CC BY
14
■О Q-
UDC 664.579.674
Визначено дощльтсть вивчення фор-мування мжробних бiоплiвок на молочному обладнант. Виявлено, що на обладнан-т утворюються бiоплiвки високог i серед-ньог щiльностi. На поверхш з шорсткктю 0,16 мкм утворюються бiоплiвки ниж-чог щiльностi, порiвняно з поверхнею iз шорст^стю 0,63 0,95 мкм. Встановлено, що для визначення ефективностi дезiн-фектантiв необхдно перевiряти вплив на бактери у бiоплiвках
Ключовi слова: бактери, адгезя, бю-плiвки, матрикс, молочне обладнання, нержавюча сталь, шорст^сть, дезшф^
куючi засоби
□-□
Определена целесообразность изучения формирования бактериальных биопленок на молочном оборудовании. Выявлено, что на оборудовании образуются биопленки высокой и средней плотности. На поверхности с шероховатостью 0,16 мкм образуются менее плотные биопленки по сравнению с поверхностью с шероховатостью 0,63 0,95 мкм. Установлено, что для определения эффективности дезин-фектантов необходимо проверять влияние на бактерии в биопленках
Ключевые слова: бактерии, биопленки, адгезия, матрикс, молочное оборудование, нержавеющая сталь, шероховатость, дезинфицирующие средства
■О Q
[dOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2017.1104881
FORMATION OF BIOFILMS ON DAIRY EQUIPMENT AND THE INFLUENCE OF DISINFECTANTS ON THEM
M. Kukhtyn
Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Professor* Е-mail: [email protected] O. Berhilevych Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Professor Department of Public Health Sumy State University Rymskogo-Korsakova str., 2, Sumy, Ukraine, 40007 Е-mail: [email protected] K. Kravcheniuk Postgraduate Student* E-mail: [email protected] O. Shynkaruk Postgraduate Student* E-mail: [email protected] Y. Horiuk PhD, Senior Lecturer Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases State Agrarian and Engineering University in Podilya SchevchenkD str., 13, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ukraine, 32300
E-mail: [email protected] N. Semaniuk PhD, Senior Lecturer Department of Microbiology and Virology Stepan Gzhytskyi National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies Lviv Pekarska str., 50, Lviv, Ukraine, 79010 E-mail: [email protected] *Department of Food Biotechnology and Chemistry Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University Ruska str., 56, Ternopil, Ukraine, 46001
1. Introduction
The key task of dairy industry is the production of a sufficient amount of quality and safe dairy products. The main factor that reduces the terms of storage and safety of dairy products is the micro-organisms [1-3]. Quantitative and qualitative composition of microflora of the products depends on the compliance with hygienic conditions of production and effective sanitation of technological equipment [4-6]. According to data of WHO, the most significant source of microbial contamination of food products during production is the technological equipment [7]. About 40 % of the food poisoning of people in the world are caused by microorganisms that penetrate raw materials and finished products from processing equipment [8]. Microflora mostly survives on the surfaces of equipment during sanitation in
the so-called "dead zones" (bends, joints, gaskets, valves, cracks, scratches) due to the formation of a biofilm [9-12]. According to data in [9], the equipment on which at least one plankton bacteria was detected carries about 1,000 microorganisms formed in the biofilms.
Thus, a detailed study of the microflora on dairy equipment, the mechanisms of survival of bacteria during sanitation, the sources of penetration of microorganisms into milk products is a relevant task in the dairy industry.
2. Literature review and problem statement
A microbial biofilm is the formation that consists of one or more species or genera of bacteria attached to the biogenic or abiogenic surface and surrounded by a self-producing ma-
©
trix [13, 14]. The matrix (extracellular polymeric substance) is a complex of biopolymers (polysaccharides, peptides, nucleic acids, exoferments and other substances) synthesized by the microorganisms that form a biofilm, which protects bacteria from factors of the environment [15, 16].
Formation of biofilms is a complex process that consists of the following stages: adhesion (attachment) of bacteria to the surface, growth of microbial mass, formation of cell clusters, products of the polymeric extracellular matrix [14, 17-20]. Microbial adhesion depends on numerous factors:
- type of bacteria (not all organisms have the same adhesion capability) [21, 22];
- physical and chemical properties of the surface (roughness, chemical composition, surface free energy, hydrophilic-ity or hydrophobicity of the material) [23-26];
- environmental parameters (osmolarity, pH, temperature, oxygen partial pressure, the presence of antimicrobial substances, etc.) [27-30].
Following the attachment of microorganisms to the surface, there starts the process of development of a biofilm. Density of the biofilm subsequently grows through the reproduction of bacteria and the synthesis of the matrix. Upon reaching a critical quantity of bacteria in the biofilm, the cells closest to the adhesive cell surface die due to lack of nutrients, oxygen and a change in pH. The rest of bacteria in the biofilm remain in anabiotic state.
Next, the deepest layers of the biofilm begin to produce planktonic cells that leave the biofilm and colonize other surfaces [31].
Studies show that the microbial biofilms formed on the surfaces of dairy equipment negatively impact safety of the finished product and constitute a danger to the health of people since the composition of biofilms, in addition to saprophytic microflora, may contain pathogenic microorganisms [1, 9, 32]. The biofilms formed by E. coli, Listeria spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, S. aureus, Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas sрp., Bacillus cereus and others were detected on dairy equipment [33-36]. The biofilms created by bacteria of the genera Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Shigella, Escherichia, Enterobacter, Bacillus - on the surfaces of pasteurizers at dairy plants [6, 37-39].
It is reported that the process of biofilm formation on the surfaces of technological lines of dairy equipment has its own peculiarities that distinguish them from the biofilms formed on the medical equipment [12, 16, 27]. This is due to the presence of large number of bends, joints, a considerable length of dairy equipment, automatic washing [11]. That is why the surface relief, its structure and roughness exert significant impact on the process of biofilm formation, which require detailed comprehensive study.
Even though there is a significant quantity of commercially available means for sanitary processing of dairy equipment, not all of them are sufficiently effective [1, 9]. Recent research [40-42] indicate that disinfectants and antibiotics do not always act on bacteria in biofilms. It is reported that resistance of bacteria in a biofilm depends mainly on the composition of the matrix, which is different in different genera of bacteria [19, 29]. That is why disinfectants, which are effective for the biofilms of one genera of bacteria may be inefficient for others.
Thus, there are not enough studies in the dairy industry that would highlight effect of disinfectants on plankton-and biofilm-related forms of bacteria. The experiments to be conducted in this field could make it possible to identify the most effective means of sanitization. This would help to
prevent the formation of stable microbial biofilms on dairy equipment and microbial contamination of finished products.
3. The aim and objectives of the study
The aim of present work was to explore the features of formation of the microflora on dairy equipment and in the finished products, the microorganisms' capability to form biofilms and to determine effectiveness of disinfectants.
To achieve the set aim, the following tasks had to be solved:
- to perform identification of microorganisms isolated from dairy equipment and the products received from milk processing plants;
- to determine density of the biofilms formed by bacteria isolated from dairy equipment;
- to examine formation process of the biofilm Escherich-ia coli on the surface of stainless steel with different surface roughness;
- to determine the impact of antibacterial preparations used for sanitizing milk equipment on the plankton and biofilm forms of microorganisms.
4. Materials and methods for exploring the microflora of dairy equipment, biofilms, and effectiveness of disinfectants
4. 1. Examined materials and equipment used in the experiment
The samples of raw milk, milk washings from dairy equipment, tanks-coolers, packing machines and finished products were selected at three milk processing plants in Ternopil and Lviv oblasts (Ukraine). Milk washings were taken from the equipment after sanitization before and half-way through the technological process of production. Washing and disinfection of the equipment was mostly carried out automatically using the CIP-plants (Cleaning In Place). We used the following disinfectants for sanitiza-tion: chlorine-based (P3-ansep CIP, Eco chlor, Medicarine); based on hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid (P3-oxonia active-150); containing quaternary ammonium salts (Maxidez); based on silver nanoparticles (Argenvit). The samples were delivered to a laboratory in the refrigerator bag at a temperature of 4-6 °C within 1-3 hours.
The equipment used in the experiment, as well as the techniques for determining the microbiological indicators of microflora of the equipment, are described in detail in paper [43].
5. Results of studying the microorganisms of dairy equipment and biofilms
It is well known that the raw milk, which is supplied to milk processing plants, is not sterile; the milk of the highest quality, extra grade, may contain, in line with DSTU 3662-97, microorganisms in the amount of 105 cfu/cm3. This microflora is formed while receiving milk, its initial treatment, cooling and transportation. Accordingly, the microorganisms of raw milk create microflora of the technological equipment at milk processing plants, despite the application of rigorous sanitiza-tion with modern disinfectant agents.
Table 1 gives results of the research into isolation of microorganisms from raw milk, technological equipment, and
ifn-EUr
:i"Pf!
finished products at the milk processing plants in Ternopil and Lviv oblasts. Milk washings were selected from the equipment after sanitization before and half-way through the technological process of production.
Data in Table 1 show that the microflora of the raw milk was most often isolated from tanks-coolers with the most widely spread bacteria being the genus Bacillus and Lactobacillus, which were present in the examined samples in 100 % of cases. Such dairy equipment as bactofuge units, pasteurizers, homogenizers and cheese baths are contaminated with microflora almost to the same degree; bacteria were isolated from these surfaces in 51.3-9.1 % of cases. Packaging machines yielded the least number of microorganisms; such common genera of bacteria as Bacillus and Lactobacillus were isolated in 37.1-11.3 %, respectively, while other species did not exceed 10 % by isolation frequency. A similar tendency was noted also when examining the finished products, out of which most often we isolated representatives of the genus Bacillus and Lactobacillus, 44.4-28.5 %, while bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaceae were found in one third of the investigated samples.
In order to find what properties help microorganisms survive on technological equipment during sanitization, we studied density of the microbial biofilms in the isolated bacteria (Table 2).
