Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 12;18(4):e0284115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284115

Ozone ultrafine bubble water exhibits bactericidal activity against pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity and upper airway and disinfects contaminated healthcare equipment

Fumio Takizawa 1,2, Hisanori Domon 1,3, Takumi Hiyoshi 1,2,3, Hikaru Tamura 1,2,3, Kana Shimizu 1, Tomoki Maekawa 1,2,3, Koichi Tabeta 2, Akiomi Ushida 4, Yutaka Terao 1,3,*
Editor: Geelsu Hwang5
PMCID: PMC10096490  PMID: 37043490

Abstract

Ozone is strong oxidizing agent that is applied in aqueous form for sanitation. However, ozonated water is unstable and has a short half-life. Ultrafine bubble technology is promising to overcome these issues. Ultrafine bubble is nanoscale bubble and can exist in water for a considerable duration of time. This study aims to investigate the application of ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW) as a disinfectant. We produced an OUFBW generator which generates OUFBW containing 4–6 ppm of ozone. Thereafter, we examined the bactericidal activity of the OUFBW against various pathogenic bacteria in oral cavity and upper airway, including antibiotic-susceptible and antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Exposure of planktonic culture of these bacterial species to OUFBW reduced viable bacteria by > 99% within 30s. Additionally, OUFBW exerted bactericidal activity against S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa adhered to toothbrush and gauze, respectively. We also observed disruption of bacterial cell wall of S. pneumoniae exposed to OUFBW by transmission electron microscope. Additionally, OUFB did not show any significant cytotoxicity toward the human gingival epithelial cell line Ca9‐22. These results suggest that OUFBW exhibits bactericidal activity against broad spectrum of bacteria and has low toxicity towards human cells.

Introduction

Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is major threat for hospitalized patients and nursing home residents [1, 2]. Numerous studies indicate that healthcare workers’ hands and healthcare equipment are the source of propagation of micro-organisms to patients [3, 4]. Adequate hand hygiene and cleaning of the equipments can prevent HAI; however, large numbers of patients suffer from HAI annually, and resulting in significant financial and individual costs [3]. In addition, there has been an alarming rise in HAI by multi-drug-resistant bacteria, and it causes a major threat around the world [5, 6]. Therefore, it is necessary to explore a new disinfectant which is safe, low-cost and effective against various pathogens including drug-resistant bacteria.

Ozone is a strong oxidizing agent and exerts antimicrobial activity against bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses and does not induce microbial resistance [79]. Therefore, ozone was originally noted in the fields of water purification [10] and food industry [11]. On the other hand, high concentration of ozone may be harmful to humans, for example, exposure to 0.08 ppm ozone is associated with increased airway inflammation after 18 hours of exposure [12, 13].

Previous studies have indicated that ozonated water is shown to be a powerful antimicrobial agent like ozone gas and is less harmful than ozone gas, because ozonic volatilization from the surface of ozonated water is very low [14]. However, since ozone in aqueous solution rapidly degrades to oxygen [15], ozonated water has a half-life of only 1 hour or less and must be used within 5 to 10 min after production to exert its bactericidal activity. In order to overcome these issues, ultrafine bubble (UFB) technology is gaining attention.

UFB is less than 200 nm in diameter which can exist in water for a considerable duration of time [16]. The stability of UFB is attributed to the electrically charged liquid-gas interface, which creates repulsion forces that prevent the bubble coalescence, and the high dissolved gas concentration in the water, which keeps a small concentration gradient between the interface and the bulk liquid [17]. In this regard, ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW) is expected to use as new bactericidal agent, and several researches of OUFBW have been conducted [1820].

In this study, we produced OUFBW generator which can generate OUFBW containing high concentration (4–6 ppm) of ozone; then we analyzed the characteristic and bactericidal activity of OUFBW application as disinfectant. We also investigated bactericidal mechanism and cytotoxicity of OUFBW against human cells.

Materials and methods

Production and characteristics of OUFBW

Ozone gas was generated by dielectric barrier discharge ozone generator (10 g/h) (Futech-Niigata LLC, Niigata, Japan) with 90% oxygen gas provided by oxygen concentrator (flow rate of 1 L/min) (BMC Medical Co., Ltd, Beijing, China). OUFBW was generated by micro blender (Futech-Niigata LLC) and re-circulated in the polyvinyl chloride water tank. Generation of UFBs needed more than 0.2 MPa of pump pressure, however, increasing pump pressure caused an increase in water temperature, leading to decreased ozone concentration of OUFBW. To prevent this, as shown in Fig 1A, a cooling tank was assembled to keep water temperature 10°C or less, which enabled us to generate OUFBW containing high concentration (4–6 ppm) of ozone. Thereafter, the changes of ozone concentration in OUFBW which stored in light-blocking bottle (Corning, NY, USA) was measured by Digital Pack Test Ozone (Kyoritsu Chemical Check Lab, Tokyo, Japan) every 2 hours [21]. The diameter of OUFBW was measured by Nano Particle Size Analyzer (SALD-7500nano; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan).

Fig 1. Production of ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW).

Fig 1

(a) Schematic diagram of OUFBW generator. (b) Particle size distribution of OUFBs. (c) Changes of ozone concentration in OUFBW stored at 4°C or 25°C. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of quintuplicate experiments and were evaluated using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistically significant as compared to 4°C group, *P < 0.05.

Bacterial culture and reagents

All Gram-positive bacteria used in this study were cultured at 37°C under aerobic conditions. Streptococcus mutans strain MT8148 and Streptococcus sobrinus strain MT10186 were grown in brain heart infusion broth (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) for 24 hr [22]. Macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae strain NU4471 (azithromycin minimum inhibitory concentration ≥ 1 mg/mL) isolated from patients with respiratory tract infections [23], multidrug‐resistant S. pneumoniae strain KM256 (penicillin G, ceftriaxone, azithromycin, and levofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentrations of > 8, 8, 4, and > 8 μg/mL, respectively) isolated from children with acute otitis media [24], and antibiotic-susceptible S. pneumoniae strain D39 were grown in tryptic soy broth (TSB; Becton Dickinson) for 12 hr. All Gram-negative obligate anaerobes used in this study were cultured at 37°C in an anaerobic jar (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) using an AnaeroPack anaerobic cultivation system (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical) at 37°C [22, 25]. Porphyromonas gingivalis strain ATCC 33277, Prevotella intermedia strain ATCC 25611, and Fusobacterium nucleatum strain ATCC 25586 were grown in modified Gifu anaerobic medium broth (Nissui, Tokyo, Japan) under anaerobic conditions for 48 hr [26]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 was grown in tryptic soy broth (Becton Dickinson) under aerobic conditions for 12 hr. The overnight cultures were then inoculated into the relevant culture medium and allow to grow until they reached exponential growth phase (optional density (OD) at 600 nm of 0.1–0.5). Bacteria were subsequently used for bactericidal activity assays.

Measurement of bactericidal activity of OUFBW

The bactericidal activity of OUFBW against planktonic cells was analyzed by standard plating methods [27]. The bacterial cells were exposed to OUFBW by two different methods. First, the 1 μL bacterial culture with OD600 values of 0.1–0.5 was added to 1 mL of OUFBW containing high concentration (4–6 ppm) of ozone and incubated for 10–300 s. Second, 1 μL bacterial culture was added to 1 mL of OUFBW containing various concentration (0.25–6 ppm) of ozone for 1 min. To prepare OUFBW containing various ozone concentrations, OUFBW containing 4–6 ppm ozone was serially diluted with distilled water. Thereafter, OUFBW-exposed bacterial cultures were diluted in distilled water, after which S. mutans and S. sobrinus were cultured on Mitis-Salivarius agar plates (Becton Dickinson), P. aeruginosa on TSB agar plates (Becton Dickinson), S. pneumoniae strains, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, and F. nucleatum on trypticase soy agar II 5% sheep blood plates (Becton Dickinson). The agar plates were then incubated under aerobic (Gram-positive bacteria and P. aeruginosa) or anaerobic (other Gram-negative bacteria) conditions at 37°C for 2–7 days.

Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) observation

After 1 mL S. pneumoniae NU4471 bacterial culture (OD600 = 0.1) was added to 49 ml of ozone ultrafine bubble water (1 ppm) or distilled water and incubated for 1 min, the bacterial cells were harvested by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 15 min and fixed in 2% glutaraldehyde in phosphate buffer. Subsequently, the samples were treated with potassium permanganate, and post-fixed in 2% osmium tetra oxide for 2 hours at 4°C. The specimens were dehydrated in a graded ethanol and embedded in the epoxy resin. Ultrathin sections (80–90 nm) were obtained by ultramicrotome technique. Ultrathin sections were stained with uranyl acetate for 15 min, and lead staining solution for 5 min. The samples were submitted to TEM (JEOL 1400Flash, Akishima, Tokyo, Japan) observation at 100 kV. The sample preparation and TEM observation were conducted at Filgen, Inc (Nagoya, Japan) [28].

Sterilization of medical and dental equipment using OUFBW

First, commercially available toothbrushes were immersed in bacterial cultures of S. pneumoniae NU4471 (OD600 = 0.1) and naturally dried at room temperature. The contaminated toothbrushes were then immersed in 100 mL of OUFBW containing approximately 5 ppm ozone, 0.1% povidone iodine, or distilled water for 5 min. After exposure, the toothbrushes were transferred into 7 mL distilled water, and bacteria attached to the toothbrushes was harvested by ultrasonication (43 kHz, 5 min). Ultrasonicated solution was inoculated on to trypticase soy agar II 5% sheep blood agar. The agar plates were then incubated under aerobic conditions at 37°C for 2 days.

Next, sterilized gauzes (5 cm × 5 cm) were moistened with 250 μL bacterial cultures of P. aeruginosa RIMD 1603003 (OD600 = 0.1) and naturally dried at room temperature. The contaminated gauzes were immersed in 100 mL or 500 mL of OUFBW containing approximately 5 ppm ozone, 0.1% NaClO, or distilled water for 5 min. After exposure, the gauzes were transferred into 5 mL distilled water, and bacteria attached to the gauzes was harvested by ultrasonication (43 kHz, 5 min). Ultrasonicated solution was diluted in distilled water and inoculated on to TSB agar plate. The agar plates were then incubated under aerobic conditions at 37°C for 2 days.

