Emerging Infectious Disease ISSN: 1080-6059

- Add this to...
- Favorites
- Del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Google Bookmarks
- Yahoo MyWeb

Surface Sampling Methods for Bacillus anthracis Spore Contamination

Wayne T. Sanderson*

, Misty J. Hein*, Lauralynn Taylor*, Brian D. Curwin*, Gregory M. Kinnes*, Teresa A. Seitz*, Tanja Popovic*, Harvey T. Holmes*, Molly E. Kellum*, Sigrid K. McAllister*, David N. Whaley*, Edward A. Tupin†, Timothy Walker†, Jennifer A. Freed†, Dorothy S. Small‡, Brian Klusaritz‡, and John H. Bridges§

Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; ‡The IT Corporation, Washington, D.C., USA; §United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., USA;

Main Article

Table 4

Comparison of Bacillus anthracis spore concentration levels in wet swab, wipe, and HEPA vacuum sock samples, Brentwood Mail Processing and Distribution Center, December 17–19, 2001

	HEPA vacuum vs. wet swab		HEPA vacuum vs. wipe		Wet swab vs. wipe
No. samples	58		58		67
Levels^a agree^b	22	38%	26	45%	24	36%
Negative	10		5		8
Low	1		2		0
Medium	0		8		10
High	11		11		6
Levels disagree	36	62%	32	55%	43	64%
Higher levels	34	HEPA vacuum	23	HEPA vacuum	13	Wet swab
Higher levels	2	Wet swab	9	Wipe	30	Wipe
Kendall’s tau-b	0.58		0.66		0.47
Spearman’s correlation r_s (p value)^c	0.73 (<0.0001)		0.81 (<0.0001)		0.52 (<0.0001)

^aLevel of B. anthracis (CFU/cm²): negative = 0, low = 01–1.6, medium=1.7–15.5, and high=>15.5.
^bTwo samples from the same location agree if they are concordant and are both in the same grouping.
^cp value for null hypothesis of zero correlation.

Main Article

Top of Page