Zewde Bayleyegn Molla, Robbins Rebecca, Abley Melanie J, House Brandon, Morrow W E Morgan, Gebreyes Wondwossen A
Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
J Food Prot. 2009 Jan;72(1):142-6. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.1.142.
The main goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of Swiffer wipes in comparison to conventional drag swabs for the recovery of Salmonella. A total of 800 samples (400 Swiffer wipes and 400 drag swabs) were aseptically collected from randomly selected swine barns before disinfection with specific biocides and within 2 h after disinfection. From each barn, 10 samples of each swab type and negative controls were collected. Salmonellae were isolated from 43 (10.8%) of 400 drag swabs and 34 (8.5%) of 400 Swiffer wipes. There was a significant reduction in Salmonella postdisinfection as identified with both sampling procedures irrespective of the type of biocide used (P < 0.05). With the drag swabs, salmonellae were detected in 15% of the samples before disinfection versus 6.5% after disinfection, whereas with the Swiffer wipes, 13 and 4% of the samples were positive pre- and postdisinfection, respectively. Of the total 720 fecal samples collected from pigs placed in the disinfected barns, 132 (18.3%) were Salmonella positive. About 65 and 98% of the Salmonella isolates from swine barns and fecal samples, respectively, were resistant to one or more of the antimicrobials tested. Multidrug resistance was found in 35.7% of the isolates from barn swabs and 56.4% of the isolates from fecal samples. Results of this study suggest that the conventional drag swab method results in better recovery of Salmonella than does the Swiffer wipe method and thus could be a useful sampling method in monitoring Salmonella. Pentaresistant Salmonella (mainly R-type ACSSuT) was more common in fecal samples than in environmental samples.
本研究的主要目的是评估速易洁擦拭布与传统拖拭法在沙门氏菌回收方面的效果。在使用特定杀菌剂消毒前及消毒后2小时内，从随机选取的猪舍中无菌采集了总共800个样本（400个速易洁擦拭布样本和400个拖拭样本）。从每个猪舍中，每种拭子类型各采集10个样本以及阴性对照样本。在400个拖拭样本中有43个（10.8%）分离出沙门氏菌，400个速易洁擦拭布样本中有34个（8.5%）分离出沙门氏菌。无论使用何种杀菌剂，两种采样程序均显示消毒后沙门氏菌显著减少（P < 0.05）。对于拖拭样本，消毒前15%的样本检测到沙门氏菌，消毒后为6.5%；而对于速易洁擦拭布样本，消毒前和消毒后阳性样本分别为13%和4%。从安置在已消毒猪舍中的猪身上采集的720份粪便样本中，有132份（18.3%）沙门氏菌呈阳性。分别约65%和98%的来自猪舍和粪便样本的沙门氏菌分离株对一种或多种测试抗菌药物耐药。在猪舍拭子分离株中有35.7%以及粪便样本分离株中有56.4%发现多重耐药。本研究结果表明，传统拖拭法在沙门氏菌回收方面比速易洁擦拭布法效果更好，因此可能是监测沙门氏菌的一种有用采样方法。五重耐药沙门氏菌（主要为R型ACSSuT）在粪便样本中比在环境样本中更常见。
