| Literature DB >> 22220171 |
Nuala Porteous1, Jie Luo, Monica Hererra, John Schoolfield, Yuyu Sun.
Abstract
This study examined bacterial growth and type on biofilm-controlling dental unit waterline (DUWL) tubing (T) and control manufacturer's tubing (C) in a laboratory DUWL model using ultrapure source water that was cycled through the lines. Sections of tubing lines were detached and examined for biofilm growth using SEM imaging at six sampling periods. Bacteria from inside surfaces of T and C, source unit, and reservoir were cultured and enumerated. At six months, organisms were molecularly identified from the alignment matches obtained from the top three BLAST searches for the 16S region. There was a 1-3 log increase in organism growth in a clean, nonsterile reservoir within an hour. Biofilm was established on the inside surfaces of C within three weeks, but not on T. Proteobacteria, and Sphingomonas spp. were identified in the source reservoir and C line, and a variation of the genera was found in T line.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22220171 PMCID: PMC3246724 DOI: 10.1155/2011/767314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Microbiol
Geometric mean number of bacteria (CFU/mL) in Source Reservoir and inside surfaces of test and control lines.
| Week | Source purified water unit | Source reservoir water | Test tubing | Control tubing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0 | 1.08 × 102 | 5.10 × 100 | 2.08 × 102 |
| 6 | 0 | 6.84 × 101 | 2.39 × 101 | 2.03 × 102 |
| 9 | 0 | 1.39 × 102 | 3.20 × 100 | 1.01 × 102 |
| 12 | 0 | 1.08 × 103 | 7.84 × 101 | 1.19 × 102 |
| 18 | 0 | 7.27 × 101 | 6.78 × 101 | 5.68 × 101 |
| 24 | 0 | 1.22 × 102 | 3.79 × 102 | 1.91 × 103 |
Figure 1Geometric mean CFU/mL bacteria found in T and C lines and source reservoir.
Logarithmic mean CFU/mL of bacteria dislodged from inside surfaces of test and control tubing.
| Week | Treatment |
| Log mean | Log Std Dev | Geometric mean |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Test | 3 | 0.784 | 0.719 | 5.1 | 3.48 | 0.025 |
| Control | 3 | 2.321 | 0.263 | 208.3 | Test < control | ||
|
| |||||||
| 6 | Test | 3 | 1.397 | 0.338 | 23.9 | 1.73 | 0.159 |
| Control | 3 | 2.310 | 0.851 | 203.4 | |||
|
| |||||||
| 9 | Test | 3 | 0.627 | 0.737 | 3.2 | 2.78 | 0.05 |
| Control | 3 | 2.007 | 0.443 | 100.7 | Test < control | ||
|
| |||||||
| 12 | Test | 3 | 1.900 | 0.747 | 78.4 | 0.37 | 0.729 |
| Control | 3 | 2.079 | 0.374 | 119.0 | |||
|
| |||||||
| 18 | Test | 3 | 1.838 | 0.923 | 67.8 | 0.09 | 0.936 |
| Control | 3 | 1.762 | 1.229 | 56.8 | |||
|
| |||||||
| 24 | Test | 3 | 2.580 | 0.296 | 379.4 | 3.69 | 0.021 |
| Control | 3 | 3.280 | 0.144 | 1905.6 | Test < control | ||
|
| |||||||
| All Weeks | Test | 6 | 1.521 | 0.738 | 32.2 | 2.09 | 0.063 |
| Control | 6 | 2.293 | 0.526 | 195.5 | |||
Figure 2SEM (magnification ×5,000) images showing biofilm growth and development over the 24-week study period.