Effects of rotating magnetic field exposure on the functional parameters of different species of bacteria

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of the rotating magnetic field (RMF) on the growth, cell metabolic activity and biofilm formation by S. aureus, E. coli, A. baumannii, P. aeruginosa, S. marcescens, S. mutans, C. sakazakii, K. oxytoca and S. xylosus. Bacteria were exposed to the RMF (RMF magnetic induction B = 25-34 mT, RMF frequency f = 5-50 Hz, time of exposure t = 60 min, temperature of incubation 37 °C). The persistence of the effect of exposure (B = 34 mT, f = 50 Hz, t = 60 min) on bacteria after further incubation (t = 300 min) was also studied. The work showed that exposure to RMF stimulated the investigated parameters of S. aureus, E. coli, S. marcescens, S. mutans, C. sakazakii, K. oxytoca and S. xylosus, however inhibited cell metabolic activity and biofilm formation by A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. The results obtained in this study proved, that the RMF, depending on its magnetic induction and frequency can modulate functional parameters of different species of bacteria.

Using of Magnetic Water Technology for the Management of Brown Rot Disease of Potato

“…Moreover Mahdi et al (2017) indicated that MW had bactericidal effect against P. aeruginosa. Whereas, the findings of this investigation had the approval of Fijałkowski et al (2015) who revealed that the RMF encouraged the growth of E. coli, K. oxytoca, S. aureus, S. marcescens, S. mutans, C. sakazakii, and S. xylosus.…”

“…growth. (Fijałkowski et al, 2015) mentioned that the enhancement of bacterial viability may be due to the activation of bacterial metabolic activity that stimulates the growth rate and biofilm formation. Li et al (2015) and Ren et al (2018) revealed that the stimulation of bacterial growth may also due to the increasing of bacterial enzymatic activities.…”

“…Fojt et al (2004) showed that low-frequency MF (t < 30 min, Bm = 10 mT, f = 50 Hz) led to decrease the viability of Staphylococcus aureus, Leclercia adecarboxylata and Escherichia coli. On the other hand, Fijałkowski et al (2015) revealed that the rotating magnetic field (RMF) (B ¼ 25-34 mT, RMF frequency f ¼ 5-50 Hz, time of exposure t ¼ 60 min, temperature of incubation 37 °C) encouraged the growth of E. coli, K. oxytoca, S. aureus, S. marcescens, S. mutans, C. sakazakii, and S. xylosus.…”

Biochemical and cellular properties of Gluconacetobacter xylinus cultures exposed to different modes of rotating magnetic field

“…There are numerous reports showing that MFs may have infl uence on microorganisms and thus change their biotechnological potential [16][17][18] . The research concerning the use of MFs in the biotechnological engineering conducted to date have concerned mostly static magnetic fi elds (SMFs), whereas the biotechnologically promising idea to use rotating magnetic fi elds (RMFs) is developed just relatively recently [19][20][21] . In previous studies we showed that the RMF can be used to increase (over 20% compared to the bacteria non-exposed to RMF) the growth and cell metabolic activity of such microorganisms as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Streptococcus mutans, Cronobacter sakazakii, Klebsiella oxytoca and Staphylococcus xylosus) [20][21] .…”

“…The research concerning the use of MFs in the biotechnological engineering conducted to date have concerned mostly static magnetic fi elds (SMFs), whereas the biotechnologically promising idea to use rotating magnetic fi elds (RMFs) is developed just relatively recently [19][20][21] . In previous studies we showed that the RMF can be used to increase (over 20% compared to the bacteria non-exposed to RMF) the growth and cell metabolic activity of such microorganisms as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Streptococcus mutans, Cronobacter sakazakii, Klebsiella oxytoca and Staphylococcus xylosus) [20][21] . Similarly, the current study also showed that, depending on its mode, RMF exposure increased the growth of G. xylinus by as much as 43% as compared to the control unexposed cultures.…”