| Literature DB >> 35847114 |
Anna-Maria Gierke1, Martin Hessling1.
Abstract
Background: Due to the increase in multidrug-resistant pathogens, it is important to investigate further antimicrobial options. In order not to have to work directly with pathogens, the investigation of possible surrogates is an important aspect. It is examined how suitable possible surrogate candidates for ESKAPE pathogens are for UVC applications. In addition, the inactivation sensitivities to 222 and 254 nm radiation are compared in relation.Entities:
Keywords: ESKAPE pathogen; UVC; disinfection; far-UVC; photoinactivation; radiation; surrogates
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847114 PMCID: PMC9284107 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.942708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Schematic setup for inactivation experiment. For radiation of 222 nm, a KrCl excimer lamp was applied (A) and a mercury vapor lamp was used for a radiation wavelength of 254 nm (B).
Figure 2Photoinactivation of non-pathogenic bacteria for 222 nm and 254 nm. The results are presented for Enterococcus mundtii (A), Staphylococcus carnosus (B), Acinetobacter kookii (C), Pseudomonas fluorescens (D), Escherichia coli (E). A linear fit was added for the determination of the UVC/far-UVC sensitivity.
Overview of calculated average log reduction doses for various bacteria and wavelength.
| 222 nm average log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | 254 nm average log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Ratio (dose222nm/dose254nm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6.90 ± 0.56 | 4.54 ± 0.34 | 1.52 |
|
| 3.28 ± 0.50 | 1.26 ± 0.06 | 2.60 |
|
| 2.93 ± 0.35 | 4.03 ± 0.74 | 0.73 |
|
| 2.01 ± 0.14 | 1.59 ± 0.12 | 1.26 |
|
| 9.10 ± 2.11 | 3.19 ± 0.89 | 2.85 |
| (Average 1.79) | |||
The values are the inverse of the inactivation rate constants of the fitted curves in Figure 2. The errors derive from the standard deviation.The values are the inverse of the inactivation rate constants of the fitted curves in Figure 2. The errors derive from the standard deviation.
Overview of median log reduction doses for ESKAPE pathogens retrieved from literature.
| 222 nm median log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | 254 nm median log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Ratio (dose222nm/dose254nm) | Additional information [single average log reduction doses (mJ/cm2)] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 222 nm | 254 nm | ||||
|
| 8.36 ± 1.09 | 3.67 ± 1.73 | 2.28 | 9.13 ( | 6.03 ( |
|
| 3.37 ± 1.48 | 2.43 ± 0.79 | 1.39 | 3.24 ( | 1.43 ( |
|
| 2.01 ± 1.84 | 3.31 ( | |||
|
| 1.99 ± 0.67 | 1.34 ± 0.79 | 1.49 | 2.21 ( | 1.34 ( |
|
| 2.59 ± 3.09 | 3.42 ± 1.50 | 0.76 | 9.73a ( | 3.05 ( |
| (Average 1.48) | |||||
Irradiated at 216 nm. The errors derive from standard deviation.
Figure 3Overview of literature values for average log reduction doses of E. faecalis, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and E. coli. The attached blue circular dots represent the average log reduction doses of the investigated non-pathogenic relative. The corresponding data can be found in Table 2.
Comparative overview of (average) log reduction doses for ESKAPE pathogens and non-pathogen relative.
| 222 nm | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-pathogenic bacteria | Average log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Pathogenic bacteria | Median log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Ratio (dose222nm, non-pathogen /dose222nm, pathogen) |
|
| 6.90 ± 0.56 |
| 8.36 ± 1.09 | 0.83 |
|
| 3.28 ± 0.50 |
| 3.37 ± 1.48 | 0.97 |
|
| 2.93 ± 0.35 |
| ||
|
| 2.01 ± 0.14 |
| 1.99 ± 0.67 | 1.01 |
|
| 9.10 ± 2.11 |
| 2.59 ± 3.09 | 3.51 |
| 254 nm | ||||
| Average log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Median log reduction dose (mJ/cm2) | Ratio (dose222nm, non-pathogen /dose222nm, pathogen) | ||
|
| 4.54 ± 0.34 |
| 3.67 ± 1.73 | 1.24 |
|
| 1.26 ± 0.06 |
| 2.43 ± 0.79 | 0.52 |
|
| 4.03 ± 0.74 |
| 2.01 ± 1.84 | 2.00 |
|
| 1.59 ± 0.12 |
| 1.34 ± 0.79 | 1.19 |
|
| 3.19 ± 0.89 |
| 3.42 ± 1.50 | 0.93 |
The errors derive from the standard deviation.