4.6 Article

Experimental microbial contamination and disinfection of dry (vapour) shipper dewars designed for short-term storage and transportation of cryopreserved germplasm and other biological specimens

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 63, 期 7, 页码 1946-1957

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.003

关键词

disinfectants; embryos; semen; cryopreservation; dry shippers; BVDV; BHV-1; contamination; liquid nitrogen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryopreservation, storage and transport of cryopreserved germplasm without the risk of disease transmission is of great concern to animal and human health authorities. Here we report on the efficacy of microbial decontamination of the liquid nitrogen (LN) dry (vapour) shippers used for short-term storage and transportation of germplasm and other biological specimens. Dry shippers containing either a hydrophobic or a non-hydrophobic L-N absorbent were experimentally contaminated with high titers of cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococus aureus, bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) and bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV-1). Biocidals with broad spectrum antimicrobial activity and gas vapours of formalin and ethylene oxide were used for disinfection of the dewars. Among the biocidals used treatment with sodium hypochlorite solution the quaternary ammonium-based disinfectants and peracetic acid were the most effective and useful for dry shippers with a hydrophobic LN absorbent. None of the bacterial or viral microorganisms were detected in samples of semen and embryos stored in dry shippers following their disinfection with these biocides. An application of some other disinfectants due to their foaming properties or to the permeability of the absorbent hydrophobic membrane (HW) was not effective or may have caused irreversible darnage to the LN absorbent. Gas sterilization by ethylene oxide in contrast to formalin. was fully effective for both types of dry shippers. (c) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据