Marco Guida1, Valeria Di Onofrio2, Francesca Gallè3, Renato Gesuele4, Federica Valeriani5, Renato Liguori6, Vincenzo Romano Spica7, Giorgio Liguori8. 1. Department of Biology, University of Naples "Federico II", via Cinthia ed. 7, Naples 80126, Italy. marguida@unina.it. 2. Department of Sciences and Technologies, University of Naples "Parthenope", Business District, Block C4, Naples 80143, Italy. valeria.dionofrio@uniparthenope.it. 3. Department of Movement and Wellbeing Sciences, University of Naples "Parthenope", Via Medina 40, Naples 80133, Italy. francesca.galle@uniparthenope.it. 4. Department of Biology, University of Naples "Federico II", via Cinthia ed. 7, Naples 80126, Italy. renato.gesuele@unina.it. 5. Public Health Unit, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Piazza Lauro de Bosis 6, Rome 00135, Italy. federica.valeriani@uniroma4.it. 6. Department of Movement and Wellbeing Sciences, University of Naples "Parthenope", Via Medina 40, Naples 80133, Italy. liguori@ceinge.unina.it. 7. Public Health Unit, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Piazza Lauro de Bosis 6, Rome 00135, Italy. vincenzo.romanospica@uniroma4.it. 8. Department of Movement and Wellbeing Sciences, University of Naples "Parthenope", Via Medina 40, Naples 80133, Italy. giorgio.liguori@uniparthenope.it.
In this study, we analyzed the presence of P. aeruginosa in swimming pool water in relation to the concentration of chlorine and microbiological parameters. Then, we employed the QFBE system (Quantum 30 Hotel model) to reduce water contamination, evaluating its efficacy.
2. Materials and Methods
During the period from September 2013 to December 2014, nine recreational and rehabilitative swimming pools in the Naples area were monitored according to the local legislation to assess the microbiological face of their water [16].
2.1. Sampling
Water samples were collected as recommended by the norm ISO 5667-3:2012 [17].In brief, one liter of water was collected from each sampling point (pool and intake tap) with a sterile plastic bottle, and sodium thiosulfate was added to a final concentration of 20 mg/L.Sampling was undertaken on a monthly basis before the opening of the pools.
2.2. Total Microbial Count Determination
Total Microbial Counts (TMCs) of both mesophilic and psychrophilic bacteria were detected on the basis of UNI EN ISO 6222:2001 [18]. Two milliliters from each sample were inoculated, one each, in a Petri plate containing Water Plate Count Agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England) and incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 40–48 h and 22 ± 1 °C for 64–72 h, respectively. After incubation, visible colonies were counted and results were expressed as Colony Forming Units per milliliter (CFU/mL).
2.3. Other Microorganisms Detection
Other microbiological parameters were evaluated on the basis of corresponding guidelines (Escherichia coli: UNI EN ISO 9308-1:2002; Enterococcus spp.: UNI EN ISO 7899-2:2003; Staphylococcus aureus: UNI 10678) [19,20,21]. All the results were expressed in CFU/100 mL.
2.4. Pseudomonas aeruginosa Detection
The detection of P. aeruginosa was performed as recommended by the UNI EN ISO 16266:2008 [22]. Briefly, 100 mL of each sample were filtered with a sterile 0.45-μm Ø cellulose membrane, which was incubated on a Pseudomonasagar base/CN-agar (Oxoid) at 36 ± 2 °C for 44 ± 4 h. Blue-green, fluorescent and reddish brown colonies were counted, confirmed, and expressed in CFU/100 mL.The threshold values for psychrophilic microbial count are ≤ 100 CFU/mL for intake water and ≤ 200 CFU/mL for pool water. For the mesophilic count, the limits were ≤ 10 CFU/mL for intake water and ≤ 100 CFU/mL for pool water. The guidelines indicate that E. coli and enterococci should not be present in water samples, and the limits for S. aureus are ≤ 1 CFU/100 mL for water inside the pool and absence in 100 mL for intake water. The recommended threshold values for P. aeruginosa are 0 CFU/100 mL in intake water and < 1 CFU/100 mL in pool water [16].
2.5. Chlorine Determination
Free and combined chlorine levels were also measured in water samples using a photometer (226 Multi-parameter Photometers for Swimming Pools, Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA) with the 4500-Cl G standard method. Threshold values for free chlorine are 0.6–1.8 mg/L for intake water and 0.7–1.5 mg/L for pool water while recommended values for combined chlorine are ≤ 0.2 mg/L and ≤ 0.4 mg/L, respectively [16].The presence of P. aeruginosa has been related to chlorine concentration and the presence of other microorganisms, calculating the coefficient of determination R.
2.6. Biofilm Production
The ability of P. aeruginosa to produce biofilm was investigated through colorimetric assay by Stepanović et al. to the first strain isolated from each facility [23].For each isolate, 200 µL of a microbial suspension (0.5 Standard McFarland, 0.125 O.D. λ = 550 nm) in Tryptic Soya Broth (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England) were inoculated in a 96-well polyethylene microtiter plate (Beckton-Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). A negative control made of 200 µL of the sole culture medium was included. The multiwall plates were incubated at 37 ± 1 °C. After 24 h, the wells were washed with a Phosphate Buffered Saline (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England) solution, fixed with methanol, and colored with 150 µL of crystal violet at 2%; after rinsing with distilled water, glacial acetic acid 30% was added to each well. Then, the absorbance at 570 nm was read with a spectrophotometer. Cut-off values were calculated as the mean Optical Density (OD) value plus three standard deviations (SD) of the negative controls. The values were used to classify the isolates as non-biofilm-producing or weak, moderate or strong-biofilm-producing, based upon the previously calculated OD values: OD ≤ ODc = no biofilm producer; ODc < OD ≤ 2 × ODc = weak biofilm producer; 2 × ODc < OD ≤ 4 × ODc = moderate biofilm producer; 4 × ODc < OD = strong biofilm producer.
2.7. QFBE Application
The QFBE (Quantum 30 Hotel model) was placed on a swimming pool wall free of obstacles and furniture for at least 1 m to the right and to the left and at a height of about 2.5 m, where there were no objects between the floor and the device. Therefore, we assessed the microbial contamination of intake- and pool-water samples monthly, as described before. The instrument consists of a plastic box (size: 12.4 × 8.4 × 4.2 cm). Inside, there are two 6.6 cm long cylinders, antiparallel to the aluminum (Al), that are fixed on the smaller faces of the instrument.
2.8. Statistical Analyses
T tests were performed to compare the means of the TMC at 22 °C and 37 °C and the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the intake- and pool-water before and after the installation of the QFBE. In June 2015 the equipment was removed and the T test was applied to compare the same medium values pre-installation and after uninstallation. The results are expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). A p value of 0.05 was set as the level of significance.
3. Results
On a total of 126 samples, 75 (59.5%) showed a microbial contamination exceeding threshold values, especially in intake water samples (45 samples, 60%). P. aeruginosa was isolated from 67 (50.8%) of these samples while E. coli was never isolated.In eight (6.4%) samples, P. aeruginosa contamination was associated with exceeding values of Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., or TMCs, while eight (6.4%) showed only contamination from Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and TMCs.The presence of P. aeruginosa was correlated with the presence of other microorganisms (R = 0.9 for TMC 37 °C and R = 0.6 for TMC 22 °C) (Figure 2 and Figure 3), while no correlations were found with free or combined chlorine concentration (R < 0.1).
Figure 2
Correlation between P. aeruginosa contamination and mesophilic microbial count.
Figure 3
Correlation between P. aeruginosa contamination and psychrophilic microbial count.
As for the ability to form biofilm, all the isolated strains were moderate- to strong-producers of biofilm (O.D.570 range 0.7–1.2) (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Ability to produce biofilm in first isolation of P. aeruginosa first (black bars: Strong-biofilm-producing strains; gray bars: Moderate-biofilm-producing strains; white bar: Negative control).
Considering these results, different control measures were adopted in the contaminated facilities. QFBE technology was applied to control biofilm production and P. aeruginosa colonization in the swimming pool where the strongest biofilm-producer strain (strain 1) of P. aeruginosa was isolated. In this pool data were collected up to December 2015.Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the results of water monitoring in this facility before and after the installation of QFBE. In the first month after equipment installation, it was possible to observe an increase in P. aeruginosa concentration and other microbial parameters, probably due to the release of microorganisms from the detached biofilm. Later, the contamination values decreased progressively until reaching the recommended values. (Figure 7 and Figure 8).
Trends of microbial parameters in pool water before and after QFBE installation (June 2014 marked with the black line).
Figure 7
Trends of P. aeruginosa in intake water before and after QFBE installation (June 2014 marked with the black line).
Figure 8
Trends of P. aeruginosa in pool water before and after QFBE installation (June 2014 marked with the black line).
