Filtration Methods for Recovering Enteroviruses from Foods

Kostenbader, K. D.; Cliver, Dean O.

doi:10.1128/aem.26.2.149-154.1973

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recoveries with Cat-Floc of reovirus from the foods inoculated at the higher levels are shown in Table 1. Virus was detected in three of each eight samples that received 1 PFU, which does not differ significantly from expectations based on 75% virus recovery (5).…”

contrasting

confidence: 55%

“…Ground beef (25 g, three trials) and shucked oysters (Crassostrea virginica; 20 g, four trials) were inoculated with reovirus at >104 plaqueforming units (PFU) per g. The virus recovery procedure, described previously (4,5), entails suspension of the sample in 100 ml of glycine-NaOH (GN) buffer, pH 8.8, with 2 ml of a 1% solution of Cat-Floc and subsequent clarification through a series of filters. We also inoculated two sets of eight 25-g samples of ground beef with -1 PFU of reovirus per sample.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flocculants for Recovery of Food-Borne Viruses

Kostenbader

Cliver

1981

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The procedure described permits comparison of polyelectrolytes for their ability to flocculate food solids and thus enable filtration for recovery of food-bome viruses. We reported several years ago that Cat-Floc, a polycation sewage flocculant (Calgon Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa.), was useful in separating food solids to permit the recovery of enteroviruses from shellfish (4) and other foods (5). However, Cat-Floc is unavailable in many other countries. We therefore sought means of identifying alternate products that might serve the same purpose. The present paper reports use of the floccu

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flocculants for Recovery of Food-Borne Viruses

Kostenbader

Cliver

1981

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The health risks associated with wastewater irrigation may then be more accurately defined. A number of methods have been described for the detection of viruses in food (2,11,17,18,29,31). Most assume extensive contamination and therefore require only a small quantity of food (ca.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of viruses from vegetable surfaces

Ward¹,

Chenoweth²,

Irving³

1982

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficiency of a system developed for the recovery of viruses contaminating large quantities of vegetables was investigated in the laboratory and tested in the field. Viruses seeded onto a number of leafy vegetables in the laboratory were eluted with a phosphate-buffered saline solution (pH 9.0). The eluate was clarified by glass wool filtration, and any viruses present were concentrated by adsorption to a Filterite pleated cartridge filter, eluted with 3% beef extract (pH 9.0), and further concentrated by organic flocculation. At least 24 liters of vegetable eluate could be concentrated to 70 to 80 ml, equivalent to a greater than 99.5% reduction in volume. With this system, poliovirus was recovered with a mean efficiency of 58% for all vegetables tested. Adenovirus was recovered from lettuce with a slightly lower mean efficiency (55%). Poliovirus was recovered from large quantities of cabbage for up to 5 days in the field after spray irrigation of relatively low levels of virus, even when heavy rain fell before sampling.

show abstract

“…The procedure for testing lettuce (Fig. 2) has been found to be effective in detecting experimentally inoculated enteroviruses (39). Lettuce that is to be tested by this method ought not be frozen.…”

Section: Vegetables Andfruitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ground beef. Methods designed to evaluate the virological content of ground beef have been proposed (25,30,32,33,39,40,44,70,72) because of concern that the product is often eaten raw or minimally cooked. The methods generally follow an elution-clarification-concentration treatment sequence.…”

Section: Animal Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to Detect Viruses in Foods: Testing and Interpretation of Results

Cliver

Ellender

Sobsey

1983

Journal of Food Protection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Viruses that may be detected in foods should be considered pathogenic and treated with appropriate caution. In this discussion, specific procedures for extracting viruses from shellfish are presented for each of the major commercial species of bivalve molluscs. Other foods for which specific extraction methods are detailed include lettuce, frozen strawberries, ground beef and raw milk. Viruses that may be detected by the methods described are those which are capable of producing a perceptible effect while replicating in cultured primate cells. Both results that are apparently positive and those that are apparently negative require careful interpretation; one must be extremely skeptical if large numbers of food samples obtained at the market appear to yield viruses. The procedures that are now available have some important limitations, including inability to detect the viruses that cause most of the reported foodborne disease. Approaches to surmounting these limitations include use of serologic methods to detect viruses that do not cause perceptible effects in cell cultures and improvement of procedures for extracting all viruses from food samples.

show abstract

Filtration Methods for Recovering Enteroviruses from Foods

Cited by 21 publications

References 8 publications

Flocculants for Recovery of Food-Borne Viruses

Flocculants for Recovery of Food-Borne Viruses

Recovery of viruses from vegetable surfaces

Methods to Detect Viruses in Foods: Testing and Interpretation of Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About