Cytotoxicity of OUFB against human gingival epithelial cell line

The human gingival epithelial cell line Ca9-22 (RIKEN Cell Bank, Ibaraki, Japan) was grown in minimum essential medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Japan Bio Serum, Hiroshima, Japan), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 μg/mL streptomycin (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan) at 37°C in an atmosphere of 95% air and 5% CO2. These cells were seeded at a density of 1 × 105 cells/100 μL in 96-well plates 24 hr prior to treatment. For cytotoxicity assay, we prepared OUFB- phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) by diluting OUFBW with 10 × PBS (NACALAI TESQUE INC, Kyoto, Japan). Thereafter cells were exposed to 100 μL of OUFB-PBS containing various concentration (1–5 ppm) of ozone, 0.1% povidone iodine, 0.2% chlorhexidine, 0.1% NaClO, or 0.5% Triton X-100 for 1 or 30 min. After treatment, the cells were carefully washed with PBS to remove any residual activities of reagents. Cellular viability was assessed using the MTT [3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide] assay. The OD of the colored solution was quantified spectrophotometrically at 571 nm using a microplate reader (Multiskan FC, Thermo, Waltham, MA, USA).

Statistical analysis

All data were evaluated statistically by analysis of variance with a Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test using GraphPad Prism Software (version 9; GraphPad Software, La Jolla CA, USA). P < 0.05 was considered to denote statistical significance.

Results

Ozone ultrafine bubbles were remained stable at 4°C

We first examined the characteristics of the OUFBW. Fig 1B shows particle diameter distribution of the OUFBs. The average diameter of OUFBs was 70 ± 225 nm and the most frequent diameter of OUFBs was 45 nm. We next examined storage temperature for OUFBW. When OUFBW was stored at 25°C, ozone concentration decreased to 0 ppm after 12 hr, suggesting the OUFBs is unstable at room temperature. In contrast, storage at 4°C caused OUFBs stable, and the ozone concentration was more than 1 ppm after 24 hr (Fig 1C).

OUFBW exerts bactericidal effects against various bacterial species

We conducted two experiments to investigate bactericidal effects of OUFBW against various bacterial species, such as respiratory pathogen (antibiotic-resistant and antibiotic-susceptible S. pneumoniae), opportunistic bacterium (P. aeruginosa), cariogenic bacteria (S. mutans and S. sobrinus), and periodontopathic bacteria (P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, and F. nucleatum). First, various bacteria were exposed to OUFBW containing high concentration (4–5 ppm) of ozone for 10–300 s. Colonies were undetected in all bacterial species after > 30 s of exposure to OUFBW (Table 1). We next exposed the bacteria to OUFBW containing various concentration (0.25–6 ppm) of ozone for 1 min. Fig 2 shows that exposure to approximately ≥ 1 ppm OUFBW resulted in a > 99% decrease in the viability of all bacterial species including antibiotic‐resistant S. pneumoniae strains. These results indicate that OUFBW exerts bactericidal effect instantly and nonspecifically.

Table 1. The number of colony-forming units of various bacterial species exposed to ozone ultrafine bubble water.

Bacterial species (Bacterial strains) CFU/mL ± 1SD
Baseline 10 s 30 s 60 s 150 s 300 s
S. pneumoniae (strain D39) (1.3 ± 0.5) × 108 ND ND ND ND ND
S. pneumoniae (strain NU4471) (4.2 ± 0.7) × 108 ND ND ND ND ND
S. pneumoniae (strain KM256) (3.2 ± 0.1) × 107 ND ND ND ND ND
P. aeruginosa (strain RIMD 1603003) (3.3 ± 0.9) × 107 ND ND ND ND ND
S. mutans (strain MT8148) (4.9 ± 1.8) × 108 ND ND ND ND ND
S. sobrinus (strain MT10186) (6.6 ± 2.1) × 108 ND ND ND ND ND
F. nucleatum (strain ATCC25586) (6.2 ± 0.6) × 108 ND ND ND ND ND
P. intermedia (strain ATCC 25611) (5.8 ± 0.9) × 107 ND ND ND ND ND
P. gingivalis (strain ATCC 33277) (4.5 ± 1.0) × 108 (0.5 ± 0.3) × 108 ND ND ND ND

The number of colony-forming units (CFU) of various bacterial species was measured after exposing to ozone ultrafine bubble water containing 4–6 ppm of ozone for 10–300 s. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).

Fig 2. Bactericidal effects of ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW) against various bacterial species.

Fig 2

Various bacterial species were exposed to 0.25–6 ppm OUFBW for 1 min. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of triplicate experiments and were evaluated using analysis of variance with a Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. *P < 0.05 compared to control group. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).

OUFBW treatment causes morphologic change of bacterial cells

To investigate bactericidal mechanism of OUFBW, we attempted to observe S. pneumoniae exposed to OUFBW by TEM, however, when S. pneumoniae was exposed to 5 ppm OUFBW, we could not detect bacterial cell pellet by centrifuge. Instead, we used 1 ppm OUFBW, which enabled us to detect pneumococcal cell pellet by centrifuge. TEM analysis showed that OUFBW damaged the cell wall and made crevice between cell wall and cytoplasm (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Transmission electron microscope observation of S. pneumoniae exposed to ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW).

Fig 3

Representative transmission electron micrographs of macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae NU4471 after exposure to (a) distilled water or (b) 1 ppm OUFBW. The black arrow indicates the crevice between cell wall and cytoplasm, and the white arrow head indicates the cell wall debris.

