Assessment of enzymatic cleaning agents and disinfectants against bacterial biofilms.
OBJECTIVE
Microbial biofilm has become difficult to control by antibiotic and biocide regimes that are effective against suspended bacteria. Their colonization of surfaces can be a problem and is generally controlled through cleaning and disinfection. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of the disinfectants including Bio-Ow, Econase CE, Gamanase GC 140, IndiAge 44L, Mannanase AMB, Multifect P-3000, Neutrase, Pandion, Paradigm, Pectinex Ultra SP-L, Promozyme, Resinase A2X, Spezyme AA300, Spezyme GA300 and Vinozym EC, and the proteinase against bacterial biofilms.


METHODS
The effectiveness of 20 commercial disinfectants against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) biofilms using a fluorometric technique was examined. Additionally the disinfectants were also tested against Lactobacillus bulgaricus (L. bulgaricus), Lactobacillus lactis (L. lactis) and Streptococcus thermophilus (S. thermophilus) isolates using microtitration tray based turbidimetric techniques. Escherichia coli (E. coli) was used as the test bacteria in the fluorometric control method.


RESULTS
Among the first group of the enzymatic cleaning agents tested, four disinfectants (Pandion, Resinase A2X, Spezyme GA300 and Paradigm) were the most potent against bacterial biofilms after 30 min incubation time (residual bacterial count less than 10(3) CFU (colony forming units)/ml). However, only Resinase A2X and Paradigm showed a good effect on bacterial biofilms after 15 min incubation time. Proteinase disinfectants (alkalase, chymotrypsin, cryotin and krilltrypsin) from the second group of the disinfectants showed a good effect against P. aeruginosa biofilm when tested in the absence of milk. The performance of the disinfectants was reduced in the presence of milk. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the cleaning agents was determined as the lowest concentration inhibiting bacterial growth. The MIC was tested on Lactobacillus bulgaricus (L. bulgaricus), Lactobacillus lactis (L. lactis) and Streptococcus thermophilus (S. thermophilus) isolates. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for Paradigm against S. thermophilus and L. Lactis were lower than L. Bulgaricus. Whereas, the MIC of Pandion against L. bulgaricus was lower than MIC against L. lactis. Resinase A2X had no inhibitory effect on bacterial growth when the concentration was less than or equal to 2.4 mg/ml and Spezyme GA 300 concentration less than or equal to 7.3 mg/ml. Minimum inhibitory concentration of Pandion against L. bulgaricus was 2.7 microg/ml and against L. lactis 5.3 microg/ml. Growth of S. thermophilus was inhibited in all concentration of Pandion tested.


CONCLUSIONS
The choice of disinfectant or cleaning agent along with the optimum concentration and the time of action is very important when destroying microbes. It is also important that the resistances of microbes to different disinfectants and cleaning agents be taken into account when planning the cleaning process
Augustin
Mona
M
Department of Basic Veterinary Sciences, Section of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Ali-Vehmas
Terhi
T
Atroshi
Faik
F
D018441:Biofilms / Q000187:drug effects*; D003902:Detergents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D004202:Disinfectants / Q000494:pharmacology*; D010450:Endopeptidases / Q000494:pharmacology; D007778:Lactobacillus / Q000187:drug effects; D011550:Pseudomonas aeruginosa / Q000187:drug effects*; D011930:Reaction Time; D013291:Streptococcus / Q000187:drug effects
D003902:Detergents; D004202:Disinfectants; D010450:Endopeptidases