Data in Table 2 show that the major genera of microorganisms, which are isolated from the dairy equipment, form microbial biofilms of high and medium density. In 100 % of cases, high-density biofilms were formed by bacteria Bacillus spp. and Enterococcus faecalis. Staphylococci, Esche-richia coli and pseudomonades formed mainly high-density biofilms in 74.3 to 86.8 % of cases. Streptococci, in addition to middle- and high-density biofilms, formed low-density biofilms in 14.7 % of cases. Bacteria of the genus Lacto-bacillus spp. almost equally formed biofilms of high and medium density.
In the food industry, equipment is most commonly made of stainless steel of the following brands AISI 316, AISI 321, AISI 329, AISI 409, AISI 410 [23]. These brands of steel can have different surface roughness. According to the criteria for equipment hygiene, the surface of steel should have a roughness of less than 0.8 jam [44-46] because effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection depends on the magnitude of surface roughness.
Microphotographs of the plates made of stainless steel of brand AISI 321 with different surface roughness are shown in Fig. 1.
c
Fig. 1. Physical appearance of plates made of stainless steel of brand AISI 321 with different surface roughness under a microscope (magnification x 1500): a — roughness (0.955±0.072) pm; b - roughness (0.63±0.087) pm; c — roughness (0.16±0.65) pm
Fig. 1. a-c shows that the surface of steel with a higher roughness has deeper cavities and significant protrusions compared to the surface with less roughness.
The capability to form biofilms by the strain Escherichia colli on the surface of steel of brand AISI 321 with a surface roughness of 0.16±0.072 jam, 0.63±0.087 jam and 0.955±0.065 jam at temperature 17±1 °C over 24 hours is given in Table 3.
Data in Table 3 show that the surface roughness of stainless steel exerts an influence on the process of adhesion and biofilm formation by E. coli. We observed formation of biofilms with lower density on the surface of steel with a roughness of 0.16±0.065 jam, compared to the surface with a roughness of 0.63±0.087 and 0.955±0.072 |im. This pattern is observed at a temperature of 17 °C during period from 6 to 24 hours, with the subsequent formation of a biofilm with high density regardless of the surface roughness. In other words, over 24 hours of incubation, at a temperature of 17±1 °C, the matrix of the biofilm Escherichia coli fills up all cavities and protrusions of the steel surface with its roughness no longer important for adhesion.
Table 1
Examined object Frequency of isolation of microorganisms
Bacillus LoLta^ (10X^^.11 Enterocrccoc Staphylococcus Streptococcus PseudoinG-nor Enterobtcteritiete
Raw milk 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Tanks-coolers 100 100 78.5+4.9 71.3+2.6 52.7+3.4 68.8+4.5 77.2+4.7
Bactofuge units 51.3+3.6 33.7+2.2 36.5+2.3 24.3+1.1 9.1+0.5 11.2+0.7 22.7+1.3
Pasteurizers, homogenizers 64.5±4.7 44.8+2.6 42.5+2.4 12.4+0.5 2.3+0.1 3.2+0.2 37.7+2.2
Cheese baths 77.4+5.6 69.3+3.1 24.6+1.5 17.3+1.1 7.5+0.4 4.7+0.3 38.5+2.5
Packaging machines 37.1+1.9 11.5+0.7 4.6+0.2 2.3+0.1 4.5+0.2 0 8.9+0.5
Dairy products 44.4+2.8 28.5+1.5 11.7+0.7 8.9+0.4 3.2+0.1 2.7+0.1 31.5+0.2
Frequency of isolation of microorganisms from raw milk, technological equipment, and finished products at milk processing plants, % M±m, n=77
Table 2
Formation of biofilms by the microorganisms isolated from technological equipment at milk processing plants, %, M±m, /7=180
Table 3
Density of the Escherichia coli biofilms on the surface of stainless steel of brand AISI 321 at 17±1 °C, units
Results of electron-microscopic studies of bacteria, which were isolated from technological equipment at the milk processing plants, and are in the formed biofilm, are shown in Fig. 2.
b
Fig. 2. Microphotographs of microorganisms formed in a biofilm on dairy equipment: a — Escherichia coli;
b — Pseudomonas f/uorescens; 1 - bacteria in biofilm;
2 — bacteria without biofilm
An analysis of electron-microscopic images, which are shown in Fig. 2, revealed that the microorganisms that are in a biofilm have a physical appearance of solid clusters. By forming cell clusters, bacteria in a biofilm acquire better capabilities to survive under adverse action of detergents and disinfectants.
It is believed that the effective concentration of disinfectants for biofilm forms of bacteria is several times higher than that which acts on the planktonic microorganisms [35, 40, 42]. We determined sensitivity of the bacteria formed in a biofilm to six disinfectants used for sanitizing dairy equipment at milk processing plants. The method of determining sensitivity of planktonic bacteria to the given means served as a control. In the experiments, we used the means in a concentration and at temperature according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Table 4
Examined microorganisms Form Quantity of bacteria per 1 cm3 in a suspension or washing, cfu
Control Argenvit P3-oxonia active-150 Eco chlor Medicarine P3-ansep CIP Maxidez
Staphylococcus aureus planktonic 1.3±0.1x107 8.5±0.6x105 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 2.3±0.2x108 1.8±0.7x107 0 2.1±0.1x103 4.3±0.2x102 2.2±0.2x102 3.8±0.2x101
Streptococcus spp. planktonic 1.0±0.1x107 5.4±0.3x103 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 3.2±0.2x105 6.2±0.4x103 1.0x102 1.2±0.1x103 3.1±0.1x102 1.1±0.1x101 0.9±0.1x101
Enterococcus faecalis. planktonic 1.4±0.1x107 9.8±0.7x105 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 4.1±0.2x107 1.7±0.1x107 0 1.0±0.1x103 2.3±0.1x102 2.0±0.2x101 7.6±0.4x102
Lactobacillus spp. planktonic 2.1±0.2x107 2.4±0.2x103 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 9.8±0.6x106 4.8±0.3x104 2.0±0.1x102 4.1±0.3x102 1.0±0.1x102 4.1±0.2x101 9.0±0.2x101
Escherichia coli planktonic 1.1±0.1x107 1.5±0.1x105 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 3.8±0.2x108 3.2±0.2x107 0 6.1±0.4x102 5.2±0.3x102 9.0±0.6x102 1.2±0.1x102
Pseudomonas aeruginosa planktonic 1.3±0.1x107 1.1±0.1x105 2.5±0.1x101 7.3±0.5x102 0 5.0±0.3x102 0
biofilm 5.9±0.4x106 4.2±0.2x105 5.0±0.2x102 9.9±0.7x103 1.1±0.1x102 6.8±0.4x103 2.0±0.2x103
Pseudomonas fluorescens planktonic 1.0±0.1x107 7.0±0.5x103 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 3.5±0.2x105 8.2±0.7x103 0 0.9x101 3.5±0.2x101 0.8±0.1x101 0
Bacillus spp. planktonic 1.3±0.1x107 9.1±0.7x105 0 0 0 0 0
biofilm 3.0±0.2x108 4.7±0.1x107 2.2±0.1x101 4.6±0.3x102 6.2±0.1x102 4.1±0.2x101 7.7±0.5x102
Microorganisms Quantity of microorganisms, which formed a biofilm of density
low medium high
Bacillus spp. 0 0 100
Lactobacillus spp. 0 42.7±2.8 57.3±3.1
Enterococcus
- faecalis 0 0 100
- faecium 0 21.4±1.5 78.6±3.9
Staphylococcus
- coagulase (positive) 0 13.2±0.8 86.8±4.2
- coagulase (negative) 0 21.4±1.5 78.6±3.4
Streptococcus spp. 14.7±0.8 56.8±2.3 28.5±1.7
Pseudomonas spp. 0 25.7±1.1 74.3±4.8
Escherichia coli 0 17.6±1.3 82.4±4.7
Formation time of a microbial biofilm, hours Surface roughness of stainless steel
0.16±0.065 |im 0.63±0.087 |im 0.955±0.072 |im
3 0.213±0.002 0.214±0.002 0.217±0.002
6 0.418±0.002 0.426±0.002 0.467±0.002
9 0.462±0.003 0.508±0.003 0.572±0.003
12 0.585±0.003 0.680±0.004 0.708±0.004
18 0.634±0.004 0.712±0.004 0.746±0.004
24 0.863±0.004 0.987±0.005 1.217±0.006
Sensitivity of planktonic and biofilm forms of bacteria to disinfectants for sanitizing dairy equipment
Results of research into determining sensitivity of the planktonic and biofilm forms of bacteria to disinfectants are given in Table 4.
Data in Table 4 show that out of the six examined disinfectants only the preparation Argenvit has proved to be ineffective, not only for the destruction of the bacteria in biofilms, but even for the destruction of the planktonic forms. This preparation exerted weak bactericidal effect on bacteria and destroyed 74.0-99.0 % of planktonic microorganisms and 46.3-90.0 % of microorganisms formed in the biofilms.
All working solutions of the disinfectants P3-ansep CIP, Eco chlor, Medicarine, Maxidez showed bactericidal effect on the planktonic bacteria in the concentrations recommended in the instructions. The bacteria formed in biofilms demonstrated increased resistance to the given solutions of disinfectants. After the action of the means, the milk washings from the biofilm surfaces revealed from 9 to 9,900 cfu/cm3.
The most effective disinfectant for the destruction of microbial biofilms turned out to be the P3-oxonia active-150 based on hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. This agent showed bactericidal effect on biofilms of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas fluorescens. The agent decreased the number of bacteria in the biofilms formed by Lactobacillus spp., Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas аeruginosa and Bacillus spp. to 500 cfu per 1 cm3 of washing. The effect of the agent is caused by the action of hydrogen peroxide, which gives off free radicals during reaction, acting on the biofilm's matrix. Pseudomonas aeruginosa proved the most resistant to disinfectants. Only the planktonic forms P. аeruginosa were sensitive to the preparations Medicarine, Maxidez, while biofilm forms were resistant to all the agents used in the experiment.
6. Discussion of results of studying the formation of microbial biofilms on dairy equipment and the action of disinfectants
A presence of microbial biofilms on the surfaces of dairy equipment is regarded as a danger to the health of consumers of products, because the biofilms can contain, in addition to the saprophytic, the pathogenic micro-organisms [1, 9, 34, 35]. It is also obvious that bacteria from the biofilms penetrate dairy products and reduce the time of their shelf life [32, 33]. The studies found that even after standard sani-tization using modern washing and disinfectant agents, dairy equipment is not sterile. The microorganisms are isolated from its surfaces that subsequently form the microflora of finished products. The most common bacteria on equipment are those of the genus Bacillus, Lactobacillus and the family Enterobacteriaceae, which are isolated in 77.2-100 % of cases from raw milk and tanks-coolers, as well as in 22.7-77.4 % of cases from other dairy equipment. This allows us to assume that after the disinfection of dairy equipment its surfaces contain only those bacteria that have the capability to produce films of high and medium density. Thus, in 100 % of cases, high-density biofilms were formed by the bacteria Bacillus spp. and Enterococcus faecalis. Staphylococcus spp, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas spp. formed high-density biofilms in 74.3-86.8 % of cases. Data from the scientific literature indicate [6, 38, 39] that microbial biofilms protect bacteria during sanitization and help to survive on equipment. That is why, even under condition of using automatic CIP-plants,
a constant microbiological control over effectiveness of the conducted sanitization must be put in place at enterprises. Reliable control over this process will ensure the production of dairy products that are safe in terms of microbiological indicators, as well confidence in their quality during storage.
An important factor during formation of biofilms is the process of initial attachment of bacteria to the surface. This stage affects the rate and further growth of biofilms on dairy equipment. Data in the scientific literature indicate that the adhesion of microorganisms depends on numerous factors, including the important role of the surface roughness [23-26]. Stainless steel, which is used for dairy equipment, should have surface roughness less than 0.8 |im [46] since the efficiency of washing the equipment depends on this magnitude. It was found that on the surfaces of stainless steel of brand AISI 321, with a surface roughness of 0.16±0.065 |im, there occurs the process of formation of the Escherichia coli biofilms of lower density compared to the surface with a surface roughness of 0.63±0.087 and 0.955±0.072 |im. This pattern is observed at a temperature of 17 °C, over the period from 6 to 24 hours, followed by the formation of biofilms with high density regardless of the surface roughness. In other words, over 24 hours of incubation, at a temperature of 17 °C, the matrix of the Escherichia coli biofilms fills up all cavities and protrusions at the steel surface with roughness no longer important for the adhesion. This indicates that all the equipment in dairy industry must have such a surface roughness that prevents and inhibits the process of both initial adhesion of bacteria and subsequent formation of biofilms. In addition, effective sanitization of equipment should take place as soon as possible upon completion of the technological process in order to prevent formation of the high-density biofilms. The formed dense biofilms will influence the effectiveness of equipment sanitization with disinfectant agents.
It was established that out of the tested disinfectants for sanitizing the dairy equipment, the silver-based preparation had no effect on the biofilm and planktonic forms of bacteria. Chlorine-based disinfectants (P3-ansep CIP, Eco chlor, Medicarine), as well as those based on quaternary ammonium compounds (Maxidez), showed bactericidal effect on the planktonic bacteria but did not act on the biofilm forms. Upon the action of these agents, we isolated bacteria from the biofilms in the amount of 9 to 9,900 cfu/cm3. The most effective disinfectant for the destruction of microbial biofilms turned out to be P3-oxonia active-150 based on hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. The given agent exerted bactericidal effect on bacteria in the Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp., Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilms. The agent reduced the number of bacteria in the biofilms formed by Lactobacillus spp., Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas аeruginosa and Bacillus spp. to 500 cfu per 1 cm3 of washing. Data from the scientific literature also indicate that the agents containing hydrogen peroxide are the most effective for the destruction of microbial biofilms on equipment [1, 5, 12]. That is why we support scientists [35, 40] who argue that disinfectants showing bactericidal action on microorganisms under laboratory studies may prove ineffective under industrial production. Bacteria in biofilms are more resistant to disinfectants because they form a peptide-polymeric matrix and differ in the rate of development and consumption of nutrients compared with the planktonic forms of bacteria [16, 20]. That is why the established minimum bactericidal concentration of the agent
on planktonic test cultures of micro-organisms cannot be an indicator of the effectiveness of sanitization of dairy equipment. When designing and determining the effectiveness of disinfectants, it is necessary to select such a working concentration that acts not only on the planktonic forms but also on the bacteria, which populate the formed biofilms. In addition, in order to efficiently sanitize dairy equipment, it is necessary to determine adaptation capability of the isolated microflora to disinfectants, and, based on the results of experiments, to replace the agents every 6-12 months of their application.
Thus, the biofilms on dairy equipment are one of the sources of contamination of dairy products by microorganisms; to deal with them, it is required to take a comprehensive approach to solving this problem. It is necessary to carry out research in order to examine composition of the biofilms' matrix, the impact of various biocides and enzymes on them, and to design equipment with anti-adhesive properties.
7. Conclusions
1. It was established that microorganisms of the genera Bacillus spp. and Lactobacillus spp. are isolated from dairy equipment after sanitization and from the finished dairy
products in 100-37.1 % of cases. Bacteria of the genera Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas and the Enterobacteriaceae family are isolated much less often.
