Loading…

Acetic acid as an alternative reagent in the modified Knott test

[Display omitted] •The modified Knott test is an important tool in heartworm diagnosis.•Acetic acid was tested as a safer alternative to formalin in the test.•Knott tests performed with acetic acid yielded similar results to the standard test.•Morphology was found to be altered in a way that may aff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary parasitology 2019-12, Vol.276, p.108975-108975, Article 108975
Main Authors: Evans, Christopher C., Bradner, Jenna L., Savadelis, Molly D., Nelson, C. Thomas, Moorhead, Andrew R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:[Display omitted] •The modified Knott test is an important tool in heartworm diagnosis.•Acetic acid was tested as a safer alternative to formalin in the test.•Knott tests performed with acetic acid yielded similar results to the standard test.•Morphology was found to be altered in a way that may affect species ID. The suitability of acetic acid as a safer alternative to formalin in the modified Knott test was evaluated for the diagnosis of canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis). Microfilaria concentration was measured by both methods and found to agree within reasonable limits (−5.84 % bias; −88.1–76.4 % limits of agreement). The level of agreement was lower when samples were prepared with a 24 h delay, but this was due to the formalin method tending to yield lower counts (−20.1 % bias; −90.5–50.2 % limits of agreement). Clearing the sample of hemoglobin improves readability and is a key feature of the modified Knott test. Hemolysis was significantly lower in the acetic acid method than the formalin method as measured by red blood cell count (6.83 × 106 and 8.79 × 106 cells/ml, respectively; p =  0.015) and absorbance at 415 nm (33.20 and 34.75, respectively; p 
ISSN:0304-4017
1873-2550
DOI:10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.108975