Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 10, Number 6—June 2004

Research

Swab Materials and Bacillus anthracis Spore Recovery from Nonporous Surfaces

Laura Rose*Comments to Author , Bette Jensen*, Alicia Peterson*, Shailen N. Banerjee*, and Matthew J. Arduino*
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Table 2

Comparison of spore recovery efficiencies by swab preparation, material, and recovery methods

Mean percentage recovery from 2x2-inch steel coupon (SD), N = 10
Recovery method All swabs Cotton Macrofoam Polyester Rayon
All
Dry 4.4 (4.7) 5.1 (3.9) 8.4 (6.2) 1.2 (1.0) 3.0 (2.2)
Premoistened 14.3 (14.9) 20.0 (18.1) 22.5 (17.5) 7.7 (5.3) 7.0 (6.8)
pa • 0.01 • 0.01 • 0.01 1.0 1.0
Extractionb
Dry 6.5 (4.4) 7.5 (2.3) 12.3 (3.2) 1.7 (0.8) 4.4 (1.0)
Premoistened 19.7 (15.5) 27.7 (17.7) 30.7 (15.9) 10.6 (4.1) 10.0 (6.4)
pa • 0.01 • 0.01 • 0.01 1.0 1.0
No extraction
Dry 0.4 (0.7) 0.5 (0.4) 0.7 (1.1) 0.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)
Premoistened 3.5 (3.1) 4.7 (2.2) 6.3 (3.9) 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 (0.8)
pa 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Vortex
Dry 6.6 (4.2) 8.0 (1.4) 11.9 (3.1) 2.1 (0.9) 4.4 (1.0)
Premoistened 26.7 (18.9) 41.7 (14.6) 43.6 (11.1) 9.9 (3.8) 11.5 (7.9)
pa • 0.01 • 0.01 • 0.01 1.0 1.0
Sonication
Dry 6.4 (4.8) 6.9 (3.0) 12.7 (3.4) 1.4 (0.5) 4.5 (1.0)
Premoistened 12.7 (5.6) 13.6 (3.2) 17.7 (5.9) 11.2 (4.4) 8.5 (4.4)
pa 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

     aAdjusted for multiple comparisons by Bonferroni correction.
bVortex and sonication combined.

Main Article

TOP