ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2013
Comparative evaluation of vacuum-based surface sampling methods for collection of Bacillus spores.
Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of sponge wipe surface sampling for collection of potential surrogates for non-spore-forming bioterrorism agents.Journal of applied microbiology · 2024Article
- Improved virus concentration methods for wash waters from decontamination of permeable and non-permeable surfaces.Journal of virological methods · 2023Article
- Passenger vehicle interior decontamination by low concentration hydrogen peroxide vapor following a wide area biological contamination incident.Journal of applied microbiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of sample processing methods to improve the detection of Bacillus anthracis in difficult sample matrices.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022Article
- Comparison of surface sampling methods for an extended duration outdoor biological contamination study.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- Evaluation of standardized sample collection, packaging, and decontamination procedures to assess cross-contamination potential during Bacillus anthracis incident response operations.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2016Article
- Evaluation of sampling methods for Bacillus spore-contaminated HVAC filters.Journal of microbiological methods · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, four commonly-used sampling devices (vacuum socks, 37 mm 0.8 μm mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filter cassettes, 37 mm 0.3 μm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter cassettes, and 3M™ forensic filters) were comparatively evaluated for their ability to recover surface-associated spores. Aerosolized spores (~10(5)CFUcm(-2)) of a Bacillus anthracis surrogate were allowed to settle onto three material types (concrete, carpet, and upholstery). Ten replicate samples were collected using each vacuum method, from each material type. Stainless steel surfaces, inoculated simultaneously with test materials, were sampled with pre-moistened wipes. Wipe recoveries were utilized to normalize vacuum-based recoveries across trials. Recovery (CFUcm(-2)) and relative recovery (vacuum recovery/wipe recovery) were determined for each method and material type. Recoveries and relative recoveries ranged from 3.8 × 10(3) to 7.4 × 10(4)CFUcm(-2) and 0.035 to 1.242, respectively. ANOVA results indicated that the 37 mm MCE method exhibited higher relative recoveries than the other methods when used for sampling concrete or upholstery. While the vacuum sock resulted in the highest relative recoveries on carpet, no statistically significant difference was detected. The results of this study may be used to guide selection of sampling approaches following biological contamination incidents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.