You are here

Головна » Scientific Journal of Veterinary Medicine 1'2026
×

Error message

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in bootstrap_table() (line 238 of /var/www/html/sites/all/themes/bootstrap/templates/system/table.func.php).

Comparative evaluation of transport systems for microbiological surface monitoring in veterinary clinics

Veterinary clinics represent a unique epidemiological environment where the simultaneous presence of humans and animals of different species creates conditions for active circulation of opportunistic microorganisms, including multidrug-resistant ESKAPE pathogens. Despite the recognised role of surface microbiological monitoring as an infection control tool, a standardised sampling protocol for the veterinary clinical setting is still lacking. The aim of the study was a comparative evaluation of the diagnostic performance of different transport media and moistening solutions for swab sampling from surfaces of veterinary clinics. The study was conducted in 2025 in two independent veterinary clinics with markedly different microbial burden levels (852 1690 CFU/cm² and 10–450 CFU/cm², respectively). In Clinic 1, AMIES gel transport swabs were compared with phosphate buff er-moistened swabs; in Clinic 2, swabs moistened with 2 % sodium thiosulfate (Na₂S₂O₃) were compared with phosphate buffer swabs. Samples were collected from three clinically relevant locations using a standardised 10×10 cm frame method; microorganism identifi cation was performed by MALDI-TOF MS. Opportunistic gram-negative microfl ora was detected on all surfaces: Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacter spp., Acinetobacter radioresistens, Pseudomonas putida, Enterobacter cloacae/asburiae, and Pantoea agglomerans. Overall comparison revealed no statistically significant differences between methods (p = 0,616 and p = 0,946, respectively), indicating their analytical equivalence. In Clinic 1, the phosphate buff er method achieved ideal diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specifi city, and accuracy of 1,000), while the AMIES method showed sensitivity of 0,882; Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0,847 (almost perfect agreement). Notably, at the pharmacological table in Clinic 2, where potassium peroxymonosulfate-based disinfec tants were used, the Na₂S₂O₃ method detected significantly higher contamination levels (p = 0,026), most likely reflecting growth inhibition by residual oxidisers in samples lacking a neutralizer. The results confirm that phosphate buffer swab moistening is a cost-effective and diagnostically reliable baseline protocol for routine surface monitoring in veterinary clinics, while the inclusion of chemical neutralisers in the transport solution is essential when sampling after disinfection with oxidising agents.

Keywords: veterinary clinic, microbiological monitoring, sampling, surfaces, AMIES transport medium, phosphate buffer, sodium thiosulfate, sanitary control, opportunistic microflora, healthcare associated infections.

SHEVCHENKO M. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7002-1494


BILYK S. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-0881


PLAHOTNIUK K.


PSHETS D.


SAVCHENIUK M. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-4114


PANTELEIENKO O. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4311-9680


TSARENKO T. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-5958


DOVHAL O.


