Literature DB >> 11556920

Biofilm penetration and disinfection efficacy of alkaline hypochlorite and chlorosulfamates.

P S Stewart1, J Rayner, F Roe, W M Rees.   

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, in terms of bacterial biofilm penetration and killing, of alkaline hypochlorite (pH 11) and chlorosulfamate (pH 5.5) formulations. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Two species biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae were grown by flowing a dilute medium over inclined stainless steel slides for 6 d. Microelectrode technology was used to measure concentration profiles of active chlorine species within the biofilms in response to treatment at a concentration of 1000 mg total chlorine l(-1). Chlorosulfamate formulations penetrated biofilms faster than did hypochlorite. The mean penetration time into approximately 1 mm-thick biofilms for chlorosulfamate (6 min) was only one-eighth as long as for the same concentration of hypochlorite (48 min). Chloride ion penetrated biofilms rapidly (5 min) with an effective diffusion coefficient in the biofilm that was close to the value for chloride in water. Biofilm bacteria were highly resistant to killing by both antimicrobial agents. Biofilms challenged with 1000 mg l(-1) alkaline hypochlorite or chlorosulfamate for 1 h experienced 0.85 and 1.3 log reductions in viable cell numbers, respectively. Similar treatment reduced viable numbers of planktonic bacteria to non-detectable levels (log reduction greater than 6) within 60 s. Aged planktonic and resuspended laboratory biofilm bacteria were just as susceptible to hypochlorite as fresh planktonic cells.
CONCLUSION: Chlorosulfamate transport into biofilm was not retarded whereas hypochlorite transport clearly was retarded. Superior penetration by chlorosulfamate was hypothesized to be due to its lower capacity for reaction with constituents of the biofilm. Poor biofilm killing despite direct measurement of effective physical penetration of the antimicrobial agent into the biofilm demonstrates that bacteria in the biofilm are protected by some mechanism other than simple physical shielding by the biofilm matrix. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study lends support to the theory that the penetration of antimicrobial agents into microbial biofilms is controlled by the reactivity of the antimicrobial agent with biofilm components. The finding that chlorine-based biocides can penetrate, but fail to kill, bacteria in biofilms should motivate the search for other mechanisms of protection from killing by antimicrobial agents in biofilms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11556920     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01413.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Microbiol        ISSN: 1364-5072            Impact factor:   3.772


  57 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion in biofilms.

Authors:  Philip S Stewart
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.490

2.  Spatial and temporal patterns of biocide action against Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms.

Authors:  William M Davison; Betsey Pitts; Philip S Stewart
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Multiphase flow models of biogels from crawling cells to bacterial biofilms.

Authors:  N G Cogan; Robert D Guy
Journal:  HFSP J       Date:  2010-02-12

4.  Hypothesis for the role of nutrient starvation in biofilm detachment.

Authors:  Stephen M Hunt; Erin M Werner; Baochuan Huang; Martin A Hamilton; Philip S Stewart
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Removal and inactivation of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms by electrolysis.

Authors:  Christine Rabinovitch; Philip S Stewart
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  A three-dimensional computer model of four hypothetical mechanisms protecting biofilms from antimicrobials.

Authors:  Jason D Chambless; Stephen M Hunt; Philip S Stewart
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Interactions of Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia, vaccinal poliovirus type 1, and bacteriophages phiX174 and MS2 with a drinking water biofilm and a wastewater biofilm.

Authors:  Karim Helmi; Sylvain Skraber; Christophe Gantzer; Raphaël Willame; Lucien Hoffmann; Henry-Michel Cauchie
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Comparison of the antimicrobial effects of chlorine, silver ion, and tobramycin on biofilm.

Authors:  Jaeeun Kim; Betsey Pitts; Philip S Stewart; Anne Camper; Jeyong Yoon
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Efficacy of copper-silver ionization in controlling biofilm- and plankton-associated waterborne pathogens.

Authors:  Hsiu-Yun Shih; Yusen E Lin
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  A method for growing a biofilm under low shear at the air-liquid interface using the drip flow biofilm reactor.

Authors:  Darla M Goeres; Martin A Hamilton; Nicholas A Beck; Kelli Buckingham-Meyer; Jackie D Hilyard; Linda R Loetterle; Lindsey A Lorenz; Diane K Walker; Philip S Stewart
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 13.491

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.