Table 1.
Location, number of samples, surface material, and porosity classification of sampled surfaces in porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome positive growing pig farms selected for the study.
Table 2.
Proportion of positive surface samples by standard-RT-qPCR and viability-RT-qPCR, oral fluids by RT-PCR per farm, state location, biosecurity feature, and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus classification.
Table 3.
Number of standard-RT-qPCR and viability-RT-qPCR porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus positive surface samples by material and porosity classification.
Table 4.
Number of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus positive standard-RT-qPCR and viability-RT-qPCR surface samples and median cycle threshold values by location.
Fig 1.
Surface standard-RT-qPCR and viability-RT-qPCR results by location and farm.
Surface was either negative to both S-RT-qPCR and V-RT-qPCR (green), positive for S-RT-qPCR (red), or positive for both S-RT-qPCR and V-RT-qPCR (orange).
Fig 2.
Distribution of cycle threshold value results by assay and location.
Assay type was either S-RT-qPCR (orange) or V-RT-qPCR (purple).
Fig 3.
Distribution of cycle threshold value results by assay, surface material, and porosity classification.
Assay type was either S-RT-qPCR (orange) or V-RT-qPCR (purple).
Table 5.
Cohen’s kappa and global agreement of detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome between two assays.