OUFBW sterilizes medical and dental equipment

Oral bacteria, including S. pneumoniae, P. intermedia and F. nucleatum, are known as a common pathogen that cause aspiration pneumonia [29]. Although oral care can decrease the incidence of aspiration pneumonia [30], previous study indicates that retention and survival of bacteria on toothbrushes after brushing represent a possible cause of re-contamination of the mouth [31]. Thus, we used OUFBW as a disinfectant for toothbrushes contaminated with macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae. Contaminated toothbrushes were immersed in approximately 5 ppm OUFBW or distilled water for 5 min. Exposure to OUFBW resulted in a > 90% decrease in the bacterial load of S. pneumoniae compared to that of the distilled water treatment group (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. Bactericidal activity of ozone ultrafine bubble water (OUFBW) against contaminated toothbrushes and gauzes.

Fig 4

(a) The toothbrushes contaminated with S. pneumoniae and (b) The gauzes contaminated with P. aeruginosa were immersed in distilled water, OUFBW (approximately 5 ppm of ozone concentration), 0.1% povidone iodine or 0.1% NaClO for 5 min. (a, b) Toothbrushes and gauzes were transferred into fresh distilled water (toothbrush: 7 mL, gauze: 5 mL), and then the bacteria attached them were harvested by ultrasonication (43 kHz, 5 min). Bacterial load of S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa were determined by colony count. Data represent the mean ± SD of quadruplicate determinants, and were evaluated using Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. *P < 0.05 versus the control group. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (a: < 70 CFU/mL, b: < 5 × 103 CFU/mL).

Additionally, P. aeruginosa is a major cause of nosocomial infection. Previous study suggested that environment, such as bed sheet and cloth, could be a main reservoir for P. aeruginosa in hospital [32]. Therefore, we next used OUFBW as a disinfectant for cotton gauzes contaminated with P. aeruginosa. In this study, the gauzes were likened to cloth product in hospital and nursing home. Contaminated gauzes were immersed in approximately 5 ppm OUFBW or distilled water for 5 min. Exposure to OUFBW resulted in a > 90% decrease in the bacterial load of P. aeruginosa compared to that of the distilled water treatment group (Fig 4B).

OUFB has minimum cytotoxic effect toward human cell line Ca9-22

To use OUFB as a disinfectant for medical and dental equipment, we analyzed its cytotoxicity towards the human gingival epithelial cell line Ca9-22. Exposure to OUFB-PBS (1–5 ppm of ozone concentration) for 1–30 min did not significantly decrease the viability of Ca9-22 cells; however, the viability of the cells treated with 0.1% povidone iodine, 0.2% chlorhexidine, or 0.1% NaClO decreased by > 99% (Fig 5). These results indicated that OUFB has low toxicity to mammalian cells compared to other disinfectants.

Fig 5. Cell viability of human gingival epithelial cells after exposure to ozone ultrafine bubble.

Fig 5

Human gingival cell line Ca9-22 were exposed to PBS containing 1–5 ppm ozone ultrafine bubble, 0.1% Povidone iodine, 0.2% Chlorhexidine, 0.1% NaClO or 0.5% Triton X-100 for (a) 1 min or (b) 30 min. MTT (3-(4,5-Dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide) assays were performed to determine cell viability. Data represent the mean ± SD of quadruplicate determinants, and were evaluated using Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit.

OUFB-PBS exerts bactericidal effects against Gram-positive and negative bacteria

We conducted additional experiment to investigate the bactericidal activity of OUFB-PBS. For this experiment, we used S. pneumoniae strain D39 as a Gram-positive bacteria and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 as a Gram-negative bacteria. These bacteria were exposed to OUFB-PBS containing various ozone concentrations (0.25–5 ppm) for 1 min. S1 Fig shows that exposure to ≥ 2 ppm OUFB-PBS resulted in a > 99% decrease in S. pneumoniae, and exposure to ≥ 1 ppm OUFB-PBS resulted in a > 99% decrease in P. aeruginosa. These findings suggest that OUFB-PBS also exerts bactericidal effects.

Discussion

HAI is caused by various micro-organisms including drug-resistant bacteria. Since healthcare-associated pathogens can survive for days to weeks on environmental surfaces [33], items frequently touched by healthcare workers, hospitalized patients or nursing home residents are contaminated by such pathogens. In order to prevent HAI, it is necessary for disinfectants used on a daily basis to have a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity. In this study, we analyzed the characteristic and bactericidal activity of OUFBW and investigated its practicality as a disinfectant.

It has been reported that OUFBW exerts bactericidal activity against various micro-organisms, such as, Escherichia coli, P. gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, and Candida albicans [18, 20, 34]. In this study, we found that OUFBW also exhibits bactericidal activity against S. pneumoniae including antibiotic-resistant strains, P. aeruginosa, S. mutans, S. sobrinus, F. nucleatum, and P. intermedia. The daily necessaries such as toothbrush and cloth product used in hospital and nursing home were exposed various pathogenic micro-organisms, and they can become the source of HAI. Besides, it was reported that aspiration of pharyngeal bacteria is the major route of infection in the development of nosocomial pneumonia and dental plaque may constitute reservoir of respiratory pathogens [35, 36]. Clinical study has reported that application of OUFBW as adjunct to ultrasonic debridement reduced the number of oral bacteria (P. gingivalis and Tannerella forsythia) in subgingival plaque compared to tap water significantly [37]. Hence, we supposed that sterilization of healthcare-associated pathogens and oral pathogenic bacteria by OUFBW could contribute the prevention of HAI. In order to investigate the effectiveness of OUFBW as disinfectant for healthcare equipment and oral cavity, we used above‐mentioned pathogenic bacteria and found that OUFBW exerted bactericidal activity against all bacterial species. Therefore, we conclude that OUFBW has a broad spectrum of bactericidal activity. In addition, Fig 2 and S1 Fig showed that there was slight difference between OUFBW and OUFB-PBS on the bactericidal activity. The effects of solvents on ozone and nanobubbles have not been investigated, therefore we supposed it should be addressed in future work.

Previous studies indicated that morphological changes in S. mutans and C. albicans exposed to ozonated water and OUFBW were observed by scanning electron microscopy, respectively [20, 38]; however, the precise bactericidal mechanism of ozone was not fully understood. In order to investigate the mechanism, we conducted TEM analysis of macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae exposed to OUFBW. We first tried to harvest bacterial cells exposed to OUFBW containing approximately 5 ppm of ozone; however, bacterial cell pellet could not be detected after centrifugation. These findings suggest that exposure to OUFBW containing high concentration of ozone might disrupt bacterial cells completely, and thus bacterial cells could not be harvested by centrifugation. Consequently, we observed bacterial cells exposed to OUFBW containing low concentration of ozone (approximately 1 ppm), and found that bacterial cell wall of macrolide-resistant S. pneumoniae was damaged and peeled off. This is the first study to show that ozone causes disruption of bacterial cell wall. We also suggest that the bactericidal activity of OUFBs does not depend on anti-microbial resistant.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that OUFBW containing various concentration of ozone (1.5–11 ppm) exerted bactericidal activity [18, 20, 34], the minimum ozone concentration of OUFBW enough to exert bactericidal activity had been not clear. Therefore, we conducted bactericidal assay with OUFBW containing various concentration (0.25–6 ppm) of ozone, and found that exposure to OUFBW containing more than 1 ppm of ozone for more than 30 s caused > 99% decrease of the viability of all bacterial species used in this study. Besides, Fig 1C showed that ozone concentration of OUFBW stored at 4°C was more than 1 ppm after 24 hr. Therefore, it was suggested that OUFBW we produced can exert bactericidal effect during 24 hours after production. On the other hand, OUFBW containing approximately 5 ppm of ozone was not able to completely sterilize bacteria adhered to toothbrush and gauze. Similarly, Shichiri-Negoro et al. reported that OUFBW (6–11 ppm) could not completely remove the biofilms of C. albicans formed within 24 hr [20]. These results suggested OUFBs could not permeate complicated structure such as mesh of gauze, bristles of toothbrush and biofilm. In order to enhance bactericidal activity of OUFBW, it is required that planktonic form of bacterial cells is exposed to OUFB directly. For instance, we supposed that suspending bacterial cell in OUFBW by ultrasonication might improve the bactericidal activity.

Present study showed that OUFBW exerts potent bactericidal activity which is effective against drug-resistant bacteria, and has low toxicity toward human gingival epithelial cells. Besides, we found the detail of the bactericidal mechanism of OUFBW. These results suggested that the use of OUFBW as disinfectant in hospital and nursing home would be promising. In order to applicate OUFBW as a disinfectant, further study is required to explore optimal application method and condition.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Bactericidal effects of OUFB-PBS against S. pneumoniae strain D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003.

S. pneumoniae strain D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 were exposed to 0.4–5 ppm OUFBW for 1 min. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of triplicate experiments and were evaluated using analysis of variance with Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. *P < 0.05 compared to the control group. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Satoru Hirayama, Dr. Toshihito Isono, Dr. Karin Sasagawa, Dr. Rui Saito, Dr. Yoshihito Yasui (Niigata University), Mr. Tadashi Hiwatashi (Futech-Niigata LLC), and Mr. Koichi Seto (IWASE Company Limited, Niigata, Japan) for their technical support. We also acknowledge Filgen, Inc for sample preparation and observation of TEM.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Terumo Life Science Foundation (Grant No. 22-III1003 to YT). This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (grants JP20H03858 and JP22K19614 to YT; JP20K09903 to HD; JP22H03267 to TM; JP19H03829 to KT) and JST, the establishment of University fellowships towards the creation of science technology innovation, Grant Number JPMJFS2114 to FT. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s, Fund. State of the world’s hand hygiene: a global call to action to make hand hygiene a priority in policy and practice. WHO; [internet]. 2021. Oct [cited 2022 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240036444 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith PW, Bennett G, Bradley S, Drinka P, Lautenbach E, Marx J, et al. SHEA/APIC Guideline: Infection Prevention and Control in the Long-Term Care Facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(9):785–814. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schabrun S, Chipchase L. Healthcare equipment as a source of nosocomial infection: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2006;63(3):239–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009;73(4):305–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.04.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Smith K, Hunter IS. Efficacy of common hospital biocides with biofilms of multi-drug resistant clinical isolates. J Med Microbiol. 2008;57(8):966–73. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.47668-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Murray CJL, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, Swetschinski L, Robles Aguilar G, Gray A, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399(10325):629–55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Elvis AM, Ekta JS. Ozone therapy: A clinical review. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2011;2(1):66–70. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.82319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Song M, Zeng Q, Xiang Y, Gao L, Huang J, Huang J, et al. The antibacterial effect of topical ozone on the treatment of MRSA skin infection. Mol Med Rep. 2018;17(2):2449–55. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2017.8148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Komanapalli IR, Lau BH. Inactivation of bacteriophage λ, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans by ozone. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1998;49(6):766–9. doi: 10.1007/s002530051244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ding W, Jin W, Cao S, Zhou X, Wang C, Jiang Q, et al. Ozone disinfection of chlorine-resistant bacteria in drinking water. Water Res. 2019;160:339–349. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Khadre MA, Yousef AE, Kim JG. Microbiological Aspects of Ozone Applications in Food: A Review. J Food Sci. 2001;66(9):1242–52. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb15196.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Guzel-Seydim ZB, Greene AK, Seydim AC. Use of ozone in the food industry. LWT. 2004;37(4):453–60. 10.1016/j.lwt.2003.10.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Filippidou EC, Koukouliata A. Ozone effects on the respiratory system. Prog Health Sci. 2011;1:144–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Akahori Y, Murakami A, Hoshi S. Sterilization effects and prevention of hospital-acquired infections by ozonated water. JSICM. 2000;7(1):3–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seki M, Ishikawa T, Terada H, Nashimoto M. Microbicidal Effects of Stored Aqueous Ozone Solution Generated by Nano-bubble Technology. In Vivo. 2017;31(4):579–83. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tamesgen T, Bui TT, Han M, Kim TI, Park H. Micro and nanobubble technologies as a new horizon for water-treatment techniques: A review. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2017;246:40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2017.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ushikubo FY, Furukawa T, Nakagawa R, Enari M, Makino Y, Kawagoe Y, et al. Evidence of the existence and the stability of nano-bubbles in water. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 2010;361(1):31–7. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.03.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hayakumo S, Arakawa S, Takahashi M, Kondo K, Mano Y, Izumi Y. Effects of ozone nano-bubble water on periodontopathic bacteria and oral cells—in vitro studies. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2014;15(5):055003. doi: 10.1088/1468-6996/15/5/055003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Leewananthawet A, Arakawa S, Okano T, Daitoku Kinoshita R, Ashida H, Izumi Y, et al. Ozone ultrafine bubble water induces the cellular signaling involved in oxidative stress responses in human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2019;20(1):589–98. doi: 10.1080/14686996.2019.1614980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shichiri-Negoro Y, Tsutsumi-Arai C, Arai Y, Satomura K, Arakawa S, Wakabayashi N. Ozone ultrafine bubble water inhibits the early formation of Candida albicans biofilms. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0261180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saijai S, Thonglek V, Yoshikawa K. Sterilization effects of ozone fine (micro/nano) bubble water. Int J Plasma Environ Sci Technol. 2019;12(2):55–8. 10.34343/ijpest.2019.12.02.055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Domon H, Maekawa T, Yonezawa D, Nagai K, Oda M, Yanagihara K, et al. Mechanism of Macrolide-Induced Inhibition of Pneumolysin Release Involves Impairment of Autolysin Release in Macrolide-Resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(11). doi: 10.1128/AAC.00161-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fukuda Y, Yanagihara K, Higashiyama Y, Miyazaki Y, Hirakata Y, Mukae H, et al. Effects of macrolides on pneumolysin of macrolide-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Eur Respir J. 2006;27(5):1020. doi: 10.1183/09031936.06.00116805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nagai K, Kimura O, Domon H, Maekawa T, Yonezawa D, Terao Y. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis clinical isolates from children with acute otitis media in Japan from 2014 to 2017. J Infect Chemother. 2019;25(3):229–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Domon H, Hiyoshi T, Maekawa T, Yonezawa D, Tamura H, Kawabata S, et al. Antibacterial activity of hinokitiol against both antibiotic-resistant and -susceptible pathogenic bacteria that predominate in the oral cavity and upper airways. Microbiol Immunol. 2019;63(6):213–22. doi: 10.1111/1348-0421.12688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Domon H, Tabeta K, Nakajima T, Yamazaki K. Age-related alterations in gene expression of gingival fibroblasts stimulated with Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Periodont Res. 2014;49(4):536–43. doi: 10.1111/jre.12134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sakaue Y, Domon H, Oda M, Takenaka S, Kubo M, Fukuyama Y, et al. Anti-biofilm and bactericidal effects of magnolia bark-derived magnolol and honokiol on Streptococcus mutans. Microbiol Immunol. 2016;60(1):10–6. doi: 10.1111/1348-0421.12343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chiang TH, Chen CC, Tseng PH, Liou JM, Wu MS, Shun CT, et al. Bismuth salts with versus without acid suppression for Helicobacter pylori infection: A transmission electron microscope study. Helicobacter. 2021;26(3):e12801. doi: 10.1111/hel.12801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.El-Solh AA, Pietrantoni C, Bhat A, Aquilina AT, Okada M, Grover V, et al. Microbiology of severe aspiration pneumonia in institutionalized elderly. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167(12):1650–4. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200212-1543OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yoneyama T, Yoshida M, Ohrui T, Mukaiyama H, Okamoto H, Hoshiba K, et al. Oral care reduces pneumonia in older patients in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(3):430–3. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50106.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Passarelli Mantovani R, Sandri A, Boaretti M, Grilli A, Volpi S, Melotti P, et al. Toothbrushes may convey bacteria to the cystic fibrosis lower airways. J Oral Microbiol. 2019;11(1):1647036. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2019.1647036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fazeli H, Akbari R, Moghim S, Narimani T, Arabestani MR, Ghoddousi AR. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in patients, hospital means, and personnel’s specimens. J Res Med Sci. 2012;17(4):332–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Boyce JM. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infection. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65:50–4. doi: 10.1016/S0195-6701(07)60015-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Saijai S, Thongelk V, Yoshikawa K. The Storage Effect of Ozone Fine Bubble Water on Sterilization of Escherichia coli. Int J Plasma Environ Sci Technol. 2019;13(2):70–3. 10.34343/ijpest.2019.13.02.070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scannapieco FA. Role of Oral Bacteria in Respiratory Infection. J Periodontol. 1999;70(7):793–802. doi: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.7.793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Russell SL, Boylan RJ, Kaslick RS, Scannapieco FA, Katz RV. Respiratory pathogen colonization of the dental plaque of institutionalized elders. Spec Care Dentist. 1999;19(3):128–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1999.tb01413.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hayakumo S, Arakawa S, Mano Y, Izumi Y. Clinical and microbiological effects of ozone nano-bubble water irrigation as an adjunct to mechanical subgingival debridement in periodontitis patients in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(2):379–88. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0711-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nagayoshi M, Fukuizumi T, Kitamura C, Yano J, Terashita M, Nishihara T. Efficacy of ozone on survival and permeability of oral microorganisms. Oral microbiol immunol. 2004;19(4):240–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2004.00146.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Geelsu Hwang

