Biofilms are ubiquitous in drinking water systems, either in the form of thin and patchy colonies or as surface-covering multiple layers. In biofilters they are used for the elimination of biologically degradable substances. However, they occur in other sites, e.g., on the walls of containers and pipes, on sediment and on suspended particles. They can rise problems by contamination of the water phase by detaching biofilm organisms. Biofilms provide a possible habitat for hygienically relevant microbes in which they can persist and even multiply. Here they are protected against disinfectants, in particular if located in corrosion products, sediments or ingested by protozoa which feed on biofilm cells. Biofilms are related to the occurrence of “black water” and malodours. They are involved in the corrosion of metals, mineral materials and synthetic polymers. The limiting factor for biofilm growth is usually the availability of nutrients, mainly provided either by biodegradable substances leaching from materials or from by the water phase. The extent of biofilm growth and of the occurrence of hygienically relevant organisms is still unknown and to be investigated. However, latest research indicates that such organisms do not multiply in large numbers in drinking water biofilms; it is possible that drinking water biofilms can inhibit the propagation of invading pathogens.

No abstract

Multiple in vitro models were utilised to evaluate the biofilm management capabilities of seven commercially‐available wound dressings, varying in composition and antibacterial ingredients, to reduce common aerobic, anaerobic, and multispecies biofilms. The Center for Disease Control bioreactor was used to evaluate single species Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) 24 and 48 hours biofilms, as well as a multispecies biofilm consisting of these two organisms in addition to Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). As wound biofilms often exist in hypoxic wound environments, a direct contact anaerobic model system was used to evaluate efficacy on Bacteroides fragilis (B. fragilis). Biofilm control was evaluated against P. aeruginosa in the drip flow bioreactor model, where a constant flow of proteinaceous media is used to create a more challenging and wound‐like model. The results demonstrated that biofilm management capabilities varied amongst wound dressings. Two dressings, a controlled‐release iodine foam dressing and a silver nanocrystalline dressing, showed potent >4 log reductions in recovered organisms compared with untreated controls in all biofilm models evaluated. The effectiveness of other dressings to manage bioburden varied between dressing, test organism, and model system. A silver foam dressing showed moderate biofilm control in some models. However, biofilm exposure to methylene blue and gentian violet‐containing foam dressings showed negligible log reductions in all in vitro biofilm methods examined. The data outlined in this in vitro study support the use of the iodine foam dressing for wounds with infection and biofilm.

No abstract