Improved procedure for wastewater biofilm removal and analysis

Pierzo, V.; Bellahcen, D.; Fontvieille, Dominique; Лазарова, Валентина; Huyard, A.; Manem, J.

doi:10.1016/0927-7765(94)80068-5

Cited by 12 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, attachment to the surface was not linked to the activity of the bacteria. With a generator fitted with a tip, PIERZO et al (1994) observed the same effect of ultrasound exposure time on removal of both ETS-active and total bacteria. The percentages of ETS-active bacteria observed in our study (from 0.15 to 1.4 %) were lower than those measured in streambed sediments (2-50 %, FISCHER et al, 1996;CLARET and FONTVIEILLE, 1997).…”

Section: Biofilm Removal By the Ultrasonic Bathmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Sonication with addition of a surfactant such as pyrophosphate (ZIPS et al, 1990), Triton X-100 (KUZHINOVSKII, 1991) or Tween 80 (YOON and ROSSON, 1990) is more successful than sonication alone (PIKE et al, 1972;ALBRIGHT, 1984, 1986). Two devices are used to produce ultrasound: ultrasonic baths (LEFF et al, 1994;FISCHER et al, 1996), inexpensive systems employed in many laboratories for cleaning and homogenising; and narrow tip ultrasonic generators, intended for cell removal (DEFLAUN and MAYER, 1983;MATHIEU et al, 1992;PIERZO et al 1994). However, the efficiency of these two devices for the removal of bacteria from sediments for subsequent enumeration has not been compared previously.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Two Ultrasonic Methods for Detaching Biofilms from Natural Substrata

Mermillod‐Blondin

Fauvet

Chalamet

et al. 2001

Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two types of ultrasound applications are commonly used in order to remove bacteria from sediment for subsequent direct enumeration: ultrasonic baths and narrow tip ultrasonic generators. By measuring four parameters (total number of bacteria, number of ETS‐active bacteria, amount of proteins and weight of fine sediment obtained in sonicated juices), we compared the biofilm removal of the optimal ultrasound exposure time previously obtained using the ultrasonic bath with the removal by a method using a narrow tip ultrasonic generator. To obtain comparable removal efficiencies estimated by protein contents in sonicated juices, the ultrasonic bath method required an ultrasound exposure time more than 10 times that with a narrow tip ultrasonic generator. Furthermore, the two methods provided significantly different bacterial counts because of an alteration of the sediment with the ultrasonic bath. Thus, a narrow tip ultrasonic generator is more suitable than an ultrasonic bath for the analysis of biofilms developed on sand.

show abstract

Section: Biofilm Removal By the Ultrasonic Bathmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Two Ultrasonic Methods for Detaching Biofilms from Natural Substrata

Mermillod‐Blondin

Fauvet

Chalamet

et al. 2001

Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Method Based on Artificial Substrates to Monitor Hyporheic Biofilm Development

Claret

1998

International Review of Hydrobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method based on artificial substrata is proposed to study hyporheic biofilm development as well as the procedure to remove bacteria from these biofilms. The device is a perforated pipe in which glass slides are introduced vertically. Attached bacteria are removed by sonication for 180 seconds at power 2 (arbitrary unit); longer sonication time or higher power can cause cell destruction. A bacterial colonization experiment was performed in an upwelling zone of a riffle in the RhBne River. Total bacterial abundances reached a steady-state after 5 days of colonization, and the percentage of ETS-active bacteria was maximal after 3 days of incubation in the bed sediments. These results validate this device as usable to monitor biofilm development in natural systems, making this method as a promising tool to characterize the trophic status of a stream using integrative biological descriptors.

show abstract

Biofilm characterization and activity analysis in water and wastewater treatment

Лазарова¹,

Manem²

1995

Water Research

336

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improved procedure for wastewater biofilm removal and analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

A Comparison of Two Ultrasonic Methods for Detaching Biofilms from Natural Substrata

A Comparison of Two Ultrasonic Methods for Detaching Biofilms from Natural Substrata

A Method Based on Artificial Substrates to Monitor Hyporheic Biofilm Development

Biofilm characterization and activity analysis in water and wastewater treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About