Optimisation of <i>Bacillus cereus</i> biofilm removal in the dairy industry using an <i>in vitro</i> model of cleaning‐in‐place incorporating serine protease

Kumari, Sarita; Sarkar, Prabir

doi:10.1111/1471-0307.12454

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kumari and Sarkar [ 33 ] used a serine protease, resulting in a complete reduction in B. cereus biofilms (4.08 log 10 CFU/cm 2 ) developed in skim milk. The difference between this report and our results could be explained by the low cell density in the biofilms; moreover, after 24 h of incubation, the EPS matrix is not mature [ 19 , 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Mixed-Species Biofilms Developed on Food Contact Surfaces with a Mixture of Enzymes and Chemical Agents

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sanicip Bio Control (SBC) is a novel product developed in Mexico for biofilms’ removal. The aims of this study were to evaluate (i) the removal of mixed-species biofilms by enzymatic (protease and α-amylase, 180 MWU/g) and chemical treatments (30 mL/L SBC, and 200 mg/L peracetic acid, PAA) and (ii) their effectiveness against planktonic cells. Mixed-species biofilms were developed on stainless steel (SS) and polypropylene B (PP) in whole milk (WM), tryptic soy broth (TSB) with meat extract (TSB+ME), and TSB with chicken egg yolk (TSB+EY) to simulate the food processing environment. On SS, all biofilms were removed after treatments, except the enzymatic treatment that only reduced 1–2 log10 CFU/cm2, whereas on PP, the reductions ranged between 0.59 and 5.21 log10 CFU/cm2, being the biofilms developed in TSB+EY being resistant to the cleaning and disinfecting process. Higher reductions in microbial load on PP were reached using enzymes, SBC, and PAA. The employed planktonic cells were markedly more sensitive to PAA and SBC than were the sessile cells. In conclusion, biofilm removal from SS can be achieved with SBC, enzymes, or PAA. It is important to note that the biofilm removal was strongly affected by the food contact surfaces (FCSs) and surrounding media.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Mixed-Species Biofilms Developed on Food Contact Surfaces with a Mixture of Enzymes and Chemical Agents

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effectiveness of different enzymes on the detachment of different microorganisms in biofilms has also been thoroughly studied. To this effect, Kumari and Sarkar (2018) observed that the use of a serine protease included in a cleaning-in-place (CIP) alkali resulted in a complete reduction of 4.08 log CFU cm −2 of Bacillus cereus biofilms. This greater increase in efficacy compared with the results of our study could be explained by the fact that the cell density of the biofilm generated in this study was not very high and, therefore, a consolidated mature matrix would not have been produced.…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Biofilm By The Culture Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Cronobacter sakazakii biofilms from food contact surfaces through enzymatic catalysis

Ripolles‐Avila

Ríos-Castillo

Fontecha‐Umaña

et al. 2019

Journal of Food Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial biofilms are highly difficult to control, hence significant economic resources have been allocated to develop strategies to eradicate them. This study evaluated the effect of an enzymatic treatment to be used as a cleaning product to control the presence of biofilms. Two different materials used in the food industry, polystyrene and stainless steel, were tested using Salmonella Typhimuirum and Cronobacter sakazakii. Biofilm formation was carried out by inoculating the surfaces with a standardized concentration of 4 log (CFU cm−2) and incubated for 48 hr with renewal of nutrients. The biofilm formation and subsequent enzymatic treatment were quantified using fluorescence microscopy and the conventional culture method. The enzymatic treatment showed significant reductions of 2–3 log (CFU cm−2) in biofilm cells, which was attributed to the degradation of the extracellular matrix and the further detachment of both microorganisms. The maximum biofilm detachment obtained with the preventive formula was 46.67%; however, this percentage could be increased by applying an aggressive treatment or by adding a subsequent disinfection step that would eliminate adhered microbial cells. Further, the enzymatic cleaning treatment could be exploited as a potent technology to control bacterial adherence and biofilm formation in the food industry.

show abstract

“…Protease is considered to be an effective method for EPS removal (Schallenberger et al 2012 ; Thallinger et al 2013 ). For example, serine proteases produced by S. epidermidis can eradicate pre-formed biofilms (Martínez-García et al 2018 ; Kumari and Sarkar 2018 ; Weldrick et al 2019 ). The eDNA with glue effect integrates bacteria and other components into a 3D framework, which is beneficial in helping to promote bacterial adhesion and gene transfer (Jakubovics et al 2013 ; Okshevsky and Meyer 2015 ; Fleming and Rumbaugh 2017 ).…”

Section: Dispersion Mechanisms Of Different Types Of Dispersantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of biofilm dispersion-based nanoparticles in cutting off reinfection

Li,

Lin,

Wang

et al. 2024

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial biofilms commonly cause chronic and persistent infections in humans. Bacterial biofilms consist of an inner layer of bacteria and an autocrine extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). Biofilm dispersants (abbreviated as dispersants) have proven effective in removing the bacterial physical protection barrier EPS. Dispersants are generally weak or have no bactericidal effect. Bacteria dispersed from within biofilms (abbreviated as dispersed bacteria) may be more invasive, adhesive, and motile than planktonic bacteria, characteristics that increase the probability that dispersed bacteria will recolonize and cause reinfection. The dispersants should be combined with antimicrobials to avoid the risk of severe reinfection. Dispersant-based nanoparticles have the advantage of specific release and intense penetration, providing the prerequisite for further antibacterial agent efficacy and achieving the eradication of biofilms. Dispersant-based nanoparticles delivered antimicrobial agents for the treatment of diseases associated with bacterial biofilm infections are expected to be an effective measure to prevent reinfection caused by dispersed bacteria. Key points • Dispersed bacteria harm and the dispersant’s dispersion mechanisms are discussed. • The advantages of dispersant-based nanoparticles in bacteria biofilms are discussed. • Dispersant-based nanoparticles for cutting off reinfection in vivo are highlighted.

show abstract

Optimisation of Bacillus cereus biofilm removal in the dairy industry using an in vitro model of cleaning‐in‐place incorporating serine protease

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Removal of Mixed-Species Biofilms Developed on Food Contact Surfaces with a Mixture of Enzymes and Chemical Agents

Removal of Mixed-Species Biofilms Developed on Food Contact Surfaces with a Mixture of Enzymes and Chemical Agents

Removal of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Cronobacter sakazakii biofilms from food contact surfaces through enzymatic catalysis

Application of biofilm dispersion-based nanoparticles in cutting off reinfection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About