Media and Viral Filter Retention of A. laidlawii with Virosart Filtersa
| Filter Type | Test Article Composition | Volume Filtered (mL) | Loading (L/m2) | Load Titer (log10 CFU)b | LRVc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virosart Media Filter | 0.5% A. laidlawii 1X OptiCHO | 88 | 175 | 6.1 | >5.1 |
| 92 | 183 | 6.2 | >5.2 | ||
| Virosart Media Filter | 0.1% A. laidlawii 1X OptiCHO | 225 | 450 | 5.3 | >4.3 |
| 222 | 443 | 5.6 | >4.6 | ||
| Virosart HF Viral Filter | 0.5% A. laidlawii PBS + 1g/L BSA | 153 | 307 | 6.1 | >5.1 |
| 150 | 300 | 6.1 | >5.1 | ||
| Virosart CPV Viral Filter | 0.1% A. laidlawii PBS + 1g/L BSA | 60 | 120 | 5.2 | >4.2 |
| 60 | 120 | 5.2 | >4.2 |
↵a Small-pore viral filters in general were effective barriers against mycoplasma penetration yielding at least 4.2 LRV clearance. Even at a higher load density, the second-generation filter (Virosart HF) shows substantial mycoplasma retention (5.1 Log10 CFU).
↵b CFU is colony-forming unit.
↵c LRV is log reduction value. > indicates no visible mycoplasma colonies present.