Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32583176›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020

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

Anne M Mikelonis, Ahmed Abdel-Hady, Denise Aslett, Katherine Ratliff, Abderrahmane Touati, John Archer, Shannon Serre, Leroy Mickelsen, Sarah Taft, M W Calfee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Persistence in time: the hunt forApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  3. Fate and transport of viableJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anne M MikelonisOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0835-5530
Ahmed Abdel-HadyJacobs Technology Inc, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4836-7210
Denise AslettJacobs Technology Inc, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2500-0184
Katherine RatliffOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1410-2756
Abderrahmane TouatiJacobs Technology Inc, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7936-0778
John ArcherOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0455-7204
Shannon SerreOffice of Land and Emergency Management, CBRN Consequence Management Advisory Division, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9592-7172
Leroy MickelsenOffice of Land and Emergency Management, CBRN Consequence Management Advisory Division, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.
Sarah TaftOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
M W CalfeeOffice of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA. calfee.worth@epa.gov.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6544-329X

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-008EPA EP-C-17-009Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent for anthrax, is a dangerous pathogen to humans and has a history as a bioterrorism agent. While sampling methods have been developed and evaluated for characterizing and clearing contaminated indoor sites, the performance of these sampling methods is unknown for use in outdoor environments. This paper presents surface sampling data for Bacillus atrophaeus spores, a surrogate for B. anthracis, from a 210-day outdoor study that evaluated the detection and recovery of spores using five different sampling methods as follows: sponge sticks, 37-mm vacuum filter cassettes, residential wet vacuums, robotic floor cleaners, and grab samples of soil, leaves, and grass. The spores were applied by spraying a liquid suspension onto the surfaces. Both asphalt and concrete surfaces were sampled by all the surface sampling methods, excluding grab sampling. Stainless steel coupons placed outdoors were additionally sampled using sponge sticks. Sampling methods differed in their ability to collect detectable spores over the duration of the study. The 37-mm vacuums and sponge sticks consistently detected spores on asphalt through day 37 and robots through day 99. The wet vacuums detected spores on asphalt for days 1 and 4, but not again until day 210. On concrete, all samplers detected spores until day 210 except for sponge stick samplers that detected spores only up until the day 99 time point. For all sampling methods, spore recoveries were higher from concrete than from asphalt surfaces. There was no statistically significant difference in recoveries of sponge sticks and 37-mm vacuums from either asphalt or concrete surfaces. Processing of grab samples was challenging due to non-target background microorganisms resulting in high detection limits for the samples.

Indexed as

BacillusBacillus anthracisEnvironmental MonitoringHumansSpores, BacterialBacillus anthracisBacillus atrophaeusRecovery efficiencySporeSurface sampling

Identifiers

PMID32583176
PMCPMC7489310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.