Synergistic efficacy of high-intensity ultrasound and chlorine dioxide combination for Staphylococcus aureus biofilm control

The combination of ultrasound and chlorogenic acid to inactivate Staphylococcus aureus under planktonic, biofilm, and food systems

“…Similarly, He et al [28] reported that US treatment alone for 9 min only inactivated 0.36 lg CFU/mL of S. aureus planktonic cells. Yu et al [29] reported that US alone for 10 min only caused 0.09 lg CFU/cm 2 reduction in S. aureus biofilm cells. Treatments with 0.5% CA, 1% CA, and 2% CA for 30 min inactivated 0.9, 1.78, and 3.4 lg CFU/mL of S. aureus planktonic cells, respectively, while treatments with US plus 0.5% CA, US plus 1% CA, and US plus 2% CA for 30 min achieved 2.18, 4.52, and 6.9 lg CFU/mL reduction in S. aureus planktonic cells.…”

“…After treatment with US alone for 30 min, some pores appeared on the cell membrane, but most S. aureus cells still had cell membrane [28] . Yu et al, (2021) revealed that high-intensity ultrasound destroyed the structure of S. aureus biofilm, but the bacterial cells in the biofilm still had intact shape [29] . After treatment with 2% CA for 30 min, S. aureus planktonic and biofilm cells became shriveled, and many wrinkles and gullies appeared on the cell surface ( Fig.…”

“…In the cells treated with the combination of US and CA, US could destroy the structure of the extracellular matrix, promoting the penetration of CA into the biofilm barrier; thus, the combined treatment of US and CA was more effective than US or CA alone in inactivating S. aureus cells in the biofilm. Yu et al, (2021) reported that US via mechanical oscillation promoted ClO 2 penetration into the S. aureus biofilm, thereby enhancing the bactericidal rate to inactivate S. aureus biofilm cells [29] .…”

Combined an acoustic pressure simulation of ultrasonic radiation and experimental studies to evaluate control efficacy of high-intensity ultrasound against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm

“…The FCM analysis was largely followed by Yu, Liu, Yang, Xie, Guo, Cheng and Yao [10] with slight modification. The cells from S. aureus biofilm were first suspended into a sterile saline solution (0.85%, w/v).…”

“…However, the efficacy of conventional cleaning is relatively poor, which is mainly attributed to a strong adhesion of biofilm on food contact surfaces and low penetration of disinfectants into the biofilm structure [8] . It is also possible to induce the exchange of certain resistance genes among inner cells in the biofilms after the improper treatment of chemical disinfectants leading to reinforcement of their resistances [9] , [10] . Previous studies have indicated that some of the commonly used disinfectants (e.g.…”