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-23-01776Ozone ultrafine bubble water exhibits bactericidal activity against pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity and upper airway and disinfects contaminated healthcare equipmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Terao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geelsu Hwang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Dr. Satoru Hirayama.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Takizawa et al. used OUFBW to examine the sterilization effect against bacteria that inhabit the oral cavity and some bacteria that are a problem in hospital infections. And it was clarified that OUFBW accounts for the bactericidal effect against those bacteria. We also found that OUFBW has an effective bactericidal effect on toothbrushes and gauze contaminated with these bacteria, and that OUFBW has no harmful effect on gingival cells.

The above results suggest that OUFBW may play an effective role in hygiene management and oral cleaning in the oral area, and are considered to be very important findings.

After reviewing this manuscript, I note the following concerns.

After adjusting OUFBW to various concentrations, we are investigating the bactericidal effect in a state where 100 times the amount of the culture solution containing bacteria is added. In that regard, I would like to ask the following questions.

1) There is no specific description of how to dilute OUFBW in this case. I would like you to describe it.

2) Is there any change in the effect of OUFBW compared to the OUFBW dilution method (dilution using a buffer solution) used to investigate the harmful effects of this dilution method on gingival cells? I think that this point should be clarified.

3) In 2), if unbuffered OUFBW is used for bacterial sterilization and it contains a higher amount of ozone than diluted buffered OUFBW. I think that the sterilization effect of bacteria should be performed.

Reviewer #2: Terao et al. reported an assessment of using OUFBW as a disinfectant against oral pathogens. While the study results show a promising antimicrobial effect from OUFBW, my concerns are how much pathogens are present in the mixed solution of the OUFBW treatment. Line 104-107 indicated that 1ul bacteria of OD 01-0.5 was mixed with 1ml OUFBW, which is 1000 time dilution. OD 0.1-0.5 is also a wide range; how much bacteria in terms of CFU were used as a baseline? Figures 2 and 4 only reported the percentage of pathogens; reporting the actual CFU for each condition is needed to understand the potent and limit of the OUFBW comprehensively.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 12;18(4):e0284115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284115.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Mar 2023

Response to Editor and Reviewers

Response to Editor

We thank the editor for the critical suggestions that have helped us improve our manuscript. As indicated in the responses below, we have taken into consideration all these comments and suggestions and addressed each one of them during our revision of the manuscript.

<Comment #1> Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

<Response> In response to the editor’s suggestion, we ensured that our manuscript and figures complied with PLoS One's style guidlines and modified the file name.

<Comment #2> We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

<Response> At the time of resubmission, the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ have been revised to match their descriptions.

<Comment #3> In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found.

<Response> Figure 1, 2, 4, and 5 (in the revised version): According to the editor’s suggestion, we modified Figure 1, 2,4, and 5 to comply with PLoS One's data policy. Therefore, it became possible to read the values behind the means from these graphs.

<Comment #4> Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Dr. Satoru Hirayama.

<Response> The author list has been updated after we discovered some errors in it. We apologize for this error in the authors’ electronic registration. We removed Dr. Satoru Hirayama from the author list and added Dr. Tomoki Maekawa and Prof. Koichi Tabeta (line 6 in the revised version). Accordingly, we submitted the Request for Change to Authorship and updated the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’.

Lines 329–330 (in the revised version): According to the change in author list, we updated the acknowledgement section as follows: “We thank Dr. Satoru Hirayama, Dr. Toshihito Isono, Dr. Karin Sasagawa, Dr. Rui Saito, Dr. Yoshihito Yasui (Niigata University), Mr. Tadashi Hiwatashi (Futech-Niigata LLC), and Mr. Koichi Seto (IWASE Company Limited, Niigata, Japan) for their technical support.”

Response to Reviewer 1

We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for their critical comments and suggestions that have helped us improve our paper considerably. In response to your comment, we have included a supporting figure. As indicated in the following responses, we have considered all these comments and suggestions in the revised version of our paper.

<Comment #1> There is no specific description of how to dilute OUFBW in this study.

<Response> Lines 108–109 (in the revised version): According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a description of the dilution method of OUFBW in the bactericidal assay as follows: “To prepare OUFBW containing various ozone concentrations, OUFBW containing 4–6 ppm ozone was serially diluted with distilled water.”.

