Sartory D.P.,SWM Consulting |
Pauly D.,University of Lorraine |
Garrec N.,French Scientific and Technical Center for Building |
Bonadonna L.,Reparto di Microbiol. E Virologia Ambient. E Wellness Dipto. di Ambiente E Connessa Prev. Primaria |
And 10 more authors.
Journal of Water and Health | Year: 2015
In this study, the performance of a new most probable number (MPN) test (Pseudalert®/Quanti-Tray®) for the enumeration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from hospital waters was compared with both international and national membrane filtration-based culture methods for P. aeruginosa: ISO 16266:2006 and UK The Microbiology of Drinking Water - Part 8 (MoDW Part 8), which both use Pseudomonas CN agar. The comparison based on the calculation of mean relative differences between the two methods was conducted according to ISO 17994:2014. Using both routine hospital water samples (80 from six laboratories) and artificially contaminated samples (192 from five laboratories), paired counts from each sample and the enumeration method were analysed. For routine samples, there were insufficient data for a conclusive assessment, but the data do indicate at least equivalent performance of Pseudalert®/Quanti-Tray®. For the artificially contaminated samples, the data revealed higher counts of P. aeruginosa being recorded by Pseudalert®/Quanti-Tray®. The Pseudalert®/Quanti-Tray® method does not require confirmation testing for atypical strains of P. aeruginosa, saving up to 6 days of additional analysis, and has the added advantage of providing confirmed counts within 24-28 hours incubation compared to 40-48 hours or longer for the ISO 16266 and MoDW Part 8 methods. © IWA Publishing 2015.
Lee S.,Leegionella Ltd |
Lee J.,Leegionella Ltd
Methods in Molecular Biology | Year: 2013
To avoid further cases arising from an infectious source it is essential to ensure the early identification of all potential source(s) within an identified area, or buildings, to determine if they are being managed safely; to take appropriate samples and ensure appropriate remedial actions are taken to remove the risk of further cases. If samples are to give representative results of the system at the time of sampling it is essential to ensure that they are processed appropriately using methods which are both sensitive and specific. It is also imperative that results are interpreted in context and transmitted as soon as possible to the outbreak control team to ensure appropriate and timely action is taken on sites which still pose a risk of infection. A multidisciplinary team approach and forward planning are essential to ensure that there are sufficiently trained and competent personnel and resources. Recognition of sources is dependent on many factors including thorough epidemiological investigations to narrow down the potential geographical area or water system that maybe common to the patients as agreed within the outbreak case definition. qPCR can be useful in both the elimination and identification of suspect systems/sites. However, it requires expert interpretation of results in the context of the sample site and factors which may affect the results such as the use of biocides together with the use of an algorithm for interpretation and actions to be taken to put the results in context. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York.