Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026
Quantifying Bacterial Surface Swarming Motility on Inducer Gradient Plates
Published on: January 5, 2022
Some are more equal--a comparative study on swab uptake and release of bacterial suspensions
Philipp Warnke1, Liesa Warning1, Andreas Podbielski1
1Institute of Medical Microbiology, Virology, and Hygiene, Rostock University Hospital, Rostock, Germany.
Objectives:
Swabs are widely used to collect samples for microbiological analyses from various clinical settings. They vary by material, size, and structure of the tip. This study investigates the uptake and release capacities for liquid and bacteria.
Methods:
Five swabs were analyzed for their uptake and release capacities of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis suspensions. Two approaches were investigated providing volume-restricted and unrestricted amounts of bacterial suspensions to mimic various clinical situations. Volume and bacterial uptake and release were measured in milligrams and by counting colony forming units (CFU), respectively.
Results:
Volume uptake and release in the unrestricted setting varied highly significant between 239.6 mg and 88.7 mg (p<0.001) and between 65.2 mg and 2.2 mg (p<0.001), respectively. In the volume-restricted setting the complete volume was absorbed by all swabs, volume release could only be detected for flocked swabs (2.7 mg; p<0.001). Highest amount of CFU release was detected for the MWE Dryswab in the unrestricted setting for both S. aureus and S. epidermidis with 1544 CFU and 553 CFU, respectively, lowest release for the Sarstedt neutral swab with 32 CFU and 17 CFU, respectively (p<0.001). In the volume-restricted setting MWE Σ-Swab released the highest bacterial amount with 135 CFU S. aureus and 55 CFU S. epidermidis, respectively, the lowest amount was released by Mast Mastaswab with 2 CFU S. aureus and 1 CFU S. epidermidis, respectively (p<0.001). Within the range of the utilized bacterial concentrations, uptake/release ratios were identical for the particular swab types and independent of the bacterial species.
Conclusions:
The influence of the swab type on subsequent diagnostic results is often underestimated. Uptake and release of the investigated bacteria vary significantly between different swab types and sampling conditions. For best diagnostic outcome swabs should be chosen according to the examined situation and the swab performance profile.