<Comment #2> Is there any change in the effect of OUFBW compared to the OUFBW dilution method (dilution using a buffer solution) used to investigate the harmful effects of this dilution method on gingival cells? 

<Comment #3> In 2), if unbuffered OUFBW is used for bacterial sterilization and it contains a higher amount of ozone than diluted buffered OUFBW. I think that the sterilization effect of bacteria should be performed.

<Response to comments #2 and #3> Lines 151–153 and S1 figure (in the revised version): To answer the reviewer’s queries, we added a description of the preparation of OUFB-PBS in the cytotoxicity assay in lines 151–153 as follows: “For cytotoxicity assay, we prepared OUFB-phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) by diluting OUFBW with 10 × PBS (NACALAI TESQUE INC, Kyoto, Japan).” The ozone concentrations in OUFBW and OUFB-PBS used in our experiments were 1–5 ppm, as shown Figures 2, 5, and S1.

We agree with the reviewer’s comments, and we performed additional experiments about bactericidal activity of OUFB-PBS three times. Thereby the new finding was brought. We are grateful for reviewer’s critical comments. We have added descriptions about bactericidal activity of OUFB-PBS to results and discussion section and supporting information to the revised manuscript as follows: “OUFB-PBS exerts bactericidal effects against gram-positive and negative bacteria. We conducted additional experiment to investigate the bactericidal activity of OUFB-PBS. For this experiment, we used S. pneumoniae strain D39 as a Gram-positive bacteria and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 as a Gram-negative bacteria. These bacteria were exposed to OUFB-PBS containing various ozone concentrations (0.25–5 ppm) for 1 min. S1 Fig shows that exposure to ≥ 2 ppm OUFB-PBS resulted in a > 99% decrease in S. pneumoniae, and exposure to ≥ 1 ppm OUFB-PBS resulted in a > 99% decrease in P. aeruginosa. These findings suggest that OUFB-PBS also exerts bactericidal effects.” In lines 255–263, and “In addition, fig 2 and S1 showed that there was slight difference between OUFBW and OUFB-PBS on the bactericidal activity. The effects of solvents on ozone and nanobubbles have not been investigated, therefore we supposed it should be addressed in future work.” in lines 288–291, and “S1 Fig. Bactericidal effects of OUFB-PBS against S. pneumoniae strain D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003. S. pneumoniae D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 were exposed to 0.4–5 ppm OUFBW for 1 min. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of triplicate experiments and were evaluated using analysis of variance with Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. *P < 0.05 compared to the control group. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).” in lines 452–458.

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank Reviewer 2 for the critical comments and suggestions that have helped us improve our paper considerably. As indicated in the following responses, we have considered the comments and suggestions in the revised version of our article.

<Comment> Figures 2 and 4 only reported the percentage of pathogens; reporting the actual CFU for each condition is needed to understand the potent and limit of the OUFBW comprehensively.

<Response> Table 1, Figure 2 and 4, and lines 191–195 (in the revised version): According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we modified Table 1 (the revised manuscript version on page 11) and, Figures 2 and 4 to read the values of CFU/mL of bacterial solution used in each experiment. Accordingly, we have modified the manuscript as follows: “Table 1. The number of colony-forming units of various bacterial species exposed to ozone ultrafine bubble water. The number of colony-forming units (CFU) of various bacterial species was measured after exposing to ozone ultrafine bubble water containing 4–6 ppm of ozone for 10–300 s. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).” in lines 191–195.

Lines 199, 200, 238, 239, 253, and 254 (in the revised version): We modified our manuscript to include the description of the detection limit.

Lines 221 and 229 (in the revised version): We modified our manuscript as follows: “Contaminated toothbrushes were immersed in approximately 5 ppm OUFBW or distilled water for 5 min. Exposure to OUFBW resulted in a > 90% decrease in the bacterial load of S. pneumoniae compared to that of the distilled water treatment group (Fig 4a).” in line 221, “Contaminated gauzes were immersed in approximately 5 ppm OUFBW or distilled water for 5 min. Exposure to OUFBW resulted in a > 90% decrease in the bacterial load of P. aeruginosa compared to that of the distilled water treatment group (Fig 4b).” in line 229.

//

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Geelsu Hwang

23 Mar 2023

Ozone ultrafine bubble water exhibits bactericidal activity against pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity and upper airway and disinfects contaminated healthcare equipment

PONE-D-23-01776R1

Dear Dr. Terao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Geelsu Hwang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors responded appropriately to questions from the reviewers and rated the quality of the manuscript as acceptable.

Reviewer #2: My comments are addressed. I don't have additional comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Geelsu Hwang

3 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-01776R1

Ozone ultrafine bubble water exhibits bactericidal activity against pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity and upper airway and disinfects contaminated healthcare equipment

Dear Dr. Terao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Geelsu Hwang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Bactericidal effects of OUFB-PBS against S. pneumoniae strain D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003.

    S. pneumoniae strain D39 and P. aeruginosa strain RIMD 1603003 were exposed to 0.4–5 ppm OUFBW for 1 min. Data are presented as the mean ± SD of triplicate experiments and were evaluated using analysis of variance with Dunnett’s multiple-comparisons test. *P < 0.05 compared to the control group. ND stands for undetected and indicates below the detection limit (< 100 CFU/mL).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES