A comparative study between commonly used laboratory flotation methods for recovering helminth eggs from sand samples
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5216/rpt.v40i4.16765Keywords:
Flotation methods, Sand, Helminthes, Toxocara spp, Eggs, Ancilostomid-like eggs, Public health, Zoonosis.Abstract
Animal fecal deposition in the environment is a public health problem with a potential risk for pathogenic agents like parasites. In epidemiological surveys, the evaluation of soil contamination requires an efficient d easy method for the isolation of parasite eggs from soil samples. The present study was performed aiming to compare flotation methods to test their efficacy in recovering helminth eggs from 50 sand samples, from a sandy area, in the city of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. For Kazacos and Faust et al. methods, Zinc sulphate (d=1.35) was used as flotation solution and in Ruiz et al. method, sucrose solution (d=1.2g/ml). Fifty replicated examinations were performed for each type of flotation method. The results were expressed as the number of T. canis eggs recorded and/or percentage rates of recovery in sand samples. Our findings include the presence of 7/50 (14%) samples with Toxocara spp eggs; and 1/50 (2%) sample with Ancylostomidae-like
eggs. The Kazacos method (30g) detected four (4/7) positive samples; Faust et al. (30g) detected two (2/7) positive samples, Faust et al. (6g) detected one (1/7) positive sample, and the Ruiz et al. method detected two (2/7) positive samples. These data showed no differences between the flotation methods used in this study for Toxocara eggs recovery.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The manuscript submission must be accompanied by a letter signed by all authors stating the full name and email address, confirming that the material has not been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere, and agreeing to transfer copyright in all media and formats for Journal of Tropical Pathology. The authors will not be paid for published articles. They are solely responsible for the content of those articles, even if the Editor holds the right to adjust them to the norms of the journal.
The reviewers will not be paid for the peer review process.