This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Drake, C. Articles by Verhulst, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Drake, C. Articles by Verhulst, S.

Comparison of Easy-Flow Copan Liquid Stuart's and Starplex Swab Transport Systems for Recovery of Fastidious Aerobic Bacteria

Laboratory Medicine, Microbiology, Memorial Medical Center,¹ Division of Statistics and Research Consulting, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois²

Received 31 March 2004/ Returned for modification 6 June 2004/ Accepted 4 November 2004

Because samples are frequently submitted on swabs from distant sites, viability of the organism must be maintained. We compared two transport systems, a new Copan Liquid Stuart's swab with an Easy-Flow swab applicator and the Starplex Liquid Stuart's swab. The purpose of the study was to assess the release and/or recovery of organisms from the Copan system compared to that from Starplex. Triplicate swabs were seeded with 3 dilutions of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Although the amount of the initial inoculum was the same for both transport systems, recovery by the roll-plate method at time zero was consistently increased with the Copan system (31 to 87% higher). This is the most important finding in this study. With N. gonorrhoeae, subsequent recoveries were similar for Copan and Starplex but poor for both systems. With N. meningitidis and Haemophilus, higher levels of recovery were clearly obtained with Copan (P < 0.05 to P < 0.001). With Streptococcus, subsequent recoveries for Copan and Starplex were mixed. In conclusion, Copan generally demonstrated better recovery of organisms compared to Starplex even (and especially) at time zero.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Van Horn, K. G., Audette, C. D., Sebeck, D., Tucker, K. A. (2008). Comparison of the Copan ESwab System with Two Amies Agar Swab Transport Systems for Maintenance of Microorganism Viability. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1655-1658 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Glasson, J. H., Guthrie, L. H., Nielsen, D. J., Bethell, F. A. (2008). Evaluation of an Automated Instrument for Inoculating and Spreading Samples onto Agar Plates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1281-1284 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rishmawi, N., Ghneim, R., Kattan, R., Ghneim, R., Zoughbi, M., Abu-Diab, A., Turkuman, S., Dauodi, R., Shomali, I., Issa, A. E.-R., Siriani, I., Marzouka, H., Schmid, I., Hindiyeh, M. Y. (2007). Survival of Fastidious and Nonfastidious Aerobic Bacteria in Three Bacterial Transport Swab Systems. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 1278-1283 [Abstract] [Full Text]