- Original Article
- Published:
Evaluation of disinfection efficacy of ozone and chlorinated disinfectant against the biofilm of Klebsiella michiganensis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Annals of Microbiology volume 64, pages 1607–1613 (2014)
Abstract
Household microorganisms mostly reside in the form of biofilms on wet surfaces in the bathroom and kitchen areas. Microorganisms constituting biofilm communities are less susceptible than their planktonic counterparts to antimicrobial agents and are thus difficult to control. Traditionally, chemical disinfectants have been used as cleaners in the household environment. Recently, incorporation of ozone as a microbial control agent in the consumer product industry has been initiated as an alternative method of disinfection. In this study, antimicrobial efficacy of ozone and a commercial chlorinated disinfectant was evaluated against the biofilm of a commonly occurring Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella michiganensis, a newly described species recovered from toothbrush holder. Single species biofilm was grown on borosilicate glass and polycarbonate coupons using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biofilm reactor. This is the first study demonstrating the biofilm forming capability of K. michiganensis under laboratory conditions using the CDC biofilm reactor. Planktonic cells and mature biofilms were exposed to ozonated water for 2 and 4 min and chlorinated cleaner for 2 min and 10 min. Based on the ozone stability study, the exposure experiments were carried out in two different ways. The type 1 treatment was carried out according to ASTM method E2871-12, with 5 mL of ozonated water as disinfectant in a 50 mL conical centrifuge tube; whereas in type 2 treatment, 14.0 mL of ozonated water was used to avoid any headspace in the capped culture tube. In biofilms, type 1 ozone treatment demonstrated an average log reduction of 0.88 (±0.13) and 0.12 (±0.01) for K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa, respectively, in 2 min. Similarly, for type 2 treatment, the values were 1.56 (±0.58) and 0.27 (±0.08). In planktonic cells, log reduction was 2.61 (±0.11) in P. aeruginosa and > 4.0 in K. michiganensis, within 2 min. Chlorinated cleaner demonstrated > 4.0 log reduction in all cases. The disinfection efficacy of ozone type 1 treatment varied between bacterial species (p < 0.001) and exposure times (p < 0.04), but not the coupon types (p > 0.95). Within biofilms, log reduction varied significantly between ozone and chorine treatments (p < 0.001). Significant differences in log reduction were also observed between planktonic cells and biofilms (p < 0.001), target organisms (p < 0.05) and the types of ozone treatment (p < 0.05, for K michiganensis only). From the results, it can be concluded that K. michiganensis was more susceptible to the disinfectants compared to P. aeruginosa. Within a shorter contact time, commercial chlorinated cleaner was more effective against both biofilms and planktonic cells than ozonated water.
Introduction
Household microorganisms mostly occur in the form of biofilms on wet surfaces in the bathroom and kitchen area (Flores et al. 2013; Yano et al. 2013). Biofilm is a complex community of microorganisms growing on a biotic or abiotic surface in an aqueous environment (Donlan 2001; Stoodley et al. 2002; Lynch and Robertson 2008). Microorganisms constituting biofilm communities are less susceptible to antimicrobial agents than their planktonic counterparts and are thus difficult to control (Xu et al. 2000; Stewart and Costerton 2001). The recent media exposure on outbreaks of microbial infections and household foodborne illnesses has led to an increase in use of wide varieties of antimicrobial agents, and has also triggered the development of alternative methods of disinfections in the consumer product industry (Levy 2001; Zekert 2009). For example, incorporation of ozone as a control agent in the consumer product industry has been initiated recently (FDA 2001). Ozone is primarily used in the treatment of water and waste water for disinfection and oxidation (Donofrio et al. 2013). The mode of action of ozone in aqueous solution is by direct oxidation of compounds by molecular ozone or oxidation of compounds by hydroxyl free radicals produced during the decomposition of ozone (EPA 1999). Ozone decomposes spontaneously in water, generating hydroxyl free radicals that have a half-life in the order of microseconds (EPA 1999; Yousef et al. 2011). The hydroxyl free radicals are the most reactive agents and are highly antimicrobial in nature (Greene et al. 2012). Due to the high oxidation potential, ozone oxidizes cell membrane materials, enters the organism and damages enzymes, DNA and RNA, thus causing cell destruction (Khadre et al. 2001). Some of the advantages of ozone over traditional antimicrobial agents such as chlorinated cleaner are that it has no harmful by-products, there is no re-growth of organisms, it has high penetrability and there is no additional disposal cost, as it naturally decomposes into water and air (Jin-Gab et al. 1999).
In this study, we have investigated the disinfection efficacy of ozone and a commercial chlorinated cleaner against the biofilms of Klebsiella michiganensis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Klebsiella michiganensis is a new described species belonging to the genus Klebsiella and was isolated from a toothbrush holder (Saha et al. 2013). Species belonging to the genus Klebsiella, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae and Klebsiella oxytoca, are clinically important bacteria and are well documented to cause nosocomial infections (Langley et al. 2001; Wollheim et al. 2011). They are also known as excellent biofilm former (Maldonado et al. 2007; Murphy and Clegg 2012). Since K. michiganensis belongs to the genus Klebsiella and was recovered from a bathroom environment, it was important to investigate its biofilm-forming capabilities on different surface materials, as well as its response to commonly used methods of household disinfection such as chlorinated cleaner, and also to an alternative method of disinfection such as ozonated water. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a commonly occurring microorganism and is notoriously known for its biofilm formation in wide variety of environments (Ma et al. 2009). The specific objectives of this study was to: 1) investigate the biofilm forming capability of K. michiganensis on different surfaces under high sheer condition using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biofilm reactor; and 2) investigate the disinfection efficacy of ozone and commercial chlorinated cleaner against the biofilms of K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa.
Materials and methods
Bacterial cultures
Cultures of P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27313) and K. michiganensis (ATCC BAA 2403) were selected for the study. Both the bacteria were grown and maintained on Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) and Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) (BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ; Thermo Scientific, Lenexa, KS). The bacteria were grown for 24 h at 35 ± 1 °C.
Disinfectants
Two types of disinfectants, ozone and chlorine, were evaluated in this study. For ozone, a faucet with a standard flow rate of 0.46 gal per minute (gpm) was used to deliver ozonated water at concentration ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 parts per million (ppm). The following characteristics of the ozonated water was monitored: pH 7.5 ± 0.5; temperature 20.0 ± 5 °C; turbidity 0.112 ± 0.06 NTU; hardness 300 ppm; Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 0.1, ppm and the water was nonchlorinated. For chlorine, commercial chlorinated cleaner containing 1.94 % of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was used in the study. A schematic of the ozone treatment is presented in Fig. 1.
Preparation of biofilm
Mature single species biofilms were prepared using a CDC biofilm reactor following the American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) method E2562-12. For the development of the P. aeruginosa biofilm no modification of the ASTM method was made. The following modification was performed for the development of the K. michiganensis biofilm: the batch mode was operated for 24 h at 35 °C with 120 rpm of sheer and the continuous mode was operated for additional 24 h at 25 °C with 120 rpm sheer and a flow rate of 11.7 mL/min. For both the bacteria, borosilicate glass (BGC) and polycarbonate (PC) coupons were used as the surface materials.
Disinfection efficacy study
The disinfection efficacy study was performed according to the ASTM method E2871-12. The only modification was in the amount of disinfectant used in the study, instead of adding 4.0 mL of disinfectant, 5.0 mL was added because to completely wet a 5″ × 5″ surface area, 5.0 mL was the required volume. The exposure times for the ozonated water were 2 min and 4 min, whereas for chlorinated cleaner it was 2 min and 10 min. The 4 min time point for ozone was selected based on the stability of ozone in the ozonated water. We performed an experiment to measure the stability of ozone at different time points by taking 500 mL of ozonated water (0.35 ppm) in an open 1 L beaker and also in a capped 500 mL amber colored bottle. The level of ozone was measured at 2.0 min, 4.0 min and 6.0 min time points. At 4.0 min and 6.0 min, the level of ozone in the open beaker was found to be 0.08 and 0.03 ppm respectively, whereas in the closed container at 4.0 min and 6.0 min, the level of ozone was 0.15 and 0.14 ppm, respectively. For chlorinated cleaner, the 10 min time point was chosen because the manufacturer of the product recommended a contact time of 10 min for disinfection purposes. The 2 min time point was selected based on the feasibility of use of products in a household environment, from a consumer standpoint. Therefore, in this study, 2 min was the common time point used for the evaluation of both the disinfectants.
Based on the ozone stability study, the ozone exposure experiments were carried out in two different ways. One set of experiments (Type 1) was carried out according to ASTM method E2871-12 with 5 mL of ozonated water as disinfectant in a 50 mL conical centrifuge tube. In another set of experiments (Type 2), 14 mL of ozonated water was used to avoid any headspace in the capped culture tube, instead of the 50 mL conical centrifuge tube used for the exposure study. Following exposure, the 14 mL ozonated water, along with the coupon, was transferred to a 50 mL conical centrifuge tube containing 36 mL of Sterile Buffered Dilution Water (SBDW, neutralizer) to stop the reaction.
The neutralizer used for the chlorinated cleaner was SBDW containing a final concentration of 0.1 % sodium thiosulfate (1 mL of 10 % Sodium Thiosulfate was added to 1 L SBDW, pH of the solution was 7.4-7.5).
Staining and imaging of biofilms
Following incubation under continuous mode, the rods holding the coupons were carefully removed from the CDC biofilm reactor and gently rinsed twice in SBDW to remove unattached cells. The coupons were stained with Filmtracer™ Live/Dead Biofilm Viability Kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Image analysis was performed using the Zeiss Axioskop 2 Plus microscope with AxioCam fluorescence camera. Imaging was performed to confirm viability and biofilm formation. The viable bacteria with intact cell membranes stain fluorescent green and bacteria with damaged membranes stain fluorescent red.
Data and statistical analysis
The mean log10 density of treated and untreated/control coupons as well as the mean log10 reduction for each disinfectant were calculated according to the formula presented in ASTM method E2871-12. Univariate ANOVA was conducted to test if there was any significant difference in log10 reduction with: a) coupon types, organisms and exposure times within biofilm treated with ozone; and b) treatment type (ozone and chlorinated cleaner) within biofilms. Another set of one-way ANOVA was performed to determine differences in killing effect with ozone between a) planktonic cells and biofilm, b) target organisms in planktonic forms, c) target organisms in biofilm forms, and d) between Type 1 and Type 2 ozone treatments in both K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa. Prior to statistical analysis data was checked for deviations from normality by the using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 17.
Results
Biofilm formation under high sheer condition
Both P. aeruginosa and K. michiganensis were capable of forming mature biofilms within 48 h of incubation under high sheer (120 rpm) condition in the continuous flow mode (Fig. 2). The average log10 density of P. aeruginosa biofilm on BGC and PC coupons was 9.13 (±0.15) and 9.23 (±0.12) CFU/cm2, respectively. Similarly, the average log10 density of K. michiganensis biofilm on BGC and PC coupons was 6.97 (±0.24) and 7.03 (±0.23) CFU/cm2. There were no significant differences in average log10 density between the two coupon types in both K. michiganensis (F = 0.23, df = 11, p > 0.63) and P. aeruginosa (F = 1.6, df = 11, p > 0.23). However, significant differences in the biofilm formation were observed between K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa for both the BGC (F = 346.3, df = 11, p < 0.05) and PC (F = 418.8, df = 11, p < 0.05) coupons.
