2020
DOI: 10.1111/jam.14807
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of the bag‐mediated filtration system for environmental surveillance of poliovirus in Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract: Aims: This study compared the bag-mediated filtration system (BMFS) and standard WHO two-phase separation methods for poliovirus (PV) environmental surveillance, examined factors impacting PV detection and monitored Sabin-like (SL) PV type 2 presence with withdrawal of oral polio vaccine type 2 (OPV2) in April 2016. Methods and Results: Environmental samples were collected in Nairobi, Kenya (Sept 2015-Feb 2017), concentrated via BMFS and two-phase separation methods, then assayed using the WHO PV isolation alg… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main differences between the two methods were the input for DNA extraction (half of the resuspended pellet versus the full sample pellet) and the resulting difference in effective volume assayed (Table 1, Supplemental Information). 20,21,41 Differential centrifugation. Three versions of differential centrifugation methods were used: DC-D-50 mL, DC-SF-50 mL, and DC-D-1 L. All methods involved centrifugation for 1 minute at 1,000 3g, 4 C), followed by transfer of the supernatant centrifuging again (15 minutes, 4,000 3g, 4 C).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The main differences between the two methods were the input for DNA extraction (half of the resuspended pellet versus the full sample pellet) and the resulting difference in effective volume assayed (Table 1, Supplemental Information). 20,21,41 Differential centrifugation. Three versions of differential centrifugation methods were used: DC-D-50 mL, DC-SF-50 mL, and DC-D-1 L. All methods involved centrifugation for 1 minute at 1,000 3g, 4 C), followed by transfer of the supernatant centrifuging again (15 minutes, 4,000 3g, 4 C).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These techniques generally avoid collecting large sediments by sampling the wastewater or wastewater-impacted water surface or by prefiltering the water through a coarse filter. The volumes typically processed in grab sample methods vary from 50 mL to 20 L, [18][19][20][21][22] and samples are collected from outlet pipes, open sewer channels, surface waters, or other sewage streams. Grab samples are either concentrated in-field via gravity filtration or are transported to a laboratory with a proper cold chain for subsequent concentration, elution, and/or enrichment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two variations of the two-inch filter cartridge method were tested, mentioned hereafter as FC1-D and FC2-D. The main difference between the two methods was the input for DNA extraction (half of the resuspended pellet vs. the full sample pellet) and the resulting difference in effective volume assayed (Table 1, Supplementary Information) [20,21,41].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These techniques generally avoid collecting large sediments by sampling the wastewater or wastewater-impacted water surface, or pre-filtering the water through a coarse filter. The volumes typically processed in grab sample methods vary from 50 milliliters to 20 liters [18][19][20][21][22], and samples are collected from outlet pipes, open sewer channels, surface waters, or other sewage stream. Grab samples are either concentrated in-field via gravity filtration, or are transported to a laboratory with proper cold chain for subsequent concentration, elution, and/or enrichment [10,18,[23][24][25][26][27][28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation