4.2 Article

Efficacy of Different Carrier Gases for Barrier Discharge Plasma Generation Compared to Chlorhexidine on the Survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Embedded in Biofilm in vitro

期刊

SKIN PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 148-157

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000353861

关键词

Biofilm; Wound management; Antimicrobial; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Atmospheric pressure plasma; Surface barrier discharge plasma source; Dielectric barrier discharge

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [13N9779/13N11181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because of its antimicrobial properties, nonthermal plasma could serve as an alternative to chemical antisepsis in wound treatment. Therefore, this study investigated the inactivation of biofilm-embedded Pseudomonas aeruginosa SG81 by a surface barrier-discharged (SBD) plasma for 30, 60, 150 and 300 s. In order to optimize the efficacy of the plasma, different carrier gases (argon, argon admixed with 1% oxygen, and argon with increased humidity up to approx. 80%) were tested and compared against 0.1% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) exposure for 600 s. The antimicrobial efficacy was determined by calculating the difference between the numbers of colony-forming units (CFU) of treated and untreated biofilms. Living bacteria were distinguished from dead by fluorescent staining and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Both SBD plasmas and CHG showed significant antimicrobial effects compared to the untreated control. However, plasma treatment led to a higher antimicrobial reduction (argon plasma 4.9 log(10) CFU/cm(2), argon with admixed oxygen 3 log 10 CFU/cm(2), and with increased gas humidity 2.7 log(10) CFU/cm(2) after 300 s) compared to CHG. In conclusion, SBD plasma is suitable as an alternative to CHG for inactivation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa embedded in biofilm. Further development of SBD plasma sources and research on the role of carrier gases and humidity may allow their clinical application for wound management in the future. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.2
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