  1. Ruple-Czerniak, A., Aceto, H.W., Bender, J.B. (2013). Using syndromic surveillance to estimate baseline rates for healthcare-associated infections in critical care units of small animal referral hospitals. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1392–1399. DOI:10.1111/jvim.12190.
  2. Ruple-Czerniak, A., Aceto, H.W., Bender, J.B. (2014). Syndromic surveillance for evaluating the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections in equine hospitals. Equine Veterinary Journal, Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 435–440. DOI:10.1111/evj.12190.
  3. Espinel-Rupérez, J., Martín-Ríos, M. D., Salazar, V. (2019). Incidence of surgical site infection in dogs undergoing soft tissue surgery: risk factors and economic impact. Veterinary Record Open, Vol. 6, no. 1. DOI:10.1136/vetreco-2017-000233.
  4. Sebola, D.C., Oguttu, J.W., Kock, M.M., Qekwana, D.N. (2023). Hospital-acquired and zoonotic bacteria from a veterinary hospital and their associated antimicrobial-susceptibility profiles: A systematic review. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Vol. 9. DOI:10.3389/fvets.2022.1087052.
  5. Timofte, D., Jepson, R.E. (2024). PRO: Environmental microbiological surveillance does support infection control in veterinary hospitals. JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance, Vol. 6, no. 4. DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlae113.
  6. Leal-Vélez, J.A., Arenas-Hernández, M.M.P., Rodríguez-Rivera, L.D. (2025). Extended-spectrum β-lactamase and AmpC β-lactamase-producing bacteria in veterinary settings. Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 12, no. 1. DOI:10.3390/vetsci12010058.
  7. Akwuobu, C.A., Ngbede, E.O., Mamfe, L.M. (2021). Veterinary clinic surfaces as reservoirs of multi-drug- and biocide-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Access Microbiology, Vol. 3, no. 11. DOI:10.1099/acmi.0.000277.
  8. Perkins, A.V., Sellon, D.C., Gay, J.M. (2020). Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius on hand-contact and animal-contact surfaces in companion animal community practice veterinary hospitals. Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 506–515. DOI:10.1111/vsu.13369.
  9. Duarte, A.C., Rodrigues, S., Afonso, A. (2024). Evaluation of the effi cacy of combination of glutaraldehyde and quaternary ammonium compound disinfectant against diff erent isolated C. perfringens strains recovered from broilers. Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 11, no. 8. DOI:10.3390/vetsci11080382.
  10. Amara, N., Krom, B.P., Kaufmann, G.F., Meijler, M.M. (2021). Macromolecular inhibition of quorum sensing: Enzymes, antibodies, and beyond. Chemical Reviews, Vol. 121, no. 18, pp. 10666-10709.
  11. Karygianni, L., Ren, Z., Koo, H., Thurnheer, T. (2020). Biofi lm Matrixome: Extracellular Components in Structured Microbial Communities. Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 668–681. DOI:10.1016/j.tim.2020.03.016.
  12. Kaplan, J.B., Izano, E.A., Gokhale, P. (2012). Targeting bacterial biofi lms on medical implants: Current and emerging approaches. Antibiotics, Vol. 13, no. 8.
  13. Uruén, C., Chopo-Escuin, G., Tommassen, J., Mainar-Jaime, R.C., Arenas, J. (2021). Biofi lms as Promoters of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance and Tolerance. Antibiotics, Vol. 10, no. 1. DOI:10.3390/antibiotics10010003.
  14. Chen, L., Tang, Z.Y., Cui, S.Y. (2020). Biofilm production ability, virulence and antimicrobial resistance genes in Staphylococcus aureus from var ious veterinary hospitals. Pathogens, Vol. 9, no. 4. DOI:10.3390/pathogens9040264.
  15. Ledwoch, K., Maillard, J.-Y. (2018). Candida auris dry surface biofilm (DSB) for disinfectant efficacy testing. Materials, Vol. 12, no. 1.
  16. Widmer, A.F., Marsch, S., Gehr, P. (2019). Total colony count versus pathogen-directed approach for monitoring healthcare-associated infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 155–160.
  17. Okamoto, K., Rhee, Y., Schoeny, M. (2018). Flocked nylon swabs versus RODAC plates for detection of multidrug-resistant organisms on environmental surfaces in intensive care units. Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 105–108. DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2017.09.028.
  18. Madsen, A.M., Moslehi-Jenabian, S., Islam, M.Z. (2020). Evaluation of methods for sampling of Staphylococcus aureus and other Staphylococcus species from indoor surfaces. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, Vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 1020–1034. DOI:10.1093/annweh/wxaa075.
  19. Jansson, L., Akel, Y., Eriksson, R. (2020). Performance characteristics of automated sampling and detection of SARS-CoV-2 airborne and surface contamination: a validation study. Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 763–770.
  20. Chen, F., Li, Y., Wang, W. (2024). Comparative performance of contact plate method and swab method for surface microbial contamination on medical fabrics. BMC Infectious Diseases, Vol. 24. DOI:10.1186/s12879-024-09416-8.
  21. 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. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1655–1658. DOI:10.1128/JCM.02047-07.
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). Best practices for environmental cleaning in healthcare facilities in resource-limited settings.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon shevchenko_1_2026_.pdf767.31 KB
Scientific Journal of Veterinary Medicine 1'2026