early biofilm detection
TRANSCRIPT
1
Direct Detection of Biofilms
Mark Fornalik
Ethox International
2
• Biofouling* is the unwanted adhesion of bacteria or other organisms onto surfaces of solution-handling systems
• Biofouling is not necessarily uniform in space & time
• Biofouling may contain significant amounts of inorganic materials held together by the polymeric matrix
*(Charackis & Marshall, Biofilms, 1990)
What is Biofouling?
Biofouling can be extraordinarily difficult to detect and control
3
What Problems Does Biofouling Cause?
• Off taste in food & beverage products• Product spoilage• Extended downtimes to clean the process• More aggressive process cleaning
methods• Random microbiology problems
4
Current Biofilm Detection Methods
• Product sampling:– Taste (for food & beverage products)
– Microbiological plating
• Process sampling:– Microbiological plating of water rinse effluent– Microbiological plating of process swab
samples
– ATP or PCR analysis of swab samples
All of these methods require organisms to grow in culture in the microbiology lab
5
Problems with Current Biofilm Test Methods
• Biofilms can be remarkably difficult to find and sample in large-scale manufacturing processes (i.e., pipes and tanks)
• Even if recovered, biofilms tend not to grow in culture in the microbiology lab
• Culturing techniques, if they work, only indicate whether an organism is dead, not if the organism is dormant or even if the dead organism has been removed from the process
• Dead organisms on a process surface serve as a nutrient source for the wave of microorganisms
• Biofilms will sacrifice the outermost layer of organisms to cleaning chemicals but protect the hidden, innermost layer of organisms from CIP methods
• High-tech methods of ATP and PCR analysis require a minimum number of cells in order to generate a signal; very few cells are necessary to generate an abundance of biofilm exopolymer (“glue”) and biofilms can evade detection by ATP and PCR methods
6
Biofilm Locations
• Biofilms can be found in:– Water systems– Food & beverage plant product lines– Dairy processing plants– Pharmaceutical manufacturing processes– Cosmetics and nutraceuticals plants– Raw materials suppliers’ processes– Cleaning chemicals– Steam lines– Fine & specialty chemicals plants– Pulp & paper mills– Heat exchangers
7
Biofilm-Related Contaminants
• Cells (possibly pathogenic)
• Anions (acetate, formate, nitrate, etc.)• Proteins, glycoproteins, carbohydrates, fatty
acids• Enzymes• Surfactants
• Organic and inorganic particles• Substrate degradation (metal & plastics
corrosion)
8
The goal of cleaning is to return the system to the induction period level of fouling
Biofouling Rate
time
fou
ling
mas
s
physical
chemical
induction period
secondary fouling
Physical quality of product degrades
Chemical quality of product degrades
9
Fouling Cell Techology
• Does not depend on microbial culturing techniques to detect biofilms
• Biofilms are not removed from their surface but instead analyzed while still in place on the colonized surface
• Fouling cell analysis by reflection infrared spectroscopy detects primarily the biofilm exopolymer, not the organisms, and as a result detects the very earliest stages of biofilm formation
10
Fouling Cell: Sanitary Cross with Polished End Caps
Product Flow
Biofouling that adsorbs on pipe wall also adsorbs on mirror-polished end caps (fouling cell discs)
Insoluble material deposits on pipe wall and mirror-polished end cap during product flow
Mirror-polished end caps
11
Measuring Wall Fouling
Fouled end cap (fouling cell disc)
Fourier transform infrared beam
Spectrum from reflected infrared beam
12
FTIR provides a “chemical fingerprint” of the biofilm, as well as an indication of biofilm amount
Fouling Identification
13
Fouling Cell Analysis Tracks Biofilm Chemistry Changes Over Time
*Subtraction Result:ir1848, 610 NRX disc #26, 3-month exposure, no clean*Subtraction Result:ir1896, 610 NRX, 14 batches (4 days), disc #7 (1/30 - 2/2/98)*Subtraction Result:ir2288, 610, NRX, #10, 24 hours, 5 batches, 2/26 - 2/27/98*Subtraction Result:ir1974, disc 10, 610 NRX, 1 batch, 4 hrs, without santoprene gasket
-0.008
-0.007
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.019
0.020
Abs
orba
nce
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
Wavenumbers (cm-1)
Biofilm chemistry changes to cleaning-resistant exopolymer upon aging
2 hrs
8 hrs
24 hrs
6 mo
14
Fouling Cell Analysis Tracks Impact of Improved Mechanical Cleaning on Biofilm
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
0.0065
0.0070
0.0075
0.0080
Abs
orba
nce
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Wavenumbers (cm-1)
-0.0010
-0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
0.0065
0.0070
0.0075
0.0080
Abs
orba
nce
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Wavenumbers (cm-1)
Peak height data correlate to effectiveness of cleaning: the smaller the peak, the more effective the cleaning
Old water flush
Improved water flush
15
Biofilm Resistance to Cleaning• Standard CIP methods may not remove biofilm
• Biofilms able to grow after 8 months desiccation• Biofilms withstood 80C or higher water
temperatures• Biofilms withstood 20, 50 and 200 ppm chlorine,
25 ppm iodine∗ Food Protection Report, 7(5):8 (1991)
16
Bacteria Populations in a Pipe
TRADITIONAL SAMPLING: 1% of total bacteria population inside of pipe is planktonic (free swimming organisms from bulk solution)
Sessile organisms (biofilms) can be very resistant to cleaning
FOULING CELL SAMPLING: 99% of total bacteria population inside of pipe is sessile (attached biofilm on the wall of the pipe)
17
1 day 2 days
9 days4 days
45°C Ultrapure Water Biofouling
18
Biofilm Resistance to Cleaning: Bleach Treatment
Biofilm remaining after bleach treatment
19
Fouling Cell Analysis Directly Measures Impact of Chemical
Cleaning Parameters
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
25 C 45 C 65 C5% NaOH
clea
nin
g e
ffic
ien
cy
Impact of temperature
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0.2% 1.0% 5.0%NaOH wt% @ 60 C
clea
nin
g e
ffic
ien
cy
Impact of concentration
The higher the bars, the more efficient the cleaning
20
Case Study: Mapping Process CIP Efficacy in a Brewery
FTIR & epifluorescence of fouling cells can provide cleaning efficacy data from end to end of a process
FTIR spectra of fouling cells placed in 5 locations of a brewery process (stages A through E) for 8 weeks
21
Process Mapping in a Brewery: FTIR Peak Heights by Location
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
A B C D E
abso
rban
ce u
nit
s
PackagingProcess Start
22
Brewery Wort Line
2 weeks, 100x objective 8 weeks, 100x objective
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
A B C D E
abso
rban
ce u
nit
s
8-week fouling cell shows the beginning of biofilm exopolymer
23
Brewery Aging Line
2 weeks, 100x objective 8 weeks, 100x objective
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
A B C D E
abso
rban
ce u
nit
s
Fouling cells show aging line cleaning requires more water velocity
24
Brewery Filler Inlet Line
2 weeks, 100x objective 8 weeks, 100x objective
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
A B C D E
ab
sorb
an
ce u
nit
s
Fouling cells determine onset of biofouling in bottling line
25
Brewery Filler Inlet Line
8 weeks, 100x objective 8 weeks, 100x objective
26
Case Study: Winery Bottling Line 1 After CIP
1-week exposure, 100x 4-week exposure, 100x
Bottling line 1 appears very clean
27
1-week exposure, 100x 4-week exposure, 100x
Winery Bottling Line 2 After CIP
Bottling line 2 appears to have some particle contamination
28
After water flush After CIP
Removed by CIP
Not Removed by CIP
Winery Bottling Line 2 Before & After CIP
Fouling cell technology detects that the winery CIP removes one fouling component but not the others from the stainless steel process surface
29
Case Study: Biotech Company Fermentation
2-day exposure before CIP
2-day exposure after CIP
4-week exposure after CIP
Fouling cell technology reveals CIP-resistant biofilm at 4 weeks
30
Biotech Company Recovery
2-day exposure before CIP
2-day exposure after CIP
4-week exposure after CIP
Fouling cell technology reveals CIP-resistant biofilm at 4 weeks
31
Conclusions
• In-line fouling cells can provide:– An early warning for issues of process cleanliness
and health– Information on chemistry and rate of biofouling within
system– Objective data on CIP efficacy– Ability to determine efficacy of proposed cleaning
changes in the lab, not in production– Ability to screen new products for fouling propensity
• These methods are complimentary to existing process health measures