Literature DB >> 32721418

Impact of swab material on microbial surface sampling.

Linda Jansson1, Yasmine Akel2, Ronnie Eriksson3, Moa Lavander3, Johannes Hedman2.   

Abstract

Efficient microbial sampling from surfaces for subsequent detection and quantification is crucial in fields such as food safety and hygiene monitoring. Cotton swabs are traditionally used for sample collection, but today there are numerous swabs of alternative material and different sizes available. Recovery efficiencies of swabs for different applications have been compared in several studies. However, the results are often contradictory. We have compared 15 different swabs made of cotton (n = 5), flocked nylon (n = 3) and foam (n = 7), for sampling of Listeria monocytogenes and mengovirus on small (4 cm2) and large (100 cm2) areas of window glass, ridged plastic and absorbing wood. Molecular quantification methods (qPCR and RT-qPCR) were applied, and all sampling and sample processing were standardized. Specific swabs gave higher DNA/RNA yields than others, depending on both the surface characteristics and the collected target. The highest DNA yields were achieved by applying Selefa or Puritan cotton swabs for Listeria sampling on 4 cm2 areas of window glass and ridged plastic. Certain foam swabs (Critical swab with medium head and Macrofoam) gave the highest yields when sampling Listeria on 4 cm2 areas of wood and on 100 cm2 areas of ridged plastic and wood. Most foam swabs, and especially Sigma Virocult, were advantageous for virus sampling, regardless of surface. Nylon-flocked swabs showed poor recovery regardless of surface characteristics. The recovery varied substantially between swabs made of the same material, suggesting that a single swab may not be representative for a certain swab material.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32721418     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2020.106006

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


  5 in total

1.  A 3D-printed transepidermal microprojection array for human skin microbiome sampling.

Authors:  Kun Liang; Cheryl Leong; Jia Min Loh; Nathania Chan; Larissa Lim; Yuen In Lam; Thomas L Dawson; Hong Liang Tey
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 12.779

Review 2.  Passive sampling to scale wastewater surveillance of infectious disease: Lessons learned from COVID-19.

Authors:  Aaron Bivins; Devrim Kaya; Warish Ahmed; Joe Brown; Caitlyn Butler; Justin Greaves; Raeann Leal; Kendra Maas; Gouthami Rao; Samendra Sherchan; Deborah Sills; Ryan Sinclair; Robert T Wheeler; Cresten Mansfeldt
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 10.753

Review 3.  Porous surfaces: stability and recovery of coronaviruses.

Authors:  Lucy Owen; Maitreyi Shivkumar; Richard B M Cross; Katie Laird
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 4.  Diagnostic armamentarium of infectious keratitis: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Darren S J Ting; Bhavesh P Gopal; Rashmi Deshmukh; Gerami D Seitzman; Dalia G Said; Harminder S Dua
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2021-11-13       Impact factor: 5.033

5.  A prospective cost-benefit analysis for nylon 4N6FLOQSwabs®: example of the process and potential benefits.

Authors:  Bruce Budowle; Jianye Ge; Antti Sajantila
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 2.791

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.