Literature DB >> 20092911

Biofilm removal by medical device cleaners: comparison of two bioreactor detection assays.

R Hadi1, K Vickery, A Deva, T Charlton.   

Abstract

Currently there are no standards for testing efficacy of medical device cleaners. With fears of prion transmission, residual protein on medical devices needs to be minimised. A bioreactor model was used to grow Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm on polytetrafluoroethylene coupons. The biofilm was subjected to various cleaners and residual biofilm was detected either by Crystal Violet assay (CrV) or a commercially available protein assay (PA) following hydrolysis of the biofilm. Percentage reduction of biofilm was compared with untreated controls in three independent tests. There was no significant difference in percentage biofilm reduction irrespective of whether the CrV or PA was used to detect residual biofilm. Processing of coupons attached to the bioreactor rod and position of coupon within the rod had no significant effect on cleaning efficiency or detection of residual biofilm. Both within-run and between-run variation was very low for good cleaners such as 10g/L NaOH, Zen, and 3M Rapid Multi-Enzyme Cleaner (RMEC) 70500 but was higher for poor cleaners such as Tween 20 which removed less than 20% of the biofilm. Confocal microscopy and electron microscopy provided visual confirmation of the assay results. We propose that this method is suitable as a test method for evaluating the efficacy of surgical instrument cleaners in removing biofilm, as both within-run and between-run variation was low, detection of residual biofilm can be done using either CrV or PA, and the apparatus is easy to use, cheap and readily available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20092911     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.10.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hosp Infect        ISSN: 0195-6701            Impact factor:   3.926


  6 in total

1.  Activities of tobramycin and polymyxin E against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm-coated medical grade endotracheal tubes.

Authors:  Keiko Tarquinio; Kelsey Confreda; James Shurko; Kerry LaPlante
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Study of the effect of antimicrobial peptide mimic, CSA-13, on an established biofilm formed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Authors:  Carole Nagant; Betsey Pitts; Philip S Stewart; Yanshu Feng; Paul B Savage; Jean-Paul Dehaye
Journal:  Microbiologyopen       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Is biofilm removal properly assessed? Comparison of different quantification methods in a 96-well plate system.

Authors:  Philipp Stiefel; Urs Rosenberg; Jana Schneider; Stefan Mauerhofer; Katharina Maniura-Weber; Qun Ren
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  A quantitative method to measure biofilm removal efficiency from complex biomaterial surfaces using SEM and image analysis.

Authors:  N Vyas; R L Sammons; O Addison; H Dehghani; A D Walmsley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 5.  Leveraging Pseudomonas Stress Response Mechanisms for Industrial Applications.

Authors:  Kelly Craig; Brant R Johnson; Amy Grunden
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.640

6.  The Effect of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with and without Instillation on Mature Biofilms In Vitro.

Authors:  Shamaila Tahir; Matthew Malone; Honghua Hu; Anand Deva; Karen Vickery
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.623

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.