Evaluation of MK filters for recovery of enteroviruses from tap water

Abstract

The MK filter is an electropositively charged filter that can be used to concentrate enteroviruses from large volumes (400 to 1,000 liters) of water. This filter is less expensive than the commonly used lMDS electropositive filter. In this study, we compared the recovery of poliovirus 1 (PVI) and that of coxsackievirus B3 (CB3) from 378 liters of tap water, using both the MK and the lMDS filters. Viruses were eluted from the filters with 3% beef extract buffered with 0.05 M glycine (pH 9.5) and reconcentrated via organic flocculation. At high virus inputs (approximately 106 PFU), the overall recovery (after elution and reconcentration) of PV1 and CB3 from tap water with the MK filter was less than that achieved with the IMDS filter (P < 0.05). The recoveries of PV1 from tap water with the MK and IMDS filters were 73.2% ± 26% (n = 5 trials) and 90.2% ± 5.9% (n = 5 trials), respectively. The recoveries of CB3 from tap water with the MK and lMDS filters were 32.8% ± 34.5% (n = 4 trials) and 95.8% + 12.0%o (n = 4 trials), respectively. This study indicated that the MK filter consistently provided lower recovery, with wider variability, of PV1 and CB3 from tap water than the lMDS filter.

Hepatitis E virus-based evaluation of a virion concentration method and detection of enteric viruses in environmental samples by multiplex nested RT-PCR

“…was required. The recovery of seeded virus in our protocol was higher than that reported by Chang et al (1981) (50%, using Zeta Plus filters) while comparable to that reported by Ma et al (1994) (c. 90%, using 1MDS filters). Thus, the two-step method of virus concentration developed was rapid, efficient and cost-effective.…”

“…Wallis carried out pioneering work for concentration of viruses in 1960s (Wallis and Melnick 1967a,b;Wallis et al 1969). Different types of matrix materials have been used over the span of fifty years, ranging from gauze pads and glass powder (Bosch et al 1988;Gajardo et al 1991), electronegative membranes (Katayama et al 2002;Lambertini et al 2008) and electropositive cartridges (Sobsey and Glass 1980;Ma et al 1994). Positively charged microporous filters have definite advantage over negatively charged filters as they eliminate the need of water conditioning (acidification and multivalent cation addition) prior to filtration.…”

Assessment of poly-l -lysine dendrigrafts for virus concentration in water: use of MS2 bacteriophage as proof of concept

“…The most commonly used techniques are based on virus adsorption and elution, ultrafiltration and flocculation (Bosch et al 2008). These techniques show various efficiencies of recovery (between 20 and 95%) according to the structure and physico-chemical properties of viruses (Rose et al 1984;Ma et al 1994;Enriquez and Gerba 1995;Katayama et al 2002;Lambertini et al 2008;Girones et al 2010).…”

“…Virus detection requires an efficient concentration step from a large volume of water to a much smaller volume. Several concentration methods have been already developed including the adsorption of viruses on cartridges, membranes or glass wool by electrostatic interactions followed by their elution in a small volume (Rose et al 1984;Ma et al 1994;Enriquez and Gerba 1995;Katayama et al 2002;Lambertini et al 2008) or the ultrafiltration technique (Hill et al 2009;Polaczyk et al 2008).…”

Chapter 9 The Detection of Waterborne Viruses

“…Sedmak et al, 2005). A different electropositive material (MK) is cheaper but its recoveries were reported to be not as good as 1 MDS in comparative tests (Ma et al, 1994). Improvements to poliovirus and norovirus recovery from tap water samples by coating of electropositive Zetapor filters by passage of AlCl 3 prior to filtration was reported by Haramoto et al (2004).…”