; Biancamaria Pierri; Pellegrino Cerino; Maria Morgante
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.614

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.