| Literature DB >> 33057158 |
Clémentine M G Charoux1,2, Apurva D Patange3, Laura M Hinds1,2, Jeremy C Simpson4, Colm P O'Donnell2, Brijesh K Tiwari1,2.
Abstract
Bacterial biofilms are difficult to inactivate due to their high antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, new approaches are required for more effective bacterial biofilm inactivation. Airborne acoustic ultrasound improves bactericidal or bacteriostatic activity which is safe and environmentally friendly. While, plasma activated water (PAW) is attracting increasing attention due to its strong antimicrobial properties. This study determined efficacy of combined airborne acoustic ultrasound and plasma activated water from both cold and thermal plasma systems in inactivating Escherichia coli K12 biofilms. The application of airborne acoustic ultrasound (15 min) alone was significantly more effective in reducing E. coli counts in 48 and 72 h biofilms compared to 30 min treatment with PAW. The effect of airborne acoustic ultrasound was more pronounced when used in combination with PAW. Airborne acoustic ultrasound treatment for 15 min of the E. coli biofilm followed by treatment with PAW significantly reduced the bacterial count by 2.2-2.62 Log10 CFU/mL when compared to control biofilm treated with distilled water. This study demonstrates that the synergistic effects of airborne acoustic ultrasound and PAW for enhanced antimicrobial effects. These technologies have the potential to prevent and control biofilm formation in food and bio-medical applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33057158 PMCID: PMC7560612 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74504-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Microbial count after biofilm detachment of ultrasonic-treated samples. “Black square” 48 h biofilm “Grey square” 72 h biofilm. C: control; AA: Airborne acoustic ultrasound 15 min. a,bDifferent letters on column are significantly different (p < 0.05). A, B Different letters on column are significantly different (p < 0.05). Error bars stand for standard deviation.
Figure 2Microbial count after (72 h) biofilm detachment of samples treated with cold and thermal plasma-treated-water alone and in combination with ultrasound treatment. a,b,cDifferent letters on column are significantly different (p < 0.05); ‘nd’ indicates “not detected”; Error bars stand for standard deviation.
Figure 3Confocal laser scanning microscope images of E. coli biofilm on glass slide (a) non-treated and following (b) 15 min treatment of airborne ultrasound. The cells were stained with STYO 9 (green fluorescence, live cells)/PI (red/yellow, dead cells). All images were compiled, and noise reduction filter was applied in the Olympus Fluoview FV1000 software (version 4.1.1.5. https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/support/downloads/ ).
Nomenclature of different samples with conditions detailed.
| Samples nomenclature* | Airborne acoustic ultrasound treatment | Cold plasma activated water treatment | Thermal plasma activated water treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| C | – | – | – |
| CW | – | – | – |
| cPAW | – | 30 min soaking | – |
| tPAW | – | – | 30 min soaking |
| AA | 15 min | – | – |
| AA + cPAW | 15 min | 30 min soaking | – |
| AA + tPAW | 15 min | – | 30 min soaking |
*‘C’ were without any treatment; ‘CW’ were treated with sterile distilled water; ‘cPAW’ treated with cold plasma treated PAW; ‘tPAW’ treated with thermal plasma treated PAW; ‘AA’ treated with airborne acoustic ultrasound, ‘AA + cPAW’ treated with airborne acoustic ultrasound and cold plasma treated PAW; ‘AA + tPAW’ treated with airborne acoustic ultrasound and thermal plasma treated PAW.
Figure 4Schematic of the airborne acoustic ultrasound system.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of PAW generation by cold plasma jet system. (AFM) air flow monitor; (C) gas introduction; (PS) power supply.
Figure 6Functional principle of thermal atmospheric plasma system. HV: High voltage generator.
The pH, conductivity, ORP and RONS of PAW compared to untreated controls.
| Parameters | Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Cold plasma | Thermal plasma | |
| pH | 6.71 ± 0.03 | 2.85 ± 0.18 | 2.53 ± 0.04 |
| ORP (mV) | 406.07 ± 12.7 | 565.40 ± 1.9 | 510 ± 0.6 |
| Conductivity (µs/cm) | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 333.00 ± 13.44 | 518.0 ± 22 |
| Hydrogen peroxide (µM) | nd | 14.7 ± 3.9 | 13.2 ± 5 |
| Nitrate (µM) | nd | 71.7 ± 5 | 13.09 ± 6 |
| nd | 33.5 ± 0.7 | 7 ± 0.2 | |
Data are expressed as the mean value of three independent experiments, ‘nd’ indicates not detected.