A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Surface sampling of spores in dry-deposition aerosols. | LitMetric

Surface sampling of spores in dry-deposition aerosols.

Appl Environ Microbiol

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, U.S. Army, Department of Defense, 5183 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010, USA.

Published: January 2009

The ability to reliably and reproducibly sample surfaces contaminated with a biological agent is a critical step in measuring the extent of contamination and determining if decontamination steps have been successful. The recovery operations following the 2001 attacks with Bacillus anthracis spores were complicated by the fact that no standard sample collection format or decontamination procedures were established. Recovery efficiencies traditionally have been calculated based upon biological agents which were applied to test surfaces in a liquid format and then allowed to dry prior to sampling tests, which may not be best suited for a real-world event with aerosolized biological agents. In order to ascertain if differences existed between air-dried liquid deposition and biological spores which were allowed to settle on a surface in a dried format, a study was undertaken to determine if differences existed in surface sampling recovery efficiencies for four representative surfaces. Studies were then undertaken to compare sampling efficiencies between liquid spore deposition and aerosolized spores which were allowed to gradually settle under gravity on four different test coupon types. Tests with both types of deposition compared efficiencies of four unique swabbing materials applied to four surfaces with various surface properties. Our studies demonstrate that recovery of liquid-deposited spores differs significantly from recovery of dry aerosol-deposited spores in most instances. Whether the recovery of liquid-deposited spores is overexaggerated or underrepresented with respect to that of aerosol-deposited spores depends upon the surface material being tested.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612225PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01563-08DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surface sampling
8
spores
8
recovery efficiencies
8
biological agents
8
differences existed
8
spores allowed
8
recovery liquid-deposited
8
liquid-deposited spores
8
aerosol-deposited spores
8
recovery
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!