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show results of the T tests performed to compare the means of the TMC at 22 °C and 37 °C and the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the intake- and pool-water, before and after QFBE installation. In intake water, there are significant differences (p < 0.05) of considered parameters, while in pool water there is only a significant difference for TMC at 22 °C.
Figure 9
Mean total molecular count (TMC) at 22 °C, mean TMC at 37 °C, and presence of P. aeruginosa before and after QFBE installation in intake water. *: significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 10
Mean TMC at 22 °C, mean TMC at 37 °C, and presence of P. aeruginosa before and after QFBE installation in pool water. *: significant differences (p < 0.05).
Comparing mean TMC at 22 °C, mean TMC at 37 °C, and presence of P. aeruginosa pre-installation QFBE and after uninstallation QFBE in intake- and in pool-water there are no significant differences (p < 0.05) (Figure 11 and Figure 12).
Figure 11
Mean TMC at 22 °C, mean TMC at 37 °C, and presence of P. aeruginosa pre-installation QFBE and after uninstallation QFBE in intake water.
Figure 12
Mean TMC at 22 °C, mean TMC at 37 °C, and presence of P. aeruginosa pre-installation QFBE and after uninstallation QFBE in pool water.
In contrast, in the other facilities, where traditional sanitization methods were applied, the mean results of water monitoring did not show similar decreases, both for P. aeruginosa concentration and for other microbial parameters (Figure 13 and Figure 14).
Figure 13
Trends of microbial parameters in intake water without QFBE equipment installation (mean values from eight swimming pools). Data are expressed as means ± standard error of mean (SEM).
Figure 14
Trends of microbial parameters in pool water without QFBE equipment installation (mean values from eight swimming pools). Data are expressed as means ± standard error of mean (SEM).
Since the chemical-physical characteristics of water can affect the degree of attachment of microorganisms to a substrate, the first step for the formation of biofilms, and the water can constitute up to 97% of the biofilm, it can be assumed that technologies capable of altering the physical state of water can change a suitable setting for microbial growth into an unsuitable one; in addition, it may also modify the matrix of the biofilm by acting on its most representative constituent or by changing the interaction that this matrix has with the surrounding aqueous environment [26,27].Due to the lack of in vitro and in vivo research about the effects of QFBE on bacteria growth and persistence, future studies should evaluate them.In vitro encrustation models represent reliable, cost-effective approaches to the preliminary study and design of materials that resist biofilm formation and encrustation. In future studies, it would be interesting to simulate encrustation formation on different materials with a novel continuous flow encrustation model based on the commercially available CDC (Centers for disease control) biofilm reactor (CBR) (Biosurface Technologies, Bozeman, MT, USA), validated in other studies [28].The CDC Biofilm Reactor consists of eight polypropylene coupon holders suspended from an ultra high molecular weight (UHMW)-polyethylene ported lid. The coupon holders can accommodate three 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) diameter coupons each. The lid with coupon holders and coupons is mounted in a one liter glass vessel with side-arm discharge port. A liquid growth media/biocide/etc. is circulated through the vessel while mixing, and shear is generated by a magnetic stir bar/vane rotated by a magnetic stir plate.Sampling of the coupons is conducted by aseptically removing individual coupon holders with accompanying coupons. The coupon holder or a blank is replaced in the lid after sampling to allow the time course experiment to continue. The coupon removed from the reactor vessel is then used for treatment evaluations, scraped to collect the biofilm sample for further study or imaging using microscopy and image analysis. The CDC Biofilm Reactor is autoclavable and re-useable. The total liquid volume is approximately 350 ml. A variety of coupon materials are available, including plastics, metals, and ceramics.
Authors: Brendan F Gilmore; Turlough M Hamill; David S Jones; Sean P Gorman Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: David Freebairn; David Linton; Eileen Harkin-Jones; David S Jones; Brendan F Gilmore; Sean P Gorman Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: C Pasquarella; L Veronesi; C Napoli; S Castaldi; M L Pasquarella; E Saccani; M E Colucci; F Auxilia; F Gallè; V Di Onofrio; S Tafuri; C Signorelli; G Liguori Journal: Public Health Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: Bryan J Berube; Katherine R Murphy; Matthew C Torhan; Nicholas O Bowlin; John D Williams; Terry L Bowlin; Donald T Moir; Alan R Hauser Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ari Kauppinen; Sallamaari Siponen; Tarja Pitkänen; Karin Holmfeldt; Anna Pursiainen; Eila Torvinen; Ilkka T Miettinen Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 5.048