Abstract
Seven chemicals, three buffers, and a salt solution known to affect bacterial attachment were tested to quantify their abilities to enhance the penetration of Alcaligenes paradoxus in porous media. Chemical treatments included Tween 20 (a nonionic surfactant that affects hydrophobic interactions), sodium dodecyl sulfate (an anionic surfactant), EDTA (a cell membrane permeabilizer that removes outer membrane lipopolysaccharides), sodium PPi (a surface charge modifier), sodium periodate (an oxidizer that cleaves surface polysaccharides), lysozyme (an enzyme that cleaves cell wall components), and proteinase K (a nonspecific protease that cleaves peptide bonds). Buffers included MOPS [3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonic acid], Tris, phosphate, and an unbuffered solution containing only NaCl. Transport characteristics in the porous media were compared by using a sticking coefficient, alpha, defined as the rate at which particles stick to a grain of medium divided by the rate at which they strike the grain. Tween 20 reduced alpha by 2.5 orders of magnitude, to alpha = 0.0016, and was the most effective chemical treatment for decreasing bacterial attachment to glass beads in buffered solutions. Similar reductions in alpha were achieved in unbuffered solutions by reducing the solution ionic strength to 0.01 mM. EDTA, protease, and other treatments designed to alter cell structures did not reduce alpha by more than an order of magnitude. The number of bacteria retained by the porous media was decreased by treatments that made A. paradoxus more hydrophobic and less electrostatically charged, although alpha was poorly correlated with electrophoretic mobility and hydrophobicity index measurements at lower alpha values.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (250.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Gordon A. S., Millero F. J. Electrolyte effects on attachment of an estuarine bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984 Mar;47(3):495–499. doi: 10.1128/aem.47.3.495-499.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis S. J., Gilmour A., Johnston D. E. Factors influencing the detachment of a polymer-associated Acinetobacter sp. from stainless steel. Int J Food Microbiol. 1989 May;8(2):155–164. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(89)90070-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zierdt C. H. Adherence of bacteria, yeast, blood cells, and latex spheres to large-porosity membrane filters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 Dec;38(6):1166–1172. doi: 10.1128/aem.38.6.1166-1172.1979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Loosdrecht M. C., Lyklema J., Norde W., Schraa G., Zehnder A. J. Electrophoretic mobility and hydrophobicity as a measured to predict the initial steps of bacterial adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1987 Aug;53(8):1898–1901. doi: 10.1128/aem.53.8.1898-1901.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Loosdrecht M. C., Lyklema J., Norde W., Schraa G., Zehnder A. J. The role of bacterial cell wall hydrophobicity in adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1987 Aug;53(8):1893–1897. doi: 10.1128/aem.53.8.1893-1897.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Loosdrecht M. C., Lyklema J., Norde W., Zehnder A. J. Influence of interfaces on microbial activity. Microbiol Rev. 1990 Mar;54(1):75–87. doi: 10.1128/mr.54.1.75-87.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]