AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lytle, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Routson, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lytle, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Routson, L. B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Lytle, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Routson, L. B.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 02 1995, 643-649, Vol 61, No. 2
Copyright © 1995, American Society for Microbiology

Minimized virus binding for tests of barrier materials

CD Lytle and LB Routson
Division of Life Sciences, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA.

Viruses are used to test the barrier properties of materials. Binding of virus particles during passage through holes in the material may yield misleading test results. The choices of challenge virus and suspending medium may be important for minimizing confounding effects that might arise from such binding. In this study, different surrogate viruses, as well as different support media, were evaluated to determine optimal test parameters. Two membranes with high-binding properties (nitrocellulose and cationic polysulfone) were used as filters to compare binding activities of different surrogate challenge viruses (MS2, phi X174, T7, PRD1, and phi 6) in different media. The media consisted of buffered saline with surfactants, serum, or culture broth as additives. In addition, elution rates of viruses that bound to the membranes were determined. The results suggest that viruses can bind by hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions, with phi X174 displaying the lowest level of binding by either process. The nonionic detergents Triton X-100 and Tween 80 (0.1%) equally minimized hydrophobic interactions. Neither anionic nor cationic surfactants were as effective at nontoxic levels. Serum was effective at reducing both hydrophobic and electrostatic binding, with 2% being sufficient for eliminating binding under our test conditions. Thus, phi X174 remains the best choice as a surrogate virus to test barrier materials, and Triton X-100 (0.1%) remains a good choice for reducing hydrophobic binding. In addition, binding of viruses by barrier materials is unlikely to prevent passage of blood-borne pathogens.


This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.