2. We determined that bacteria isolated from the equipment form biofilms of high and medium density. This indicates that bacteria formed in the biofilms will survive during sanitization of dairy equipment on its surfaces.
3. It was established that the process of biofilm formation on stainless steel depends on the surface roughness. Esche-richia coli forms biofilms with lower density on the surface of steel with a surface roughness of 0.16±0.065 |^m, compared to the surface with a surface roughness of 0.63-0.072 ^m over 24 hours at a temperature of 17 °C. After this period, e. coli fills up all cavities and protrusions of steel, with roughness no longer important for the process of biofilm formation.
4. It was found that the disinfectant Argenvit had proved to be inefficient for the biofilm and planktonic forms of bacteria. The disinfectants P3-ansep CIP, Eco chlor, Medicarine та Maxidez showed bactericidal effect on the planktonic bacteria, however, they did not act on the biofilm forms. The most effective disinfectant in terms of action on the bacteria in biofilms turned out to be the disinfectant P3-oxonia active-150 based on hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. Thus, in order to efficiently sanitize dairy equipment, it is required to employ disinfectants that affect bacteria in biofilms.
References
1. Malek, F. Microflora of biofilm on Algerian dairy processing lines: An approach to improve microbial quality of pasteurized milk [Text] / F. Malek, B. Moussa-Boudjemaa, F. Khaouani-Yousfi, A. Kalai, M. Kihel // African Journal of Microbiology Research. -2012. - Vol. 6, Issue 17. - P. 3836-3844. doi: 10.5897/ajmr11.1120
2. Shi, X. Biofilm formation and food safety in food industries [Text] / X. Shi, X. Zhu // Trends in Food Science & Technology. -2009. - Vol. 20, Issue 9. - P. 407-413. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2009.01.054
3. Sepulveda, D. R. Shelf life of whole milk processed by pulsed electric fields in combination with PEF-generated heat [Text] / D. R. Sepulveda, M. M. Góngora-Nieto, J. A. Guerrero, G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas // LWT - Food Science and Technology. - 2009. -Vol. 42, Issue 3. - P. 735-739. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2008.10.005
4. Aires, G. S. B. Bacillus cereus in Refrigerated Milk Submitted to Different Heat Treatments [Text] / G. S. B. Aires, E. H. M. Walter, V. C. A. Junqueira, S. M. Roig, J. A. F. Faria // Journal of Food Protection. - 2009. - Vol. 72, Issue 6. - P. 1301-1305. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.6.1301
5. Walkling-Ribeiro, M. Microbial inactivation and shelf life comparison of 'cold' hurdle processing with pulsed electric fields and microfiltration, and conventional thermal pasteurisation in skim milk [Text] / M. Walkling-Ribeiro, O. Rodríguez-González, S. Jayaram, M. W. Griffiths // International Journal of Food Microbiology. - 2011. - Vol. 144, Issue 3. - P. 379-386. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijfoodmicro.2010.10.023
6. Petrus, R. R. Microbiological Shelf Life of Pasteurized Milk in Bottle and Pouch [Text] / R. R. Petrus, C. G. Loiola, C. A. F. Oliveira // Journal of Food Science. - 2010. - Vol. 75, Issue 1. - P. M36-M40. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01443.x
7. Lequette, Y. Using enzymes to remove biofilms of bacterial isolates sampled in the food-industry [Text] / Y. Lequette, G. Boels, M. Clarisse, C. Faille // Biofouling. - 2010. - Vol. 26, Issue 4. - P. 421-431. doi: 10.1080/08927011003699535
8. Haeghebaert, S. Food poisoning incidents in France in 1998 [Text] / S. Haeghebaert, F. Le Querrec, V. Vaillant et. al. // Bull Epidemiol Hebdomad. - 2010. - P. 65-70.
