Skip to main content

Comparison of Swiffer Wipes and Conventional Drag Swab Methods for the Recovery of Salmonella in Swine Production Systems

Buy Article:

$37.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)


The main goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of Swiffer wipes in comparison to conventional drag swabs for the recovery of Salmonella. A total of 800 samples (400 Swiffer wipes and 400 drag swabs) were aseptically collected from randomly selected swine barns before disinfection with specific biocides and within 2 h after disinfection. From each barn, 10 samples of each swab type and negative controls were collected. Salmonellae were isolated from 43 (10.8%) of 400 drag swabs and 34 (8.5%) of 400 Swiffer wipes. There was a significant reduction in Salmonella postdisinfection as identified with both sampling procedures irrespective of the type of biocide used (P < 0.05). With the drag swabs, salmonellae were detected in 15% of the samples before disinfection versus 6.5% after disinfection, whereas with the Swiffer wipes, 13 and 4% of the samples were positive pre- and postdisinfection, respectively. Of the total 720 fecal samples collected from pigs placed in the disinfected barns, 132 (18.3%) were Salmonella positive. About 65 and 98% of the Salmonella isolates from swine barns and fecal samples, respectively, were resistant to one or more of the antimicrobials tested. Multidrug resistance was found in 35.7% of the isolates from barn swabs and 56.4% of the isolates from fecal samples. Results of this study suggest that the conventional drag swab method results in better recovery of Salmonella than does the Swiffer wipe method and thus could be a useful sampling method in monitoring Salmonella. Pentaresistant Salmonella (mainly R-type ACSSuT) was more common in fecal samples than in environmental samples.

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: 1: Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA 2: Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, USA 3: Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, USA

Publication date: January 1, 2009

More about this publication?
  • IAFP Members with personal subscriptions to JFP Online: To access full-text JFP or JMFT articles, you must sign-in in the upper-right corner using your Ingenta sign-in details (your IAFP Member Login does not apply to this website).

    The Journal of Food Protection (JFP) is a refereed monthly publication. Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The Journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 70 countries. The Journal of Food Protection is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.

    Print and online subscriptions are available to IAFP Members and institutional subscribers. IAFP Members with a subscription to JFP Online will have access to all available JFP and JMFT content. Online visitors who are not IAFP Members or journal subscribers will be charged on a pay-per-view basis. Membership and subscription information is available at
  • Information for Authors
  • Submit a Paper
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Membership Information
  • Information for Advertisers
  • Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more