Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrindle, Eric R.
dc.contributor.authorMiller, David A.
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Philip S.
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-07T18:29:02Z
dc.date.available2017-02-07T18:29:02Z
dc.date.issued2011-07
dc.identifier.citationBrindle ER, Miller DA, Stewart PS, "Hydrodynamic deformation and removal of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms treated with urea, chlorhexidine, iron chloride, or DispersinB," Biotechnology and Bioengineering 2011 108(12):2968-2977en_US
dc.identifier.issn0006-3592
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/12579
dc.description.abstractThe force-deflection and removal characteristics of bacterial biofilm were measured by two different techniques before and after chemical, or enzymatic, treatment. The first technique involved time lapse imaging of a biofilm grown in a capillary flow cell and subjected to a brief shear stress challenge imparted through increased fluid flow. Biofilm removal was determined by calculating the reduction in biofilm area from quantitative analysis of transmission images. The second technique was based on microindentation using an atomic force microscope. In both cases, biofilms formed by Staphylococcus epidermidis were exposed to buffer (untreated control), urea, chlorhexidine, iron chloride, or DispersinB.In control experiments, the biofilm exhibited force-deflection responses that were similar before and after the same treatment. The biofilm structure was stable during the post-treatment shear challenge (1% loss). Biofilms treated with chlorhexidine became less deformable after treatment and no increase in biomass removal was seen during the post-treatment shear challenge (2% loss). In contrast, biofilms treated with urea or DispersinB became more deformable and exhibited significant biofilm loss during the post-treatment flow challenge (71% and 40%, respectively). During the treatment soak phase, biofilms exposed to urea swelled. Biofilms exposed to iron chloride showed little difference from the control other than slight contraction during the treatment soak. These observations suggest the following interpretations: (1) chemical or enzymatic treatments, including those that are not frankly antimicrobial, can alter the cohesion of bacterial biofilm; (2) biocidal treatments (e.g., chlorhexidine) do not necessarily weaken the biofilm; and (3) biofilm removal following treatment with agents that make the biofilm more deformable (e.g., urea, DispersinB) depend on interaction between the moving fluid and the biofilm structure. Measurements such as those reported here open the door to development of new technologies for controlling detrimental biofilms by targeting biofilm cohesion rather than killing microorganisms.en_US
dc.titleHydrodynamic deformation and removal of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms treated with urea, chlorhexidine, iron chloride, or DispersinBen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
mus.citation.extentfirstpage2968en_US
mus.citation.extentlastpage2977en_US
mus.citation.issue12en_US
mus.citation.journaltitleBiotechnology and Bioengineeringen_US
mus.citation.volume108en_US
mus.identifier.categoryChemical & Material Sciencesen_US
mus.identifier.categoryEngineering & Computer Scienceen_US
mus.identifier.categoryLife Sciences & Earth Sciencesen_US
mus.identifier.doi10.1002/bit.23245en_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Agricultureen_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Engineeringen_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Letters & Scienceen_US
mus.relation.departmentCenter for Biofilm Engineering.en_US
mus.relation.departmentChemical & Biological Engineering.en_US
mus.relation.departmentChemical Engineering.en_US
mus.relation.departmentChemistry & Biochemistry.en_US
mus.relation.departmentMicrobiology & Immunology.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US
mus.relation.researchgroupCenter for Biofilm Engineering.en_US
mus.data.thumbpage6en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record