4.5 Article

Biofilm growth of individual and dual strains of Klebsiella oxytoca from the dairy industry on ultrafiltration membranes

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10295-009-0637-5

关键词

Biofilm; Ultrafiltration; Membrane; Klebsiella; Dairy

资金

  1. Foundation of Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation of biofilms in dairy membrane plants causes membrane pore blocking, product contamination and subsequent economic loss. To investigate the biofilm growth, two Klebsiella oxytoca strains, K. B006 and TR002, previously isolated from New Zealand dairy membrane plants, were grown both individually and combined on three types of ultrafiltration (UF) membranes in different concentrations of whey medium in biofilm reactors (CBR 90, BioSurface Technologies, Bozeman, USA). Biofilms of both the individual and combined strains grew on the membrane surfaces to levels of 4.9-7.99 log colony-forming units (CFU) cm(-2) measured by standard plate counting after removing the cells by sonication. More biofilm grew on used polyethersulfone (PES) membranes than on new PES and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membranes. Both strains formed good biofilms, although K. B006 formed a denser biofilm than TR002. This corresponded to our previous study on the attachment of these organisms, where K. B006 attached in greater numbers than K. TR002. The dual strains produced a higher biofilm density than single strains on the new membranes. Biofilm density tended to increase with increased whey concentration. The saturated biofilm was approximately 10(8) CFU cm(-2). PES membranes appeared to support biofilm growth less readily than did PVDF membranes and therefore may be the preferred material for UF membranes to reduce problems with microbial colonisation. Used membranes were more readily colonised with biofilm than were new membranes. Therefore, selecting a membrane type and monitoring membrane age will help manage biofilm development during UF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据