9. Marchand, S. Biofilm Formation in Milk Production and Processing Environments; Influence on Milk Quality and Safety [Text] / S. Marchand, J. De Block, V. De Jonghe, A. Coorevits, M. Heyndrickx, L. Herman // Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. - 2012. - Vol. 11, Issue 2. - P. 133-147. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2011.00183.x
10. Bremer, P. Biofilms in dairy processing [Text] / P. Bremer, B. Seale, S. Flint, J. Palmer // Biofilms in the Food and Beverage Industries. - 2009. - P. 396-431. doi: 10.1201/9781439847480-c15
11. Bremer, P. J. Laboratory scale Clean-In-Place (CIP) studies on the effectiveness of different caustic and acid wash steps on the removal of dairy biofilms [Text] / P. J. Bremer, S. Fillery, A. J. McQuillan // International Journal of Food Microbiology. - 2006. -Vol. 106, Issue 3. - P. 254-262. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.07.004
12. Seale, B. Overview of the Problems Resulting from Biofilm Contamination in the Dairy Industry [Text] / B. Seale, P. Bremer, S. Flint, J. Brooks, J. Palmer // Biofilms in the Dairy Industry. - 2015. - P. 49-64. doi: 10.1002/9781118876282.ch4
13. Oliveira, N. M. Correction: Biofilm Formation As a Response to Ecological Competition [Text] / N. M. Oliveira, E. Martinez-Garcia, J. Xavier, W. M. Durham, R. Kolter, W. Kim, K. R. Foster // PLOS Biology. - 2015. - Vol. 13, Issue 8. - P. e1002232. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pbio.1002232
14. Monds, R. D. The developmental model of microbial biofilms: ten years of a paradigm up for review [Text] / R. D. Monds, G. A. O'Toole // Trends in Microbiology. - 2009. - Vol. 17, Issue 2. - P. 73-87. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2008.11.001
15. Römling, U. Microbial biofilm formation: a need to act [Text] / U. Römling, S. Kjelleberg, S. Normark, L. Nyman, B. E. Uhlin, B. Äkerlund // Journal of Internal Medicine. - 2014. - Vol. 276, Issue 2. - P. 98-110. doi: 10.1111/joim.12242
16. Hall-Stoodley, L. Bacterial biofilms: from the Natural environment to infectious diseases [Text] / L. Hall-Stoodley, J. W. Costerton, P. Stoodley // Nature Reviews Microbiology. - 2004. - Vol. 2, Issue 2. - P. 95-108. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro821
17. Finkel, J. S. Genetic control of Candida albicans biofilm development [Text] / J. S. Finkel, A. P. Mitchell // Nature Reviews Microbiology. - 2010. - Vol. 9, Issue 2. - P. 109-118. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2475
18. Zhao, K. Psl trails guide exploration and microcolony formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms [Text] / K. Zhao, B. S. Tseng, B. Beckerman, F. Jin, M. L. Gibiansky, J. J. Harrison et. al. // Nature. - 2013. - Vol. 497, Issue 7449. - P. 388-391. doi: 10.1038/ nature12155
19. Lopez, D. Biofilms [Text] / D. Lopez, H. Vlamakis, R. Kolter // Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. - 2010. - Vol. 2, Issue 7. - P. a000398-a000398. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a000398
20. Ha, D.-G. c-di-GMP and its Effects on Biofilm Formation and Dispersion: a Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Review [Text] / D.-G. Ha, G. A. O'Toole // Microbiology Spectrum. - 2015. - Vol. 3, Issue 2. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.mb-0003-2014
21. Langsrud, S. Microbial dynamics in mixed culture biofilms of bacteria surviving sanitation of conveyor belts in salmon-processing plants [Text] / S. Langsrud, B. Moen, T. Meretra, M. Leype, E. Heir // Journal of Applied Microbiology. - 2016. - Vol. 120, Issue 2. - P. 366-378. doi: 0.1111/jam.13013
22. Cherif-Antar, A. Diversity and biofilm-forming capability of bacteria recovered from stainless steel pipes of a milk-processing dairy plant [Text] / A. Cherif-Antar, B. Moussa-Boudjemaa, N. Didouh, K. Medjahdi, B. Mayo, A. B. Florez // Dairy Science & Technology. - 2015. - Vol. 96, Issue 1. - P. 27-38. doi: 10.1007/s13594-015-0235-4
23. Garcia, S. Impact of the surface roughness of AISI 316L stainless steel on biofilm adhesion in a seawater-cooled tubular heat exchanger-condenser [Text] / S. Garcia, A. Trueba, L. M. Vega, E. Madariaga // Biofouling. - 2016. - Vol. 32, Issue 10. -P. 1185-1193. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2016.1241875
24. Cowle, M. W. Biofilm development in water distribution and drainage systems: dynamics and implications for hydraulic efficiency [Text] / M. W. Cowle, A. O. Babatunde, W. B. Rauen, B. N. Bockelmann-Evans, A. F. Barton // Environmental Technology Reviews. - 2014. - Vol. 3, Issue 1. - P. 31-47. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2014.923517
25. Ferreira, C. Biofilm Control With New Microparticles With Immobilized Biocide [Text] / C. Ferreira, A. M. Pereira, M. C. Pereira, M. Simoes, L. F. Melo // Heat Transfer Engineering. - 2013. - Vol. 34, Issue 8-9. - P. 712-718. doi: 10.1080/01457632.2012.739040
26. Hcevar, M. An overview of the influence of stainless-steel surface properties on bacterial adhesion [Text] / M. Hcevar, M. Jenko, M. Godec, D. Drobne // Materials and technology. - 2014. - Vol. 48, Issue 5. - P. 609-617.
