Efficiency and novelty of using environmental swabs for dry-surface biofilm recovery
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Studies on the epidemiology of dry-surface biofilms (DSBs) within healthcare settings have shown an almost universal distribution across frequently touched items. Despite a growing body of evidence for DSBs in hospitals, little attention has been paid to the recovery capacity of techniques used to detect these microbial communities. Biofilms are inherently difficult to remove from surfaces due to adhesive substances within their matrix and may act as sources of infection, but to what extent is largely unknown. In this study, we evaluate the recovery efficiencies of commonly used environmental swabs against DSBs containing 7.24 log 10 Acinetobacter baumannii cm −2 , using a drip flow reactor and desiccation cycle. Biofilm presence was visually confirmed using episcopic differential interference contrast microscopy combined with epifluorescence and quantified using sonicated viable plate counts. The swab materials used comprised foam, viscose and cotton, all of which were pre-moistened using a buffer solution. The surfaces were vigorously swabbed by each material type and the resultant microbe populations for both swabs and remaining DSBs were quantified. Our results found foam-tipped swabs to be superior, detecting on average 30 % of the original DSB contamination; followed by viscose (6 %) and cotton (3 %). However, no distinct difference was revealed in the concentration of microbes remaining on the surface after swabbing for each swab type, suggesting there is variation in the capacity for each swab to release biofilm-associated micro-organisms. We conclude whilst environmental swabs do possess the ability to detect biofilms on dry surfaces, the reduced efficiencies are likely to cause an underestimation of the microbes present and should be considered during clinical application.
Article activity feed
-
-
Thank you for the time to revise the manuscript to include the Open Data requirement. Congratulations on the publication of this manuscript.
-
-
Thank you for your revision, and addressing the reviewers previous comments. Whilst we are satisfied with these changes, the Open Data requirement still needs to be addressed im afraid. Access Microbiology has a mandatory Open Data Policy and requires all manuscripts to make all underpinning data available. We cannot move forward without this and risks being marked as 'No Longer Under Review'. Please see the Open Data Policy here: https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/open-data. If you'd like to discuss this further, you can reach out to me or to the Editor-in-Chief Dr Helina Marshall.
-
-
Please deposit the data underlying the work in the Society’s data repository Figshare account here: https://microbiology.figshare.com/submit. Please also cite this data in the Data Summary of the main manuscript and list it as a unique reference in the References section. When you resubmit your article, the Editorial staff will post this data publicly on Figshare and add the DOI to the Data Summary section where you have cited it. This data will be viewable on the Figshare website with a link to the preprint and vice versa, allowing for greater discovery of your work, and the unique DOI of the data means it can be cited independently.
-
Comments to Author
1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data-- The study was overall conducted well, however the interpretation of the micrographs was overly generous. From the images presented, it appears that there are similar amounts of dead cells across the entire field of view, however with the limitations of EF it is difficult to determine the density of dead cells in the un-swabbed area, nor is it possible to discern the top vs the bottom of the biofilm. Confocal microscopy would be preferable. Also, I would prefer to see swab sampling of a variety of biofilm densities, as the drip flow biofilm produces a more dense and robust biofilm than is commonly found in hospital environments. Lines 137-138 state that data are available "upon reasonable request." I would advise to include …
Comments to Author
1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data-- The study was overall conducted well, however the interpretation of the micrographs was overly generous. From the images presented, it appears that there are similar amounts of dead cells across the entire field of view, however with the limitations of EF it is difficult to determine the density of dead cells in the un-swabbed area, nor is it possible to discern the top vs the bottom of the biofilm. Confocal microscopy would be preferable. Also, I would prefer to see swab sampling of a variety of biofilm densities, as the drip flow biofilm produces a more dense and robust biofilm than is commonly found in hospital environments. Lines 137-138 state that data are available "upon reasonable request." I would advise to include the data in a supplement to ensure the availability prior to publication. 2. Presentation of results--The results are presented clearly and provide an adequate understanding of the findings. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings--The style and organization of the paper is easy to follow and communicate the results well. 4. Literature analysis or discussion--The discussion was sufficient and addressed several key critiques and presented this study in the context of the field. 5. Any other relevant comments
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This paper presents work investigating the detection of dry surface biofilms on surfaces through wet swabbing, using three different materials. The authors present an interesting, relevant piece of work that is an important topic in infection control. Results show that swabbing retains much of the biofilm material and does not account for much of what is actually present on the surface. I would like to see how this works in principle with clinical surfaces. Although methods are easily reproducible and outlined clearly, I have one query with the production of the dry surface biofilm. The authors mention that dry surface biofilm that was made was only put through one desiccation cycle for 48-66 hours? Compared to other DSB models this does not seem long enough/representative of what is happening on a …
Comments to Author
This paper presents work investigating the detection of dry surface biofilms on surfaces through wet swabbing, using three different materials. The authors present an interesting, relevant piece of work that is an important topic in infection control. Results show that swabbing retains much of the biofilm material and does not account for much of what is actually present on the surface. I would like to see how this works in principle with clinical surfaces. Although methods are easily reproducible and outlined clearly, I have one query with the production of the dry surface biofilm. The authors mention that dry surface biofilm that was made was only put through one desiccation cycle for 48-66 hours? Compared to other DSB models this does not seem long enough/representative of what is happening on a clinical surface. I think this is a good initial model but DSB are formed over a long period of time and what makes them different from wet biofilms is the fact they go through sequential dehydration and hydration phases from routine cleaning/disinfection protocol. It was also mentioned that at least two repeats were carried out, I would suggest always doing three to be able to carry out statistical analysis. Results and findings are presented clearly with appropriate figures and tables. The paper is well written and key findings are outlined in the discussion. Critical analysis of certain aspects of the work and limitations are discussed well. There are a few more recent papers on dry surface biofilms that are not mentioned in the discussion, so perhaps it could do with the addition of the most recent work too.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-