Title |
Improvement of the Bag-Mediated Filtration System for Sampling Wastewater and Wastewater-Impacted Waters
|
---|---|
Published in |
Food and Environmental Virology, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s12560-017-9311-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Christine Susan Fagnant, Liliana Margarita Sánchez-Gonzalez, Nicolette A. Zhou, Jill Christin Falman, Michael Eisenstein, Dylan Guelig, Byron Ockerman, Yifei Guan, Alexandra Lynn Kossik, Yarrow S. Linden, Nicola Koren Beck, Robyn Wilmouth, Evans Komen, Benlick Mwangi, James Nyangao, Jeffry H. Shirai, Igor Novosselov, Peter Borus, David S. Boyle, John Scott Meschke |
Abstract |
Environmental surveillance of poliovirus (PV) plays an important role in the global program for eradication of wild PV. The bag-mediated filtration system (BMFS) was first developed in 2014 and enhances PV surveillance when compared to the two-phase grab method currently recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In this study, the BMFS design was improved and tested for its usability in wastewater and wastewater-impacted surface waters in Nairobi, Kenya. Modifications made to the BMFS included the size, color, and shape of the collection bags, the filter housing used, and the device used to elute the samples from the filters. The modified BMFS concentrated 3-10 L down to 10 mL, which resulted in an effective volume assayed (900-3000 mL) that was 6-20 times greater than the effective volume assayed for samples processed by the WHO algorithm (150 mL). The system developed allows for sampling and in-field virus concentration, followed by transportation of the filter for further analysis with simpler logistics than the current methods. This may ultimately reduce the likelihood of false-negative samples by increasing the effective volume assayed compared to samples processed by the WHO algorithm, making the BMFS a valuable sampling system for wastewater and wastewater-impacted surface waters. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 23% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 10 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 5 | 17% |
Environmental Science | 5 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
Other | 4 | 13% |
Unknown | 11 | 37% |