4.6 Article

Validation of a Nylon-Flocked-Swab Protocol for Efficient Recovery of Bacterial Spores from Smooth and Rough Surfaces

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 15, Pages 5148-5158

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00399-10

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ESA [21942/08/NL/MP]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to meet planetary-protection requirements, culturable bacterial spore loads are measured representatively for the total microbial contamination of spacecraft. However, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) cotton swab protocols for spore load determination have not changed for decades. To determine whether a more efficient alternative was available, a novel swab was evaluated for recovery of different Bacillus atrophaeus spore concentrations on stainless steel and other surfaces. Two protocols for the nylon-flocked swab (NFS) were validated and compared to the present NASA standard protocol. The results indicate that the novel swab protocols recover 3- to 4-fold more (45.4% and 49.0% recovery efficiency) B. atrophaeus spores than the NASA standard method (13.2%). Moreover, the nylon-flocked-swab protocols were superior in recovery efficiency for spores of seven different Bacillus species, including Bacillus anthracis Sterne (recovery efficiency, 20%). The recovery efficiencies for B. atrophaeus spores from different surfaces showed a variation from 5.9 to 62.0%, depending on the roughness of the surface analyzed. Direct inoculation of the swab resulted in a recovery rate of about 80%, consistent with the results of scanning electron micrographs that allowed detailed comparisons of the two swab types. The results of this investigation will significantly contribute to the cleanliness control of future life detection missions and will provide significant improvement in detection of B. anthracis contamination for law enforcement and security efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available