Disinfection efficacy study
The disinfection efficacy of ozonated water and commercial chlorinated cleaner was evaluated against the two target organisms, K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa. Ozone demonstrated an average log10 reduction of 0.88 (±0.13) and 0.12 (±0.01) for K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa, respectively, for 2 min, whereas for 4 min average log10 reductions of 1.15 (±0.16) (K. michiganensis) and 0.29 (±0.03) (P. aeruginosa) were observed within biofilms for Type 1 treatment (Fig. 3). In planktonic cells of P. aeruginosa, the log10 reduction was 2.61 (±0.11) and 3.31 (±0.23) for 2 and 4 min, respectively. Similarly, > 4.0 log reduction was observed for K. michiganensis (Fig. 4). In the Type 2 treatment ozone demonstrated an average log10 reduction of 1.56 (±0.58) and 0.27 (±0.08) for K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa, respectively, for 2 min exposure. On the other hand, for 4 min of exposure, an average log10 reduction of 1.97 (±1.10) for K. michiganensis and 0.60 (±0.28) for P. aeruginosa was obtained (Fig. 5). Chlorinated cleaner demonstrated > 4.0 log reduction for both the bacteria in biofilm and planktonic form within 2 and 4 min (Fig. 4).
Disinfection efficacy of ozone and chlorine on the biofilm and planktonic cells of K. michiganensis and P aeruginosa. The commercial chlorinated cleaner exhibited greater than 4.0 log reduction for both cell states in both the bacteria. Ozone exhibited greater efficacy against K. michiganensis compared to P. aeruginosa
Results of the ANOVA indicated that the disinfection efficacy of ozone varied between the two species of bacteria and the exposure times, but there were no significant differences in log reduction between the types of coupons tested (Table 1). Within the biofilms, the log reduction in bacterial counts varied significantly between ozone and chorine treatments (F = 48.26, p < 0.001, df = 6). Significant differences in log reduction were also observed between planktonic cells and biofilms (F = 60.85, p < 0.001, df = 10), target organisms (in planktonic form: F = 22.22, p < 0.04, df = 2 and in biofilms: F = 54.54, p < 0.001, df = 6). Similarly, significant difference in log reduction was observed between the two types of ozone treatment (Type 1 and Type 2) only in K. michiganensis (F = 10.71, df = 6, p < 0.01), but not in P. aeruginosa (F = 2.7, df = 6, p > 0.15).
Discussion
The newly described species K. michiganensis was capable of forming mature biofilm under high sheer conditions within 48 h in the CDC biofilm reactor. Capability to form biofilm is considered as a virulence factor (Maldonado et al. 2007). Due to its capability to form biofilm and its mucoid phenotype (Saha et al. 2013), K. michiganensis could be a potential pathogen. In this study, we found P. aeruginosa to be a better biofilm former compared to K. michiganensis under similar experimental conditions, based on the cell density on the coupons and image analysis (Fig. 2). Image analysis also revealed the architectural difference of the biofilms between the two organisms (Fig. 2). Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibited a distinct clustering pattern, and the clusters were interconnected with layers of cells. The clustering pattern on BGC was different compared to the clustering pattern on the PC coupon. On BGC, the individual clusters appeared as mushroom-shaped growth, whereas the clusters on the PC coupon were flat. In contrast, K. michiganensis exhibited a unique pattern on both BGC and PC surfaces. It was observed that K. michiganensis formed separated microcolonies and cell clustering on the PC surfaces, and produced lot of exopolysaccharide materials leading to mature biofilm formation; whereas the architecture of the biofilm on BGC appeared as a monolayer of cells with less exopolysaccharide materials. From the average log density value and the image analysis, it is evident that PC provided a better surface for the biofilm formation of K. michiganensis than the BGC coupon. The fluorescent green stain indicated that all the cells were viable in the mature biofilm of both the surface types for the two bacteria. Biofilm architecture is reported to be heterogeneous in nature and constantly changing due to internal and external factors (Donlan 2002).
In this study, we observed that both Type 1 and Type 2 ozone treatments were more effective against the biofilm of K. michiganensis compared to P. aeruginosa, even though both are Gram-negative bacteria. Earlier studies have reported that the difference in architecture of biofilms might contribute to reduced susceptibilities to different methods of disinfections (Xu et al. 2000; Folkesson et al. 2008). The difference in the susceptibility of the two target organisms could be due to the architectural difference in the biofilm formation. Additionally, cell density and thickness of the biofilm might have also contributed to the difference in log reduction between the two bacteria. It was also interesting to note that Type 2 ozone treatment exhibited greater killing effect (Fig. 4) compared to Type 1 ozone treatment (Fig. 1). This could be due to a combination of factors, such as that ozone is partially soluble in water and is also capable of auto-decomposition (Summerfelt 2003). Therefore, the effectiveness of ozone depends on the concentration of ozone present at any given time in the ozonated water. For effective disinfection, the water is required to maintain a certain dissolved ozone concentration for a given contact time (Summerfelt 2003). In this study, we have demonstrated the stability of ozone in the test water when present in a container with a headspace (Type 1) and in a capped container without any headspace (Type 2). Rice et al. (1981) reported the half-life of ozone dissolved in pure water at 20 °C to be 165 min, whereas earlier studies on surface water disinfection by ozone reported that even in higher water quality with low concentrations of oxidizable organic material, iron and manganese, the ambient ozone demand reduced the half-life of ozone to less than a few minutes (Cryer 1992; Summerfelt 2003). In our study, we have similar observations. The capped container without any headspace (Type 2) was more effective against the biofilm of K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa. The disinfection efficacy varied significantly (p < 0.01) for K. michiganensis between the two treatment types. However, no significant difference (p > 0.15) in log reduction was observed for P. aeruginosa biofilm. Interestingly, 4 min contact time exhibited higher log reduction compared to 2 min of exposure, which could be due to the fact that ozone decomposes spontaneously, and formed by-products that were still effective against the microbial cells. From a practical application standpoint, Type 1 treatment will need to be implemented, as the ozonated water will be interacting with wet surfaces harboring biofilms where there will always be ambient ozone demand with high decomposition of ozone. Due to toxicity associated with ozone gas, there is a limitation on the concentration of ozone that can be used in the production of ozonated water (Khadre et al. 2001; Palou et al. 2002). The commercial chlorinated cleaner was equally effective against the biofilm of K. michiganensis and P. aeruginosa. Greater than 4.0 log reduction was achieved within 2 min of contact time. The 10 min contact time was used in the experiment as per the manufacturer’s instructions, to be complaint with the disinfection claim of the product. The chlorinated cleaner exhibited the same level of disinfection efficacy against both planktonic and biofilm forms for the two target organisms compared to ozonated water, within a shorter exposure time (2 min). However, there are certain disadvantages of using chlorinated cleaner, such as it might form harmful by-products and also give rise to resistant organisms (Nozaic 2004). Therefore, future research is warranted to investigate the effect of ozone and chlorine (lower concentration) in combination against the biofilms of different organisms.
References
ASTM E2562–12 Standard Test Method for Quantification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Grown with High Shear and Continuous Flow using CDC Biofilm Reactor.
ASTM E2871–12 Standard test method for evaluating disinfectant efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm grown in the CDC biofilm reactor using the single tube method.
Cryer E (1992) Recent applications of ozone in freshwater fish hatchery systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Use of Ozone in Aquatic Systems. International Ozone Association, Pan American Committee, Stamford, CT, pp. 134Á/154.
Donlan RM (2001) Biofilm formation: A clinically relevant ant microbiological process. Clin Infec Dis 33:1387–1392
Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infec Dis 8:881
Donofrio RS, Aridi S, Saha R, Bechanko R, Schaefer K, Bestervelt LL, Hamil B (2013) Laboratory validation of an ozone device for recreational water treatment. J Water Health 11:267–276
EPA (1999) Alternate disinfectants and oxidants. EPA Guidance Manual, EPA 815-R-99-014. Chapter 3:1–43
FDA (2001) Secondary direct food additives permitted in food for human consumption. Fed Regist 66:33829–33830
Flores GE, Bates ST, Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Leff JW, Knight R, Fierer N (2013) Diversity, distribution and sources of bacteria in residential kitchens. Environ Microbiol 15:588–596
Folkesson A, Haagensen AJ, Zampaloni C, Sternberg CS, Molin S (2008) Biofilm induced tolerance towards antimicrobial peptides. PLoS One 3:e1891
Greene AK, Güzel‐Seydim ZB, Seydim AC (2012) Chemical and physical properties of ozone. In: O’Donnell C, Tiwari B, Cullen PJ, Rice RG (eds) Ozone in Food Processing. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 19–32
Jin-Gab K, Yousef AE, Dave S (1999) Application of ozone for enhancing the microbiological safety and quality of foods: a review. J Food Prot 62:1071–1087
Khadre MA, Yousef AE, Kim JG (2001) Microbiological aspects of ozone applications in food: a review. J Food Sci 66:1242–1252
Langley JM, Hanakowski M, LeBlanc JC (2001) Unique epidemiology of nosocomial urinary tract infection in children. Am J Infect Control 29:94
Levy SB (2001) Antimicrobial household products: Cause for concern. Emerg Infec Dis 7:512–515
Lynch AS, Robertson GT (2008) Bacterial and fungal biofilm infections. Annu Rev Med 59:415–428
Ma L, Conover M, Lu H, Parsek MR, Bayles K, Wozniak DJ (2009) Assembly and development of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm matrix. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000354
Maldonado NC, Silva de Ruiz C, Cecilia M, Nader-Macias ME (2007) A simple technique to detect Klebsiella biofilm-forming-strains. Inhibitory potential of Lactobacillus fermentum CRL 1058 whole cells and products In: Mendez-Vilas A, (ed) Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology, The Formatex Microbiology Book Series Formatex Center, pp 52–59.
Murphy CN, Clegg S (2012) Klebsiella pneumoniae and type 3 fimbriae: nosocomial infection, regulation and biofilm formation. Future Microbiol 7:1234–1234
Nozaic DJ (2004) Chlorine: Is it really so bad and what are the alternatives? Water Sa 30:18–24
Palou L, Crisosto CH, Smilanick JL, Adaskave JE, Zoffoli JP (2002) Effects of continuous 0.3 ppm ozone exposure on decay development and physiological responses of peaches and table grapes in cold storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 24:39–48
Rice RG, Robson M, Miller GW, Hill AG (1981) Uses of ozone in drinking water treatment. J Am Water Works Assoc 73:44–57
Saha R, Farrance CE, Verghese B, Hong S, Donofrio RS (2013) Klebsiella michiganensis sp. nov., A new bacterium isolated from a tooth brush holder. Curr Microbio 66:72–78
Stewart PS, Costerton JW (2001) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 358:135–138
Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol 56:187–209
Summerfelt ST (2003) Ozonation and UV irradiation—an introduction and examples of current applications. Aquacult Eng 28:21–36
Wollheim C, Guerra IM, Conte VD, Hoffman SE, Schreiner FJ, Delamare AP, Barth AL, Echeverrigaray S, Costa SO (2011) Nosocomial and community infections due to class A extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBLA)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. in southern Brazil. Braz J Infect Dis 15:138–143
Xu KD, McFeters GA, Stewart PS (2000) Biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Microbiology 146:547–549
Yano T, Kubota H, Hanai J, Hitomi J, Tokuda H (2013) Stress tolerance of Methylobacterium biofilms in bathrooms. Microbes Environ 28:87–95
Yousef AE, Vurma M, Rodriguez-Romo LA (2011) Basics of Ozone Sanitization and Food Applications. In: Zhang HQ, Barbosa-Cánovas GV, Balasubramaniam VM, Dunne CP, Farkas DF, Yuan JTC (eds) Nonthermal Processing Technologies for Food. IFT Press Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 289–313
Zekert AE (2009) Effect of alternative household sanitizing formulations including: tea tree oil, borax and vinegar, to inactivate foodborne pathogens on food contact surfaces. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank Dr. Darla Goeres, Center for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University for her excellent technical support, and the Drinking Water Treatment Systems (DWTS) Laboratory and the Microbiology Laboratory at NSF International for providing equipment and facilities for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saha, R., Saha, N., Atwain, A. et al. Evaluation of disinfection efficacy of ozone and chlorinated disinfectant against the biofilm of Klebsiella michiganensis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Ann Microbiol 64, 1607–1613 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-014-0804-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-014-0804-4