| Literature DB >> 33171928 |
Mahmuda Akter1,2, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav3, Se Hoon Ki2,4, Eun Ha Choi1,2,4, Ihn Han1,2.
Abstract
Nonthermal, biocompatible plasma (NBP) is a promising unique state of matter that is effective against a wide range of pathogenic microorganisms. This study focused on a sterilization method for bacteria that used the dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) biocompatible plasma cabinet sterilizer as an ozone generator. Reactive oxygen species play a key role in inactivation when air or other oxygen-containing gases are used. Compared with the untreated control, Escherichia coli(E. coli), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and Salmonella typhimurium (sepsis) were inhibited by approximately 99%, or were nondetectable following plasma treatment. Two kinds of plasma sterilizers containing six- or three-chamber cabinets were evaluated. There was no noticeable difference between the two configurations in the inactivation of microorganisms. Both cabinet configurations were shown to be able to reduce microbes dramatically, i.e., to the nondetectable range. Therefore, our data indicate that the biocompatible plasma cabinet sterilizer may prove to be an appropriate alternative sterilization procedure.Entities:
Keywords: Escherichia coli (E. coli); Nonthermal biocompatible plasma (NBP); Reactive nitrogen species (RNS); Reactive oxygen species (ROS); Salmonella typhimurium (sepsis); Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus); cabinet sterilizer
Year: 2020 PMID: 33171928 PMCID: PMC7664273 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21218321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1(a) Schematic of the experimental setup with the DBD nonthermal biocompatible plasma electrode structure; (b) current and voltage waveforms during discharge; (c) optical emission spectra (OES) of plasma; (d) ozone concentration measurement during treatment time; (e) the amount of H2O2; and (f) NO2 concentration according to plasma treatment time. (g) Photograph of the plasma cabinet sterilizer with six and three chambers and the discharge photo of plasma.
Physical parameters and conditions of the nonthermal DBD plasma device.
| Parameters | Conditions |
|---|---|
| Voltage (Vrms, kV) | 4.16 |
| Current (Irms, mA) | 13.01 |
| Period (µs) | 36.20 |
| Frequency (kHz) | 27.6 |
| Energy (Duty) (J/sec) | 0.24 |
Figure 2Plasma inactivation efficiency of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) in the six-chamber (cabinet 1) cabinet (a,b). Representative culture plates with cultures at 104, 105, and 106 dilution factors. (c,d) Growth characteristics curve. All t-test value is p < 0.001 as compared to control.
Inhibition percentage in six-chamber plasma cabinet treatment compared with control. (ND: Nondetected).
| Species | Chamber | Inhibition% | Species | Chamber | Inhibition% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No. 1 | ND | No. 1 | 99.8 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 2 | 99.8 ± 0.1 | No. 2 | 99.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 3 | ND | No. 3 | 99.4 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 4 | 99.8 ± 0.1 | No. 4 | 99.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 5 | ND | No. 5 | 99.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 6 | 98.9 ± 0.2 | No. 6 | 99.3 ± 0.1 | ||
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No.1 | ND | No. 1 | 99.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 2 | 99.8 ± 0.1 | No. 2 | 99.3 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 3 | ND | No. 3 | 99.4 ± 0.2 | ||
| No. 4 | 99.6 ± 0.1 | No. 4 | 99.5 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 5 | ND | No. 5 | 98.9 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 6 | 99.6 ± 0.1 | No. 6 | 99.2 ± 0.2 | ||
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No. 1 | ND | No. 1 | 99.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 2 | ND | No. 2 | 99.4 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 3 | ND | No. 3 | 99.2 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 4 | ND | No. 4 | 99.4 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 5 | ND | No. 5 | ND | ||
| No. 6 | ND | No. 6 | 99.8 ± 0.1 |
Figure 3(a,b) Representative culture plates showing the inactivation efficiency of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) at 104, 105, and 106 dilution factors. (c,d) Growth characteristics curve for the bacteria in the three chambers (cabinet 2) of the plasma cabinet. All t-test value is p < 0.001 as compared to control.
Percentage of inhibition after three-chamber plasma cabinet treatment compared with control. (ND: Nondetected).
| Species | Chamber | Inhibition% | Species | Chamber | Inhibition% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No. 1 | 99.5 ± 0.1 | No. 1 | 98.5 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 2 | 99.8 ± 0.1 | No. 2 | 97.1 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 3 | 99.4 ± 0.1 | No. 3 | 97.7 ± 0.1 | ||
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No. 1 | 97.9 ± 0.1 | No. 1 | 99.6 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 2 | 99.5 ± 0.1 | No. 2 | 97.6 ± 0.1 | ||
| No. 3 | 99.2 ± 0.1 | No. 3 | 98.8 ±0.1 | ||
| Control | 0 | Control | 0 | ||
| No. 1 | ND | No. 1 | ND | ||
| No. 2 | ND | No. 2 | ND | ||
| No. 3 | ND | No. 3 | ND |
Figure 4Molecular docking interaction of docked (a) hydrogen peroxide, (b) ozone, and (c) nitrates with E. coli.
Figure 5Molecular docking interaction of docked (a) hydrogen peroxide, (b) ozone, and (c) nitrates with S. aureus.
Figure 6Molecular docking interaction of docked (a) hydrogen peroxide, (b) ozone, and (c) nitrates with Salmonella typhimurium.