27. Krushelnytska, N. V. Influence of pH on the ability to form microbial biofilms by microorganisms isolated from milking equipment and raw milk [Text] / N. V. Krushelnytska // Scientific and Technical Bulletin of the Institute of Animal Biology and the State Scientific-Research Control Institute of Veterinary Preparations and Feed Additives. - 2013. - Vol. 14, Issue 3-4. - P. 82-86. -Available at: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Ntbibt_2013_14_3-4_17
28. Frasseto, F. Relationship among Salivary Carbonic Anhydrase VI Activity and Flow Rate, Biofilm pH and Caries in Primary Dentition [Text] / F. Frasseto, T. M. Parisotto, R. C. R. Peres, M. R. Marques, S. R. P. Line, M. Nobre dos Santos // Caries Research. - 2012. - Vol. 46, Issue 3. - P. 194-200. doi: 10.1159/000337275
29. Chandy, J. P. Determination of nutrients limiting biofilm formation and the subsequent impact on disinfectant decay [Text] / J. P. Chandy, M. L. Angles // Water Research. - 2001. - Vol. 35, Issue 11. - P. 2677-2682. doi: 10.1016/s0043-1354(00)00572-8
30. Sheng, X. The influence of ionic strength, nutrients and pH on bacterial adhesion to metals [Text] / X. Sheng, Y. P. Ting, S. O. Pehkonen //Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. - 2008. - Vol. 321, Issue 2. - P. 256-264. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.02.038
31. Kolter, R. Microbial sciences: The superficial life of microbes [Text] / R. Kolter, E. P. Greenberg // Nature. - 2006. - Vol. 441, Issue 7091. - P. 300-302. doi: 10.1038/441300a
32. Volkova, H. Biofilms and hygiene on dairy farms and in the dairy industry: sanitation chemical products and their effectiveness on biofilms - a review [Text] / H. Volkova, V. Babak // Czech S. Food Sci. - 2008. - Vol. 26, Issue 5. - P. 309-323.
33. Arciola, C. R. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials [Text] / C. R. Arciola, D. Campoccia, P. Speziale, L. Montanaro, J. W. Costerton // Biomaterials. -2012. - Vol. 33, Issue 26. - P. 5967-5982. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.05.031
34. Gunduz, G. T. Biofilm formation in an ice cream plant [Text] / G. T. Gunduz, G. Tuncel // Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. - 2006. -Vol. 89, Issue 3-4. - P. 329-336. doi: 10.1007/s10482-005-9035-9
35. Abdallah, M. Biofilm formation and persistence on abiotic surfaces in the context of food and medical environments [Text] / M. Abdallah, C. Benoliel, D. Drider, P. Dhulster, N.-E. Chihib // Archives of Microbiology. - 2014. - Vol. 196, Issue 7. - P. 453-472. doi: 10.1007/s00203-014-0983-1
36. Puga, C. H. Listeria monocytogenes Impact on Mature or Old Pseudomonas fluorescens Biofilms During Growth at 4 and 20 °C [Text] / C. H. Puga, B. Orgaz, C. SanJose // Frontiers in Microbiology. - 2016. - Vol. 7. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00134
37. Munsch-Alatossava, P. Phenotypic characterization of raw milk-associated psychrotrophic bacteria [Text] / P. Munsch-Alatossava, T. Alatossava // Microbiological Research. - 2006. - Vol. 161, Issue 4. - P. 334-346. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2005.12.004
38. Shaheen, R. Persistence strategies of Bacillus cereus spores isolated from dairy silo tanks [Text] / R. Shaheen, B. Svensson, M. A. Andersson, A. Christiansson, M. Salkinoja-Salonen // Food Microbiology. - 2010. - Vol. 27, Issue 3. - P. 347-355. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2009.11.004
39. Ranieri, M. L. High temperature, short time pasteurization temperatures inversely affect bacterial numbers during refrigerated storage of pasteurized fluid milk [Text] / M. L. Ranieri, J. R. Huck, M. Sonnen, D. M. Barbano, K. J. Boor // Journal of Dairy Science. - 2009. - Vol. 92, Issue 10. - P. 4823-4832. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2144
40. Cloete, T. E. Resistance mechanisms of bacteria to antimicrobial compounds [Text] / T. E. Cloete // International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. - 2003. - Vol. 51, Issue 4. - P. 277-282. doi: 10.1016/s0964-8305(03)00042-8
41. Davin-Regli, A. Cross-resistance between biocides and antimicrobials: an emerging question [Text] / A. Davin-Regli, J. M. Pages // evue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE. - 2012. - Vol. 31, Issue 1. - P. 89-104. doi: 10.20506/rst.31.1.2099
42. Simoes, M. A review of current and emergent biofilm control strategies [Text] / M. Simoes, L. C. Simoes, M. J. Vieira // LWT - Food Science and Technology. - 2010. - Vol. 43, Issue 4. - P. 573-583. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2009.12.008
43. Kukhtyn, M. The influence of disinfectants on microbial biofilms of dairy equipment [Text] / M. Kukhtyn, O. Berhilevych, K. Kravcheniuk, O. Shynkaruk, Y. Horiuk, N. Semaniuk // EUREKA: Life Sciences. - 2017. - Issue 5. - P. 11-17. doi: 10.21303/2504-5695.2017.00423
44. Determinant of Bergy bacteria. Vol. 2 [Text] / J. Hoolta, N. Kriga, P. Snita et. al. (Eds.). - ninth ed. - Moscow: Mir, 1997. - 799 p.
45. Stepanovic, S. A modified microtiter-plate test for quantification of staphylococcal biofilm formation [Text] / S. Stepanovic, D. Vukovic, I. Dakic, B. Savic, M. Svabic-Vlahovic // Journal of Microbiological Methods. - 2000. - Vol. 40, Issue 2. - P. 175-179. doi: 10.1016/s0167-7012(00)00122-6
46. Hygienic equipment design criteria [Text]. - Brussels: EHEDG, 2004. - No. 8.
