View/Open - ARAN - National University of Ireland, Galway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 Figure 2.7: Graph of the surface roughness of each surface and S. enterica biofilm density Figure 2.7 illustrates the mean log 10 density of Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica biofilm attached to the 5 surfaces (Y Axis) in comparison to the surface roughness (Ra measured in nanometres) of each surface (X axis). The S. enterica strains include the mean log 10 density of 6 Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Agona, 3 S. Typhimurium and 2 S. Enteritidis strains listed in Table 2.6. The mean surface roughness (Ra) assessment was repeated in triplicate as indicated from the 3 readings for each surface displayed on the graph. Page 83
Chapter 2 2.7. Discussion The results of the quality control experiments suggest that caution is needed when using sonication for biofilm removal. As reported elsewhere researchers should examine the surfaces or biofilm substrata post removal to verify complete removal and confirm validity of the removal method [183]. The results of the quality control experiments indicate that swabbing the surface with a pre-moistened sterile swab was not an effective method for removing all biofilm cells from the entire surface (Table 2.2). Figure 2.4 also illustrates biofilm cells remained on both the smooth (glass) and porous/rough surface (concrete) after swabbing. Moreover cotton deposits remained on the surface after contact with the surface. If this method is chosen in experiments such as those described by Joseph et al. [71], it may result in an underestimation of the biofilm density on a test surface. The research published by Joesph et al. did not indicate if SEM or any microscopy was performed in order to validate the swabbing method for biofilm removal. Incomplete removal post swabbing may have contributed to the finding of a more dense biofilm recovered from plastic than concrete (cement) [71] which is the opposite to what was found in the research reported in this thesis. The quality control results also indicated that sonication at 20 kHz was the most appropriate sonication condition for removal of S. enterica cells without reducing the number of viable cells. Based on the results presented in this chapter, quality control measures should be performed to ensure cells are not damaged by sonication. Curtin et al. used the same model sonication bath previously at 45-49 kHz for 30 minutes to remove S. epidermidis biofilm cells from catheter associated surfaces [186]. It is possible that the high sonication conditions may be suitable for gram positive organisms such as S. epidermidis. However previous authors have also used higher sonication such as 27 kHz [118] or 42 kHz [72] over short intervals to remove biofilm consisting of gram negative organisms such as P. aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Shewanella putrefaciens. Ceri et al. Page 84
Page 1:
Salmonella enterica - biofilm forma
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Page Number 1.16.
Page 6 and 7:
Table of Contents Page Number 4.1.2
Page 8 and 9:
Table of Contents Page Number 6.8.4
Page 10 and 11:
List of Abbreviations Table Page Nu
Page 12 and 13:
List of Abbreviations List of Abbre
Page 14 and 15:
Summary of Content Summary of Conte
Page 16 and 17:
“To show your true ability is alw
Page 18 and 19:
Acknowledgements ever met, Fiona th
Page 20 and 21:
Acknowledgements This Ph.D. thesis
Page 22 and 23:
Chapter 1 1.1. Salmonella Salmonell
Page 24 and 25:
Chapter 1 may impose enormous costs
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 1 cracks or penetration of
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 1 detected by agglutination
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 1 become colonized with >10
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 1 antigens [z27],[z45] [1].
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 1 S. Agona has also been im
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 1 isolated from undercooked
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 1 The S. Typhimurium strain
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 1 ecosystem with the use of
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 1 [82]. Previous research h
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 1 to genes involved in flag
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 1 observation has also been
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 1 [119] and flow cell react
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 1 based disinfectant) the s
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 1 formation of two strains
Page 54 and 55: Chapter 1 shield the S. Agona cells
Page 56 and 57: Chapter 1 Key Objectives of this st
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 2 2. Abstract Food-borne pa
Page 60 and 61: Chapter 2 indicated that there may
Page 62 and 63: Chapter 2 taken from industrial set
Page 64 and 65: Chapter 2 2.1.4. CDC Biofilm Reacto
Page 66 and 67: Chapter 2 can be performed without
Page 68 and 69: Chapter 2 To summarise, previous au
Page 70 and 71: Chapter 2 2.3. Methods for examinin
Page 72 and 73: Chapter 2 and the biofilm formed th
Page 74 and 75: Chapter 2 2.4. Statistical Analysis
Page 76 and 77: Chapter 2 Table 2.1: Strain charact
Page 78 and 79: Chapter 2 XII. The gas port and med
Page 80 and 81: Chapter 2 II. Primary fixative cons
Page 82 and 83: Chapter 2 IX. Once the conditions w
Page 84 and 85: Chapter 2 Figure 2.1: Image of CBR
Page 86 and 87: Chapter 2 2.6. Results 2.6.1. Asses
Page 88 and 89: Chapter 2 2.6.3. SEM Analysis of su
Page 90 and 91: Chapter 2 Figure 2.6: Complete remo
Page 92 and 93: Chapter 2 2.6.5. Mean log 10 densit
Page 94 and 95: Chapter 2 2.6.6. Mean log 10 densit
Page 96 and 97: Chapter 2 Table 2.5: Mean log 10 de
Page 98 and 99: Chapter 2 The results displayed in
Page 100 and 101: Chapter 2 Table 2.7: Difference bet
Page 102 and 103: Chapter 2 Table 2.8: The mean log 1
Page 106 and 107: Chapter 2 also used “high” soni
Page 108 and 109: Chapter 2 2.8. Summary All 13 strai
Page 110 and 111: Chapter 3 3. Abstract It has been e
Page 112 and 113: Chapter 3 classified as persistent
Page 114 and 115: Chapter 3 was plated onto TSA for e
Page 116 and 117: Chapter 3 Figure 3.1: The mean log
Page 118 and 119: Chapter 3 Figure 3.3: SEM image of
Page 120 and 121: Chapter 3 Table 3.2: Difference bet
Page 122 and 123: Chapter 3 3.4.3. Intra-serovar vari
Page 124 and 125: Chapter 3 3.4.4. Strain variation i
Page 126 and 127: Chapter 3 3.4.5. The density of bio
Page 128 and 129: Chapter 3 3.5. Discussion As illust
Page 130 and 131: Chapter 3 As discussed in section 3
Page 132 and 133: Chapter 3 increased biofilm appeare
Page 134 and 135: Chapter 4 Examining the efficacy of
Page 136 and 137: Chapter 4 through laboratory based
Page 138 and 139: Chapter 4 acid and quaternary ammon
Page 140 and 141: Chapter 4 the surface the temperatu
Page 142 and 143: Chapter 4 availability of multiple
Page 144 and 145: Chapter 4 peracetic acid (100, 200,
Page 146 and 147: Chapter 4 As discussed previously,
Page 148 and 149: Chapter 4 Dey/Engley (Difco) neutra
Page 150 and 151: Chapter 4 sterilisation was achieve
Page 152 and 153: Chapter 4 IX. Aliquots of 100µl of
Page 154 and 155:
Chapter 4 XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX
Page 156 and 157:
Chapter 4 4.3. Results 4.3.1. Suspe
Page 158 and 159:
Chapter 4 Table 4.3: Mean log 10 de
Page 160 and 161:
Chapter 4 Benzalkonium chloride was
Page 162 and 163:
Chapter 4 4.4. Discussion Suspensio
Page 164 and 165:
Chapter 4 effective at eliminating
Page 166 and 167:
Chapter 4 Surprisingly, Nguyen et a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 though a contact time of
Page 170 and 171:
Chapter 4 provide a more standardis
Page 172 and 173:
Chapter 4 hours instead of the stan
Page 174 and 175:
Chapter 5 5. Abstract Examining bio
Page 176 and 177:
Chapter 5 dry and rough (bdar) morp
Page 178 and 179:
Chapter 5 absence of curli and cell
Page 180 and 181:
Chapter 5 studies such as the micro
Page 182 and 183:
Chapter 5 discussed in chapter 4. T
Page 184 and 185:
Chapter 5 5.2. Methods 5.2.1. Colon
Page 186 and 187:
Chapter 5 XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII.
Page 188 and 189:
Chapter 5 XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX
Page 190 and 191:
Chapter 5 5.3.2. Repeatability of m
Page 192 and 193:
Chapter 5 Figure 5.2: Stained biofi
Page 194 and 195:
Chapter 5 was formed at room temper
Page 196 and 197:
Chapter 5 Table 5.3: The density of
Page 198 and 199:
Chapter 5 5.3.4. The density of bio
Page 200 and 201:
Chapter 5 Table 5.6: The difference
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Table 5.7: The difference
Page 204 and 205:
Chapter 5 Table 5.8: Summary of ass
Page 206 and 207:
Chapter 5 interpretation therefore
Page 208 and 209:
Chapter 5 measures of S. enterica b
Page 210 and 211:
Chapter 5 cells peaks [165, 191]. D
Page 212 and 213:
Chapter 5 5.5. Limitations of the s
Page 214 and 215:
Chapter 6 Discussion of S. enterica
Page 216 and 217:
Chapter 6 However, a number of auth
Page 218 and 219:
Chapter 6 It is of interest to exam
Page 220 and 221:
Chapter 6 were similar at 48 hours.
Page 222 and 223:
Chapter 6 attributable to a small n
Page 224 and 225:
Chapter 6 chosen as an appropriate
Page 226 and 227:
Chapter 6 undetermined. However, th
Page 228 and 229:
Chapter 6 reason for this may be du
Page 230 and 231:
Chapter 6 Moreover, based on the re
Page 232 and 233:
Chapter 6 responsible for increased
Page 234 and 235:
Chapter 6 not fully capture the ran
Page 236 and 237:
Chapter 6 However, the extent of bi
Page 238 and 239:
Chapter 6 6.10. Conclusions and rec
Page 240 and 241:
Chapter 6 studies may solve some of
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography Bibliography Page 221
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography 12. T. Takata, J.L., H
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography 29. Barker, J., M. Nae
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography 47. Threlfall, E.J., H
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 65. CDC. Investigation
Page 252 and 253:
Bibliography 83. Ledeboer, N., Frye
Page 254 and 255:
Bibliography 100. Chia, T., Goulter
Page 256 and 257:
Bibliography 117. Buckingham-Meyer,
Page 258 and 259:
Bibliography 133. European Committe
Page 260 and 261:
Bibliography Supernatant of a Hafni
Page 262 and 263:
Bibliography 165. Díez-García, M.
Page 264 and 265:
Bibliography cultivation of Staphyl
Page 266 and 267:
Bibliography Compounds. 2012. Appli
Page 268 and 269:
Bibliography 215. Buck, et al., A q
Page 270 and 271:
Bibliography Canadian Journal of Ps
Page 272 and 273:
Appendix 1 Appendix 1— List of Re
Page 274 and 275:
Appendix 1 Appendix 1 - List of Equ
Page 276 and 277:
Appendix 2 Colour index High outlie
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Appendix 3 Appendix 3-Figure 2: PFG
Page 288 and 289:
Appendix 4 Poster Presentation Envi
show all

View/Open - ARAN - National University of Ireland, Galway

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?