Efficiency and novelty of using environmental swabs for dry-surface biofilm recovery.

Access microbiology Pub Date : 2024-02-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1099/acmi.0.000664.v4
Fergus Watson, Sandra Wilks, John Chewins, Bill Keevil
{"title":"Efficiency and novelty of using environmental swabs for dry-surface biofilm recovery.","authors":"Fergus Watson, Sandra Wilks, John Chewins, Bill Keevil","doi":"10.1099/acmi.0.000664.v4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies on the epidemiology of dry-surface biofilms (DSBs) within healthcare settings have shown an almost universal distribution across frequently touched items. Despite a growing body of evidence for DSBs in hospitals, little attention has been paid to the recovery capacity of techniques used to detect these microbial communities. Biofilms are inherently difficult to remove from surfaces due to adhesive substances within their matrix and may act as sources of infection, but to what extent is largely unknown. In this study, we evaluate the recovery efficiencies of commonly used environmental swabs against DSBs containing 7.24 log<sub>10</sub> <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> cm<sup>-2</sup>, using a drip flow reactor and desiccation cycle. Biofilm presence was visually confirmed using episcopic differential interference contrast microscopy combined with epifluorescence and quantified using sonicated viable plate counts. The swab materials used comprised foam, viscose and cotton, all of which were pre-moistened using a buffer solution. The surfaces were vigorously swabbed by each material type and the resultant microbe populations for both swabs and remaining DSBs were quantified. Our results found foam-tipped swabs to be superior, detecting on average 30 % of the original DSB contamination; followed by viscose (6 %) and cotton (3 %). However, no distinct difference was revealed in the concentration of microbes remaining on the surface after swabbing for each swab type, suggesting there is variation in the capacity for each swab to release biofilm-associated micro-organisms. We conclude whilst environmental swabs do possess the ability to detect biofilms on dry surfaces, the reduced efficiencies are likely to cause an underestimation of the microbes present and should be considered during clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":94366,"journal":{"name":"Access microbiology","volume":"6 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928391/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Access microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000664.v4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Studies on the epidemiology of dry-surface biofilms (DSBs) within healthcare settings have shown an almost universal distribution across frequently touched items. Despite a growing body of evidence for DSBs in hospitals, little attention has been paid to the recovery capacity of techniques used to detect these microbial communities. Biofilms are inherently difficult to remove from surfaces due to adhesive substances within their matrix and may act as sources of infection, but to what extent is largely unknown. In this study, we evaluate the recovery efficiencies of commonly used environmental swabs against DSBs containing 7.24 log10 Acinetobacter baumannii cm-2, using a drip flow reactor and desiccation cycle. Biofilm presence was visually confirmed using episcopic differential interference contrast microscopy combined with epifluorescence and quantified using sonicated viable plate counts. The swab materials used comprised foam, viscose and cotton, all of which were pre-moistened using a buffer solution. The surfaces were vigorously swabbed by each material type and the resultant microbe populations for both swabs and remaining DSBs were quantified. Our results found foam-tipped swabs to be superior, detecting on average 30 % of the original DSB contamination; followed by viscose (6 %) and cotton (3 %). However, no distinct difference was revealed in the concentration of microbes remaining on the surface after swabbing for each swab type, suggesting there is variation in the capacity for each swab to release biofilm-associated micro-organisms. We conclude whilst environmental swabs do possess the ability to detect biofilms on dry surfaces, the reduced efficiencies are likely to cause an underestimation of the microbes present and should be considered during clinical application.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用环境拭子进行干表面生物膜回收的效率和新颖性。
对医疗机构中干表面生物膜流行病学的研究表明,干表面生物膜几乎普遍存在于经常接触的物品中。尽管有越来越多的证据表明医院中存在 DSB,但人们却很少关注用于检测这些微生物群落的技术的恢复能力。由于生物膜基质中的粘附物质,生物膜本身就很难从物体表面去除,而且可能成为感染源,但具体程度如何还不得而知。在本研究中,我们使用滴流反应器和干燥循环评估了常用环境拭子对含有 7.24 log10 鲍曼不动杆菌 cm-2 的 DSB 的回收率。生物膜的存在通过外显微微分干涉对比显微镜结合外荧光法进行目测确认,并通过超声活板计数进行量化。使用的拭子材料包括泡沫、粘胶和棉花,所有这些材料都用缓冲溶液进行了预湿润。用每种材料用力拭擦表面,然后对拭子和剩余 DSB 的微生物数量进行量化。我们的结果发现,泡沫尖头拭子更胜一筹,平均能检测到 30% 的原始 DSB 污染;其次是粘胶(6%)和棉花(3%)。不过,每种拭子在拭擦后残留在表面的微生物浓度没有明显差异,这表明每种拭子释放生物膜相关微生物的能力存在差异。我们的结论是,虽然环境拭子确实有能力检测干燥表面上的生物膜,但效率的降低可能会导致对存在的微生物估计不足,在临床应用中应加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development of acute Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii lung mono-challenge models in mice using oropharyngeal aspiration. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in Blantyre, Malawi. Whole genome sequencing assisted outbreak investigation of Salmonella enteritidis, at a hospital in South Africa, September 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: more research needed on diseases other than intestinal parasites, leishmaniasis and leprosy. Cell division cycle fluctuation of Pal concentration in Escherichia coli.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1