LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter




The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet 2020 fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » Medical Questions » Chemically induced biofilm detachment

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Chemically induced biofilm detachment
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dave6002     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chemically induced biofilm detachment
Thesis Abstract:

Biofilm detachment induced by various chemicals, including metal salts, surfactants and depolymerization agents, was investigated using an experimental system consisting of a two-species bacterial biofilm grown in continuous flow annular reactors. Two types of experiments were performed: 1) in situ environmental step change experiments conducted in annular biofilm reactors to examine detachment and 2) determination of viscometry of biofilm collected from these reactors. Experimental results showed that biofilm detachment could be induced by addition of various chemicals. Monovalent and divalent salts (including NaCl, CaCl2, MgCl2) were the most effective chemicals in changing biofilm structure, reflected by an average of 73% viscosity reduction. Directly performing step changes in biofilm reactors with these salts detached 40% of the biofilm in 75 minutes. Chelants showed similar results, e.g. 19.6% viscosity reduction and 26.3% biofilm detachment for EDTA. Surfactants (including sodium dodecyl sulfate, Triton X-100, Tween 20) also altered the structure of biofilm (e.g. viscosity reduction was 8.7% for Tween 20, 41.9% for Triton X-100, -12.6% for SDS) and caused a much larger amount of biofilm to detach (average of 61.7%). Addition of chlorine, monochloramine and some enzymatic lyases (including lysozyme and protease) caused viscosity reduction and biofilm detachment also. We found that 1) electrostatic (e.g., cation bridging) and hydrophobic interactions were two major forces that maintain the integrity of biofilm structure; 2) cells and EPS were the structural components of biofilms. Disruption of biofilm crosslinking forces and destruction of structural biofilm components could cause biofilm detachment.

Chemically induced biofilm detachment, Thesis Defense by Xiao Chen, PhD, Chemical Engineering, Montana State University, April 1998

Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dmc
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for dmc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
just Needed to break up to read Dave6002's post

Biofilm detachment induced by various chemicals, including metal salts, surfactants and depolymerization agents, was investigated using an experimental system consisting of a two-species bacterial biofilm grown in continuous flow annular reactors.

Two types of experiments were performed:

1) in situ environmental step change experiments conducted in annular biofilm reactors to examine detachment and

2) determination of viscometry of biofilm collected from these reactors. Experimental results showed that biofilm detachment could be induced by addition of various chemicals.

Monovalent and divalent salts (including NaCl, CaCl2, MgCl2) were the most effective chemicals in changing biofilm structure, reflected by an average of 73% viscosity reduction.

Directly performing step changes in biofilm reactors with these salts detached 40% of the biofilm in 75 minutes. Chelants showed similar results, e.g. 19.6% viscosity reduction and 26.3% biofilm detachment for EDTA.

Surfactants (including sodium dodecyl sulfate, Triton X-100, Tween 20) also altered the structure of biofilm (e.g. viscosity reduction was 8.7% for Tween 20, 41.9% for Triton X-100, -12.6% for SDS) and caused a much larger amount of biofilm to detach (average of 61.7%).

Addition of chlorine, monochloramine and some enzymatic lyases (including lysozyme and protease) caused viscosity reduction and biofilm detachment also.

We found that 1) electrostatic (e.g., cation bridging) and hydrophobic interactions were two major forces that maintain the integrity of biofilm structure;

2) cells and EPS were the structural components of biofilms. Disruption of biofilm crosslinking forces and destruction of structural biofilm components could cause biofilm detachment.

Chemically induced biofilm detachment, Thesis Defense by Xiao Chen, PhD, Chemical Engineering, Montana State University, April 1998

Posts: 2675 | From ct, usa | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Keebler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-
Interesting but puzzling due to a few of things they use that may not be so kind to a human body.

Some things sound people-friendly but I'm thinking in that abstract that they are not taking about biofilm around germs in people but on and in laboratory equipment.

Lab equipment and instruments can have biofilm "stuck" to it. Cleaning it for the next test or function presents a challenge.

I don't have much of a science background and maybe this experiment is about people in the long run as they first have to figure out all the things that work, period - and then determine what is for equipment and what is for people (and the amount or combination can make all the difference, I suppose).
-

Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dave6002     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, dmc, for the breaking up.

Keebler, that's right: They are in vitro experiments. However,read this Monovalent and divalent salts (including NaCl, CaCl2, MgCl2) were the most effective chemicals in changing biofilm structure, reflected by an average of 73% viscosity reduction. suggesting that the salt/c may help breaking up biofilm in the body.


Surfactants (including sodium dodecyl sulfate, Triton X-100, Tween 20) also altered the structure of biofilm (e.g. viscosity reduction was 8.7% for Tween 20, 41.9% for Triton X-100, -12.6% for SDS) and caused a much larger amount of biofilm to detach (average of 61.7%).

I put some Tween 20 (Polysorbate 20) into Salt/C solution at 1% concentration and ingested. I may have some positive results: my hand-foot pains are greatly reduced, although I experienced some Herx reactions at the beginning.

Tween 20 is a detergent whose stability and relative non-toxicity allows it to be used as a detergent and emulsifier in a number of domestic, scientific, and pharmacological applications.

Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Keebler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-
Have you used Grapefruit Seed Extract? That is a good emulsifier from a completely natural source that is used to help counteract biofilm for lyme patients.

Nattokinase, Lumbrokinase, Serrapeptase and similar enzymes, as well as Wobenzyme, also help.

Sea Salt & Vitamin C, likely, could be used in conjunction with any of those, if desired.
-

Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dave6002     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keebler, thanks. No I have not used Grapefruit Seed Extract. I didn't know that Grapefruit Seed Extract is a emulsifier.

Maybe I should give it a try.

Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dave6002     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Abstract

Biofilm protein removal by a variety of chemical treatments was investigated.

Binary population biofilms of P. aeruginosa and K. pneumoniae were grown in continuous flow annular reactors for 79 days prior to a 1-h treatment period.

Treatments that caused removal of more than 25% of the biomass (as total protein) included NaCl and CaCl2, two chelating agents (EDTA and Dequest 2006), surfactants (SDS, Tween 20, and Triton X-100), a pH increase, lysozyme, hypochlorite, monochloramine, and concentrated urea.

Treatments that caused little removal (less than 25%) included a control, MgCl2, sucrose, nutrient upshifts and downshifts, and a pH decrease.

The amount of biofilm protein removal and the reduction in viable cell numbers in the biofilm were not correlated. Some treatments caused significant killing but not much removal while other treatments caused removal with little killing.

These results underscore the fact that biofilm removal and killing are distinct processes.

The chemical diversity of agents that bring about biofilm removal suggests that multiple interactive forces contribute to biofilm cohesion.

No pattern of differential removal of the two microbial species could be discerned

Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:

The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey
907 Pebble Creek Court, Pennington, NJ 08534 USA


| Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Contact Us

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to Terms and Conditions.