title: Comparison of Swiffer wipes and conventional drag swab methods for the recovery of Salmonella in swine production systems.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
authors.forename: Bayleyegn Molla
authors.initials: BM
authors.lastname: Zewde
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Robbins
authors.forename: Melanie J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Abley
authors.forename: Brandon
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: House
authors.forename: W E Morgan
authors.initials: WE
authors.lastname: Morrow
authors.forename: Wondwossen A
authors.initials: WA
authors.lastname: Gebreyes
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D001431:Bacteriological Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D015169:Colony Count, Microbial; D024881:Drug Resistance, Bacterial; D024901:Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology*; D005430:Floors and Floorcoverings; D006799:Housing, Animal; D006920:Hygiene; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D012475:Salmonella / Q000187:drug effects / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D013552:Swine / Q000382:microbiology*
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents