Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 115, Issue 7, pp 2581–2587 | Cite as

Sensitivity and efficiency of selected coproscopical methods—sedimentation, combined zinc sulfate sedimentation-flotation, and McMaster method

  • Ann-Christin Becker
  • Amelie Kraemer
  • Christian Epe
  • Christina StrubeEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Coproscopical methods used in veterinary-parasitological diagnostics were validated according to their sensitivity (Se) and egg recovery rate [efficiency (Ef)]. Validation of the combined sedimentation-flotation method and the modified McMaster method was performed by using feces spiked with eggs of Ancylostoma caninum, Uncinaria stenocephala, Cooperia oncophora, cyathostomins, Ascaris suum, Toxascaris leonina, Toxocara canis, Trichuris vulpis, Moniezia expansa, and Anoplocephala perfoliata. For validation of the sedimentation method, Fasciola hepatica eggs were used. With the combined sedimentation-flotation method using ZnSO4 as flotation medium [specific gravity (SG) 1.30], 5 g fecal samples of all tested parasite species (concentration levels 1, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, and 80 epg) were reproducibly detected “positive” (100 % Se) as of 80 epg. The Ef of the combined sedimentation-flotation method, defined as percentage of rediscovered eggs, revealed clear differences between parasites and showed the highest value for cyathostomins and the lowest for U. stenocephala and T. leonina eggs. The average Ef for all parasite species at 80 epg was 1.50 %. With the McMaster method (concentration levels 1, 30, 50, 80, 100, 500, and 1000 epg), all tested parasite species were detected reliably positive as of 500 epg with a mean Ef of 46.4 %. When evaluating the sedimentation method (concentration levels 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 epg), F. hepatica eggs were reproducibly found in 5 g fecal samples as of 20 epg with 20.0 % Ef. The result that the combined zinc sulfate sedimentation-flotation method (SG 1.30) as flotation medium provides diagnostic certainty only as of 80 epg has to be considered at preventing zoonoses. If pet owners wish to prevent any zoonotic infection (“zero tolerance”), a monthly anthelminthic treatment should be advised instead of monthly fecal examinations.

Keywords

Diagnostics Coproscopical examination Coproscopy Fecal examination Parasitological examination Sedimentation-flotation method McMaster Sedimentation 

References

  1. Bailenger J (1979) Mechanism of parasitic concentration in coprology and their practical consequences. J Am Med Tech 41:65–71Google Scholar
  2. Conceicao MAP, Durao RM, Costa IH, Correia da Costa JM (2002) Evaluation of a simple sedimentation method (modified McMaster) for diagnosis of bovine fasciolosis. Vet Parasitol 105:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cringoli G, Rinaldi L, Veneziano V, Capelli G, Scala A (2004) The influence of flotation solution, sample dilution and the choice of McMaster slide area (volume) on the reliability of the McMaster technique in estimating the fecal egg counts of gastrointestinal strongyles and Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep. Vet Parasitol 123:121–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunn A, Keymer A (1986) Factors affecting the reliability of the McMaster technique. J Helminth 60:260–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Egwang TG, Slocombe JOD (1981) Efficiency and sensitivity of techniques for recovering nematode eggs from bovine feces. Can J Comp Med 45:243–248PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibson TE (1965) Examination of feces for helminth eggs and larvae. Vet Bulletin 35:403–410Google Scholar
  7. Gordon HM, Whitlock HV (1939) A new technique for counting nematode eggs in sheep feces. J Counc Sci Ind Res 12:50–52Google Scholar
  8. Happich FA, Boray JC (1969) Quantitative diagnosis of chronic fasciolosis. Aust Vet J 45:326–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hinaidy HK, Keferböck F, Pichler C, Jahn J (1988) Vergleichende koprologische Untersuchungen beim Rind. J Med Vet B 35:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) (1986) Manual of veterinary parasitological laboratory techniques. HMSO, London, p 24Google Scholar
  11. Mayerhofer, J. (1985) Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Brauchbarkeit verschiedener Medien zum Nachweis der Intestinalparasiten von Hund und Katze mittels Kotflotationstechnik. Doctoral thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  12. Sasaki R (1927) On the oscillation of specific gravity of the Ascaris eggs which are manifested by their growth. Jap Med World 7:115Google Scholar
  13. Sawitz W, Tobie JE, Katz G (1939) The specific gravity of hookworm eggs. Am J Trop Med 19:171–179Google Scholar
  14. Sawitz W (1942) The buoyancy of certain nematode eggs. J Parasitol 28:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schragner S. (1986) Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Brauchbarkeit verschiedener Medien zum Nachweis der Endoparasiten des Haus- und Wildschweines mittels Kotflotationstechnik. Doctoral thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ward MP, Lyndal-Murphy M, Baldock FC (1997) Evaluation of a composite method for counting helminth eggs in cattle faeces. Vet Parasitol 73:181–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Whitlock HV (1948) Some modifications of the McMaster helminth egg-counting technique and apparatus. J Counc Sci Ind Res 21:177–180Google Scholar
  18. Zajac AM, Johnson J, King SE (2002) Evaluation of the importance of centrifugation as a component of zinc sulfate fecal flotation examinations. J Am Anim Hosp Ass 38:221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Christin Becker
    • 1
  • Amelie Kraemer
    • 1
  • Christian Epe
    • 2
  • Christina Strube
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute for ParasitologyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine HannoverHanoverGermany
  2. 2.Elanco Centre de Recherche Santé AnimaleSt. AubinSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations