Round robin investigation of glass wool method for poliovirus recovery from drinking water and sea water

Abstract

This study was initiated by the AFNOR water microbiology working group to evaluate the performance of the glass wool method for virus recovery. Its reliability was tested with drinking and sea water by respectively nine and thirteen laboratories. In both trials, six were actively involved in water virology research, one was designated as a central laboratory, the others had no experience in virological practices. Analysis of reproducibility and repeatability according to NF-ISO 5725-2 were realized. For drinking waters (24 assays), the average recovery efficiency was 72%, mean standard deviations: repeatability 12.4%; reproducibility 33.6%; inter-laboratories 21%. For sea waters (39 assays), the average recovery efficiency was 75% and the mean standard deviations 6.9%, 17.9% and 11% respectively.

Concentration of Enteroviruses, Adenoviruses, and Noroviruses from Drinking Water by Use of Glass Wool Filters

“…The average poliovirus recovery rate across the three water matrices was 70%, within the ranges of 62% to 77% and 60% to 83% reported by Vilaginès et al (44,45), and the 70% to 91% range noted in the UK Environment Agency study (7). These three past studies adopted working parameters different from those used here, such as filtration rate, water source, and filter dimensions, making direct comparison of recovery efficiencies equivocal.…”

“…Glass wool has been used in virus monitoring studies involving wastewater (10), drinking water (14,41,46), groundwater (6,30,31,43), river water (18,41), and reservoirs (6,43). However, only a handful of studies have attempted to quantify how effective glass wool is for concentrating viruses (7,44,45), and these examined only enteroviruses and rotavirus. Investigators using glass wool for quantitative virus monitoring have implicitly assumed 100% recovery (18,31,41) or an average of 40% (42).…”

Analytical Methods for Virus Detection in Water and Food

“…A variety of techniques have been described for the recovery of viruses from water-each with their own advantages and disadvantages as the physicochemical quality of the water, including but not limited to the pH, conductivity, turbidity, presence of particulate matter, and organic acids, can all affect the efficiency of recovery of viruses (Richards et al 2004). Viral recovery and concentration techniques include ultrafiltration (Soule et al 2000;Divizia et al 1989a;Garin et al 1994), adsorption-elution using filters or membranes (Gilgen et al 1997;Passagot et al 1985;Senouci et al 1996), glass wool (Vilaginès et al 1993;Vilaginès et al 1997) or glass powder (Gajardo et al 1991;Menut et al 1993), two-phase separation with polymers (Schwab et al 1993), flocculation (Nasser et al 1995;Backer 2002), and the use of monolithic chromatographic columns (Branovic et al 2003;Kramberger et al 2004;Kovac et al 2009;Gutierrez-Aguirre et al 2009). The use of the glass wool adsorption-elution procedure for the recovery of enteric viruses from large volumes of water has proven to be a cost-effective method and has successfully been applied for the routine recovery of human enteric viruses from large volumes of water in the South African setting (Taylor et al 2001;Van Heerden et al 2004, 2005Vivier et al 2001Vivier et al , 2002Vivier et al , 2004, 2006Venter 2004).…”

Development and application of a one-step low cost procedure to concentrate viruses from seawater samples

“…Ten liters of either tap water or artificial seawater were spiked with viruses (stock of adenoviruses or strained municipal raw wastewater), and concentrated by a glass wool column based in the study previously described by Vilaginès, et al (1997). Briefly, viruses in 10L-water samples were concentrated by adsorption at pH 3.5 to glass wool filters and eluted with beef-extract/glycine buffer at pH 9.5 followed by organic flocculation at pH 4.5.…”