Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: J Microbiol Methods. 2013 Oct 29;95(3):389–396. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2013.10.015

Table 3.

Summary of vacuum and wipe sampling recoveries for each trial.

Material Triala Vacuum recovery
(×10c CFU cm−2)
Wipe recovery
(×103 CFU cm−2)
Relative recoveryb ANOVAc (p value)
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Carpet 1 20.1 9.3 51.8 13.0 0.387 <0.001
2 26.6 8.5 41.6 21.6 0.641
3 28.2 11.9 59.6 12.6 0.474
4 21.8 10.5 107.7 38.7 0.202
5 12.8 2.2 84.2 29.0 0.151
Concrete 1 14.4 3.6 48.1 18.9 0.299 <0.001
2 31.8 5.5 122.6 60.5 0.259
3 74.1 38.8 59.6 12.6 1.242
4 25.7 14.9 107.7 38.7 0.238
5 34.7 10.6 105.3 40.5 0.330
Upholstery 1 18.6 4.2 80.4 32.7 0.232 <0.001
2 7.3 2.7 68.7 27.4 0.106
3 20.8 5.6 59.6 12.6 0.350
4 13.9 8.6 107.7 38.7 0.129
5 3.8 3.8 108.0 41.5 0.035

Bold values indicate trial with the highest recovery, as indicated by Bonferroni post hoc tests, for each material. For carpet trials, no one method demonstrated superior recovery compared to the other methods.

a

Trials are consistent with Table 2, and are as follows: Trial 1, vacuum sock (fast); Trial 2, vacuum sock (slow); Trial 3, 37 mm cassette (MCE); Trial 4, 37 mm cassette (PTFE); Trial 5, forensic filter.

b

Relative recovery = mean vacuum recovery / mean wipe recovery.

c

ANOVA (one-way) conducted on relative recoveries, across trials (methods) yet within each material.