“…An 1-mm 2 area of biofilm, chosen randomly, was subjected to ultrasonic scanning. A full description of the method can be found in Holmes et al (2006) but in brief, the biofilm was scanned from beneath using a 50 MHz focused transducer. The surface of the biofilm was enclosed in as small a volume of moistened air as possible, to reduce evaporation.…”
Section: Ultrasonic C-scansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biofilm architecture is normally visualized and assessed in the laboratory using methods such as light microscopy, confocal scanning laser microscopy, direct interference contrast microscopy and atomic force microscopy. But another method which uses ultrasonic pulse‐echo scanning has recently been developed by the authors (Holmes et al . 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biofilm architecture is normally visualized and assessed in the laboratory using methods such as light microscopy, confocal scanning laser microscopy, direct interference contrast microscopy and atomic force microscopy. But another method which uses ultrasonic pulse-echo scanning has recently been developed by the authors (Holmes et al 2006). Ultrasonic techniques have long been used to nondestructively profile multilayer structures such as adhesives and paints on surfaces in situ (Challis et al 1991).…”
Aims: This study evaluated the effect of protozoan movement and grazing on the topography of a dual‐bacterial biofilm using both conventional light microscopy and a new ultrasonic technique.
Methods and Results: Coupons of dialysis membrane were incubated in Chalkley’s medium for 3 days at 23°C in the presence of bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella aerogenes) alone, or in co‐culture with the flagellate Bodo designis, the ciliate Tetrahymena pyriformis or the amoeba Acanthamoeba castellanii. Amoebic presence resulted in a confluent biofilm similar to the bacteria‐only biofilm while the flagellate and ciliate created more diverse biofilm topographies comprising bacterial microcolonies and cavities.
Conclusions: The four distinct biofilm topographies were successfully discerned with ultrasonic imaging and the method yielded information similar to that obtained with conventional light microscopy.
Significance and Impact of the Study: Ultrasonic imaging provides a potential way forward in the development of a portable, nondestructive technique for profiling the topography of biofilms in situ, which might aid in the future management of biofouling.
“…An 1-mm 2 area of biofilm, chosen randomly, was subjected to ultrasonic scanning. A full description of the method can be found in Holmes et al (2006) but in brief, the biofilm was scanned from beneath using a 50 MHz focused transducer. The surface of the biofilm was enclosed in as small a volume of moistened air as possible, to reduce evaporation.…”
Section: Ultrasonic C-scansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biofilm architecture is normally visualized and assessed in the laboratory using methods such as light microscopy, confocal scanning laser microscopy, direct interference contrast microscopy and atomic force microscopy. But another method which uses ultrasonic pulse‐echo scanning has recently been developed by the authors (Holmes et al . 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biofilm architecture is normally visualized and assessed in the laboratory using methods such as light microscopy, confocal scanning laser microscopy, direct interference contrast microscopy and atomic force microscopy. But another method which uses ultrasonic pulse-echo scanning has recently been developed by the authors (Holmes et al 2006). Ultrasonic techniques have long been used to nondestructively profile multilayer structures such as adhesives and paints on surfaces in situ (Challis et al 1991).…”
Aims: This study evaluated the effect of protozoan movement and grazing on the topography of a dual‐bacterial biofilm using both conventional light microscopy and a new ultrasonic technique.
Methods and Results: Coupons of dialysis membrane were incubated in Chalkley’s medium for 3 days at 23°C in the presence of bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella aerogenes) alone, or in co‐culture with the flagellate Bodo designis, the ciliate Tetrahymena pyriformis or the amoeba Acanthamoeba castellanii. Amoebic presence resulted in a confluent biofilm similar to the bacteria‐only biofilm while the flagellate and ciliate created more diverse biofilm topographies comprising bacterial microcolonies and cavities.
Conclusions: The four distinct biofilm topographies were successfully discerned with ultrasonic imaging and the method yielded information similar to that obtained with conventional light microscopy.
Significance and Impact of the Study: Ultrasonic imaging provides a potential way forward in the development of a portable, nondestructive technique for profiling the topography of biofilms in situ, which might aid in the future management of biofouling.
“…Holmes et al 23 imaged non-specific biofilms created in water ponds with a custom 50 MHz system. Placing an immersed transducer below a membrane and detecting reflections from an air/ biofilm interface allowed imaging the surface morphology of these biofilms.…”
“…In a scanning acoustic microsope a focussed ultrasound beam is coupled into the sample and the returning signal analyzed in a variety of ways, including simple pulse echo (Holmes, Laybourn-Parry et al 2006). The simplest implementation involves detection of a pulse reflected from an object (Fig.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.