Table 1.
Summary of biofilm removal capacity of the cleaners tested in this study
| Cleaner | Enzymes supplemented in the cleaners | Claim for biofilm removal | Biomass | Amount of bacteria | Amount of viable bacteria | Amount of EPS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P.a. | S.a. | P.a. | S.a. | P.a. | S.a. | P.a. | S.a. | |||
| A | Protease, lipase, amylase | Yes | ++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ |
| B | Protease, amylase, cellulase | Yes | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ |
| C | Protease, lipase, amylase | None | ++ | + | 0 | 0 | +++ | +++ | 0 | 0 |
| D | Protease, lipase, amylase, cellulase, mannanase | Yes | 0 | ++ | 0 | ++ | + | +++ | 0 | +++ |
| E | None | Yes | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | ++ | +++ | 0 | ++ |
| X | 4 enzymes | Yes | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
P.a., Pseudomonas aeruginosa; S.a., Staphylococcus aureus; +++, strong (>80 % in average of the used methods or >90 % in one of the methods); ++, medium (>50 % in average, but none >90 %); +, weak (25–50 % in average); and 0, no biofilm reduction (<25 % in average). Those terms were applied to all methods, except for the viability of S.a. where the threshold for +++ was set to 99 % due to strong reduction of all cleaners. More details on percent reduction of individual methods are summarized in Table S1