Next Article in Journal
Energy-Level Interpretation of Carbazole Derivatives in Self-Assembling Monolayer
Previous Article in Journal
Electropositive Citric Acid-Polyethyleneimine Carbon Dots Carrying the PINK1 Gene Regulate ATP-Related Metabolic Dysfunction in APP/PS1-N2a Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 29
Issue 9
10.3390/molecules29091908
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Volatile Fatty Acids Effective as Antibacterial Agents against Three Enteric Bacteria during Mesophilic Anaerobic Incubation

by
Saanu Victoria Otite
1,
Alfonso José Lag-Brotons
2,
Lawrence I. Ezemonye
3,4,
Alastair D. Martin
2,
Roger W. Pickup
5 and
Kirk T. Semple
1,*
1
Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
2
Engineering Department, Gillow Avenue, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK
3
Centre for Global Eco-Innovation Nigeria, University of Benin, Benin City PMB 300313, Nigeria
4
Vice Chancellor’s Office, Igbinedion University Okada, Benin City PMB 0006, Nigeria
5
Division of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Furness Building, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YG, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2024, 29(9), 1908; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091908
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 19 April 2024 / Accepted: 20 April 2024 / Published: 23 April 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The antibacterial effects of a selection of volatile fatty acids (acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric, and caproic acids) relevant to anaerobic digestion were investigated at 1, 2 and 4 g/L. The antibacterial effects were characterised by the dynamics of Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 00775, Escherichia coli JCM 1649 and Klebsiella pneumoniae A17. Mesophilic anaerobic incubation to determine the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) and median lethal concentration of the VFAs was carried out in Luria Bertani broth at 37 °C for 48 h. Samples collected at times 0, 3, 6, 24 and 48 h were used to monitor bacterial kinetics and pH. VFAs at 4 g/L demonstrated the highest bactericidal effect (p < 0.05), while 1 g/L supported bacterial growth. The VFA cocktail was the most effective, while propionic acid was the least effective. Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 00775 was the most resistant strain with the VFAs MBC of 4 g/L, while Klebsiella pneumoniae A17 was the least resistant with the VFAs MBC of 2 g/L. Allowing a 48 h incubation period led to more log decline in the bacterial numbers compared to earlier times. The VFA cocktail, valeric, and caproic acids at 4 g/L achieved elimination of the three bacteria strains, with over 7 log10 decrease within 48 h.

1. Introduction

An understanding of the biochemical processes and intermediate substances produced during anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic wastes can aid in optimising the technology for disinfecting the products. Several factors have been reported to be responsible for pathogen removal during AD, but these depend on the configuration being used [1]. Temperature is the most important sanitising factor in thermophilic AD [2], while factors such as residence time [3,4], pH and presence of inhibitory substances such as volatile fatty acids [5,6,7] and ammonia have been attributed to pathogen removal during mesophilic AD [8]. Mesophilic (25–40 °C) AD is the commonest type of AD used due to its ease of operation and low energy cost. Despite these benefits, it cannot be used to produce class A effluent (no detectable pathogen levels) due to its inability to achieve a high log decrease in pathogen numbers. Consequently, there is a need for further understanding of the critical factors involved in pathogen inactivation during mesophilic AD, especially how the biochemical processes and conditions can enhance its sanitary effect. Some studies have shown that the acidogenic stage of AD is its sanitary phase due to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids [1,3,6].
Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) are short-chain organic acids which are made up of one to six carbon moieties. They are produced as intermediates of fermentation processes [9]. Acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric, isovaleric, and caproic acids are the VFAs that are produced in varying amounts during AD, depending on the substrate type [10,11,12]. VFAs have been reported to possess antimicrobial properties due to the ability of their lipophilic undissociated forms to cross the bacterial cell membrane and alter cytoplasmic electrochemical gradient [13,14], thus leading to cell death. This sanitary effect is enhanced under low pH (less than the pKa of VFAs, which is approximately 4.5) since acidity favours the non-dissociation of VFAs at their dissociation constant (pKa) [13]. Thus, volatile fatty acids have a non-thermal and cost-effective advantage as an antibacterial agent during mesophilic AD.
Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae are enteric facultative non-sporing bacteria found in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and animals and in faecal wastes [15,16,17]. These organisms can become potentially pathogenic to humans when they find their way into soil and water environments through unsafe handling practices of human excrement and animal manure, such as the use of untreated faecal wastes as fertiliser, as these bacteria are transmissible through the faecal–oral route. The virulent strains could cause gastroenteritis or more fatal illnesses such as hemolytic uremic syndrome and pneumonia [18,19,20]. Furthermore, they have all been implicated as common causes of bacteremia in immunosuppressed people or patients undergoing invasive surgical procedures [21]. These bacteria may also possess varying degrees of resistance to antimicrobial treatments and environmental conditions [8,15].
Organic acids have mostly been used by the food industry and, therefore, tested against foodborne pathogens during food and feed production [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Previous studies on the effects of different doses of organic acids on meat spoilage bacteria [28,29], Clostridium perfringens and C. difficile [30,31], Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli [32], enteropathogenic bacteria [14], demonstrated that they have the potential to act as antimicrobial agents. However, their antibacterial efficacy against enteric pathogens in the environment has not been fully explored, particularly in biological waste treatment plants where VFAs are produced as intermediates of such processes. Most environmental studies on the antibacterial effects of organic acids considered VFA activities in vivo during AD [33,34]; however, other digester conditions may contribute to or negate the effects of these VFAs on targeted species. Other reports focused on in vitro studies using mainly medium to long-chain organic acids and their derivatives [24,35] or reported mainly the minimum inhibitory concentrations of the organic acids [35,36]. However, there has been no comprehensive report on the in vitro effects of several VFA types, which are likely to be produced during the acidogenic phase of AD, on pathogen kinetics. This study therefore aimed to (i) assess the in vitro antibacterial effects of C2 to C6 VFA types and concentrations on a typed strain of Enterococcus faecalis and environmental strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae under mesophilic anaerobic incubation, (ii) determine the kinetics of the named enteric bacteria over a 48-h period, and (iii) determine the median lethal concentrations and minimum bactericidal concentrations of the VFAs on the named bacteria. Results from this study could enhance the design and optimisation of mesophilic acidogenic anaerobic digestion.

2. Results

2.1. Effect of VFA Concentrations on Bacteria Kinetics

The antibacterial effect of all the tested volatile fatty acids was observed to be concentration-dependent, with 4 g/L being the most effective and 1 g/L the least effective. The percentage decreases in the counts for the three bacterial strains over time for the three VFA concentrations are shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

VFAs at 1, 2 and 4 g/L

The VFAs concentration at 1 g/L did not achieve a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in counts of all three bacterial strains. Although some initial decrease was observed with E. faecalis NCTC 00775 within the first 6 h with the lower molecular weight VFAs and the VFA cocktail, the strain recovered from this effect and had an increase in counts at the end of the 48 h incubation period (Table 1). An exception to this recovery was acetic acid, which achieved 76.71% (less than 1 log) at the end of the incubation period. None of the VFAs at 1 g/L achieved a decrease in E. coli JCM 1649 numbers; rather, there was an increase in cell numbers across all time points (Table 2). K. pneumoniae A17 was also initially susceptible to most of the VFAs at 1 g/L except acetic and caproic acids, but at the end of the incubation period, acetic, butyric, and valeric acids, as well as the VFA cocktail, achieved 97.71%, 43.54%, 86.08% and 64.92% decrease in K. pneumoniae A17 CFUs, respectively (Table 3). Thus, when compared to growth in the LB broth control, the antibacterial efficacy of the VFAs against the tested strains at 1 g/L was generally statistically insignificant (p < 0.05) (Table S1).
At 2 g/L, all the VFAs resulted in varying decreases in log CFU/mL counts of E. faecalis, but none attained up to one log kill (90%) (Table 1). However, unlike the concentration at 1 g/L, there was no increase in CFUs, apart from valeric acid, where there was an initial increase after 3 h of incubation, followed by a subsequent decline. At 2 g/L concentration, propionic, butyric, and caproic acids achieved more than a 90% decrease, while acetic acid and the VFA cocktail achieved more than 2 log (99%) decrease in E. coli counts at the end of the incubation period (Table 2). Furthermore, at 2 g/L, all the VFAs achieved between 90% and 100% decrease in K. pneumoniae numbers, with acetic acid being the least effective (Table 3).
At 4 g/L, the antibacterial effect of VFAs increased with an increase in carbon chain length. The VFA cocktail achieved elimination of E. faecalis below the detection level after 6 h; caproic and valeric acids after 24 h; while butyric, acetic and propionic acids achieved 99.96%, 99.96%, 99.71% kill, respectively, after 48 h (Table 1). The VFA cocktail achieved complete elimination of E. coli in less than 3 h, caproic and valeric acids after 3 h, acetic acid after 6 h, as well as butyric and propionic acids after 24 h (Table 2). The VFA cocktail, valeric, and butyric acids achieved complete elimination of K. pneumoniae in less than 3 h, caproic acid after 6 h, and propionic acid after 24 h, while acetic acid achieved only 99.90% decrease in CFUs (Table 3). There was a more toxic effect and death with prolonged contact time between bacterial strains and the VFAs.

2.2. Effect of VFA Types on Bacterial Strains

The antibacterial efficacy of VFAs varied according to the VFA type. The effect of VFA type on bacterial strains was shown using the data from 4 g/L concentration (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3), since the most significant difference was observed at this concentration. Generally, the VFA cocktail and the higher molecular weight VFAs, caproic (C6) and valeric acids (C5), were the most toxic ones. While propionic (C3) acid was the least toxic against the three bacterial strains. The lower molecular weight VFAs, propionic, acetic and butyric acids, were the least effective against E. faecalis, demonstrated by significant log CFUs left after the 48 h incubation period (Figure 1). The VFA cocktail was the most effective, while propionic acid was the least effective VFA against E. coli (Figure 2). The VFA cocktail, valeric and butyric acids were the most effective, while acetic acid was the least effective VFA against K. pneumoniae (Figure 3). Table 4 also shows an overview of the antimicrobial activities of the VFAs on the three bacterial strains.

2.3. Effect of Bacterial Types on the Antibacterial Efficacy of VFAs

The antibacterial efficacy of VFAs varied with the bacterial type. E. faecalis was the most resistant strain. This was demonstrated by its survival in significant numbers in the presence of more VFA types, specifically the C2 to C4 VFAs, acetic, propionic, and butyric acids at 4 g/L even after 48 h (Figure 4), and also by showing relatively high MBC of 4 g/L for all the VFAs (Table 5). Furthermore, the VFAs at 2 g/L did not achieve up to 1 log decrease in CFUs with E. faecalis. Although E. coli and K. pneumoniae demonstrated similar levels of susceptibility to the VFAs, K. pneumoniae was the most susceptible of the three bacterial species, being eliminated by more VFAs within a shorter time and being susceptible to the VFAs mostly at MBC of 2 g/L compared to E. coli (Table 6 and Table 7).

2.4. LC50, MBC, and Comparative Toxicity of VFAs

The LC50 and MBCs of VFAs against E. faecalis, E. coli and K. pneumoniae over time are shown in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. The LC50 of all VFAs decreased with an increase in time for E. coli. While for E. faecalis, this pattern was observed with only acetic, propionic and butyric acids; there were some fluctuations with the VFA cocktail, as well as valeric and caproic acids. For K. pneumoniae, there were fluctuations in the LC50 over time. At the end of the 48 h incubation period, acetic acid had the lowest LC50 for E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae, at 0.77 and 0.08 g/L, respectively, while the VFA cocktail had the lowest LC50 for E. coli at 1.85 g/L. Butyric and propionic acids had the highest LC50 for E. faecalis at 2.13 and 2.12 g/L, respectively; propionic and valeric acid for E. coli, both at 2.06 g/L; and caproic acid for K. pneumoniae at 1.85 g/L. The MBC for all the VFAs with E. faecalis was 4 g/L, and this was mostly after 48 h of incubation; the MBC was beyond the tested concentration of 4 g/L at the other time points. For E. coli, the MBC of the VFAs was also 4 g/L, but this was at varying time points, while the VFA cocktail had an MBC of 2 g/L. The MBC for VFAs with K. pneumoniae was 2 g/L at 48 h, except for acetic acid, which had an MBC of 4 g/L at 48 h. The MBC at the other time points was 4 g/L, with a few beyond the detection limit of 4 g/L.

2.5. pH Dynamics during Bacterial Incubation

The acidity of the bacterial culture broth increased with an increase in VFA concentration and decreased with an increase in VFA molecular weight. Hence, acetic acid at 4 g/L had the lowest pH, while caproic acid at 1 g/L had the highest pH across all bacterial broth (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). At 1 g/L, there was no difference in pH for all the VFAs with E. faecalis, while for E. coli, there was a marked increase in pH with all VFAs except acetic acid, whereas, for K. pneumoniae, there was only a significant increase with caproic and valeric acids (Figure 5a, Figure 6a and Figure 7a). At 2 g/L, there were changes in the pH of valeric acid for E. faecalis and caproic acid for E. coli and K. pneumoniae (Figure 5b, Figure 6b and Figure 7b). At 4 g/L, there was no marked change in pH during the incubation period. At this concentration, the pH ranged from about 3.9 with acetic acid to about 4.6 with caproic acid across all the bacterial strains (Figure 5c, Figure 6c and Figure 7c). There was an initial decrease in the pH of the saline and LB broth controls within the first 3 h of incubation. This was followed by a more stable pH through the rest of the incubation period for E. faecalis. On the other hand, this initial decrease in pH was followed by an increase in pH within the third and sixth hours for both E. coli and K. pneumoniae. Most of the changes in the pH of the bacteria broth culture occurred within the first 6 h of incubation, followed by stability afterwards.

3. Discussion

The E. faecalis NCTC 00775, E. coli JCM 1649 and K. pneumoniae A17 strains, which were used in this study, were confirmed to be multidrug-resistant based on preparatory antibiotic susceptibility testing prior to this investigation (Table S2). These organisms are commonly present in organic wastes, especially those of human and animal origin, and may pose a public health risk if they remain in untreated or improperly treated materials which are recycled into the environment. This study opened up a further understanding of the utilisation of AD intermediates, such as volatile fatty acids, as antibacterial agents to decrease pathogen numbers.

3.1. The Antibacterial Effect of VFAs as a Function of Concentration and pH

The toxicity of VFAs increased with an increase in concentration. This is expected with most toxic substances, which achieve an increase in lethal effect as the concentration increases until the optimum lethal concentration is reached [1,37]). Also, short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) enter the cell cytoplasm through passive diffusion. Thus, the more concentrated they are in the growth medium, the more available they are to move into the cell; hence, the VFAs at 4 g/L were more effective against the tested bacterial strains. This agrees with Kim and Lee [17], who reported the dose-dependent nature of organic acids and also the complete inactivation of E. coli after 48 h of incubation when treated with 4 g/L of acetate, propionate and butyrate. Furthermore, the toxicity of VFAs is correlated with the pH of the growth medium (Figure S1), as also observed by Peh et al. [38], because the ratio of the ionised form of VFA to the unionised form is influenced by pH. The pKa of all the tested VFAs (approximately 4.8) lies within the acidic pH, making it more favourable to pathogen inactivation conditions [39]. The pH of the medium was lowest at VFA concentrations of 4 g/L, indicating high acidity, and there was no change in the pH of the growth medium during the incubation period at this concentration, indicating that only a small proportion of the VFA was involved in metabolism, as also observed by Fang et al. [24]. The antibacterial mechanisms of organic acids against bacteria include cell lysis due to osmotic shock, imbalance in the electrochemical gradient of the cell, or acidification of cell cytoplasm with attendant disruption of DNA and protein synthesis [40]. Thus, the susceptibility of the tested bacterial strains to VFAs at 4 g/L is potentially due to the inability of the strains to adjust their intracellular and extracellular pH in the presence of such high amounts of VFAs, which led to the cytoplasmic accumulation of acid anions at lethal doses due to inward diffusion of undissociated VFAs. On the other hand, the VFAs concentration at 1 g/L did not achieve a significant bacterial kill, likely because their relatively low presence in the bacterial environment resulted in cytoplasmic concentration, which is neither able to cause permanent disruption of the cell electrochemical gradient nor lead to osmotic shock. This agrees with Ouattara et al. [28], who also found bacterial resistance to organic acids at concentrations lower than 2.5 g/L. The decrease in counts observed with 1 g/L of acetic acid on E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae may be because low molecular weight VFAs are hydrophilic and can pass through the cell membrane by diffusing through the porin proteins in small amounts, despite the VFAs being present in low concentration in the surrounding medium. It could also be attributed to extracellular pH shock due to the sudden drop in pH of the medium from about 6.5 to 4.5. This agrees with the study of Gomez-garcia [14], who observed that formic and propionic acids, which are low molecular weight VFAs, showed high toxicity to bacteria. In addition, the kill achieved with K. pneumoniae by acetic, butyric, VFA cocktail and valeric acid at this concentration could indicate the susceptibility of this strain to VFAs [41]. The resistance of E. coli to all the VFAs at 1 g/L may be due to its ability to express acid-shock proteins [42], develop acid tolerance response (ATR) [43] as well as decrease its intracellular pH close to that of the surroundings, and adjust its cell electrochemical gradient. This ability to adjust the pH of the growth medium was strongly correlated with the recovery and survival of tested strains during the incubation period. This was demonstrated by the marked increase in pH of the E. coli growth medium at 1 g/L of VFAs. Slabbert et al. [44] also observed that E. coli induced acid tolerance response (ATR) over time and was able to grow at suboptimal pH levels. The concentration of VFAs at 1 g/L led to an increase in counts of bacterial species compared to the initial concentration at time zero. This agrees with Nair et al. [45], who also observed an increase in E. coli counts when sub-lethal concentrations of caprylic acid and monocaprylin were used, and Salsali et al. [30], who observed an increase in the counts of Clostridium perfringens when 0.75 g/L of VFAs was present during AD. Bacteria can use organic acids as carbon and energy sources; hence, the increase in CFUs observed at this concentration could be due to the ability of the organisms to carry out normal cellular activities and multiplication, compared to the concentration at 2 g/L where organisms were unable to grow and multiply. The significance of this while running AD is that sub-lethal doses of VFAs could lead to the growth of pathogens, which could result in high pathogen loading in digestate.

3.2. Effect of Carbon Chain Length on VFAs Toxicity

The antibacterial effect of VFAs increased with an increase in the carbon chain length and, hence, the molecular weight, particularly at higher VFA concentrations [1]. Thus, caproic and valeric acids were the most effective VFAs against all the tested strains when tested separately. Kovanda et al. [35] also reported that valeric acid was effective against the tested Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. This could be because the polar nature of high molecular weight VFAs causes interference with the bacterial cell membrane and alters the fluidity [46]. Although the VFA cocktail demonstrated the overall highest antibacterial activity against all tested bacterial strains, this could indicate a synergistic lethal effect of the VFA combination against target organisms, as also previously reported [23,25,38,47]. Although the general trend of increasing toxicity with an increase in chain length was observed in this study, a deviation was noted with acetic acid, which demonstrated high toxicity against E. coli despite being a C2 acid. Al-Rousan et al. [47] also reported the toxic effect of acetic acid against E. coli at 4 g/L. This could be because of the inhibitory effect of the low pH (3.9 at 4 g/L) of this VFA [48]. Hence, there seems to be a synergistic effect between the inhibitory effect of acetic acid and its low pH, as also reported by Breidt et al. [49]. Furthermore, Gomez-garcia et al. [14] also observed that formic acid, which is also a low molecular weight VFA (C1) with low pH, showed higher toxicity to Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. Although propionic acid was comparatively the least effective VFA against all tested strains in this study, it is a potent antibacterial agent [17,50]. It achieved a significant reduction (>99%) in bacterial log CFUs at 4 g/L within the 48 h incubation period.

3.3. Varied Susceptibility of Bacterial Strains to VFAs

E. faecalis was the most resistant species, particularly with the lower molecular weight VFAs: acetic, propionic, and butyric acids. E. faecalis is known to be resistant to a wide range of temperature, pH and other stressful environmental conditions [51,52,53]. This agrees with Kovanda et al. [35], who also reported the resistance of E. faecalis to butyric acid with a MIC of 2 g/L. Hence, the ability of high molecular weight hydrophobic VFAs to alter and penetrate the cell wall peptidoglycan and reach the cytoplasm could be responsible for their lethal effect against E. faecalis. In this study, K. pneumoniae and E. coli were more susceptible to the VFAs; this could be because they are Gram-negative bacteria and possess a thin layer of the cell wall with limited selective inhibition of the inflow of toxic agents. Mapipa et al. [54] reported the sensitivity of K. pneumoniae to antimicrobial agents, and Adamczak et al. [36] also reported that Gram-negative bacteria were comparatively more susceptible to organic acids than Gram-positive bacteria. Despite the relative susceptibility of K. pneumoniae to the tested VFAs, it was more resistant to acetic acid than the other two species. This could be because acetic acid is among the products of metabolism of K. pneumoniae [55] and has developed resistance to it at the tested concentrations due to the expression of acid shock proteins. This observation disagrees with Krusong et al. [56], who reported that acetic acid completely inhibited the growth of K. pneumoniae. This disparity could be due to the use of 2% concentration by the authors, compared to 0.4% acetic acid used in this study.

3.4. LC50 and MBC as Indicators of VFA Toxicity

The lower the LC50 of a toxic substance, the more potent it is expected to be; this means a lower concentration of that substance can kill 50% of the target population [57]. Although acetic acid had the lowest LC50 for E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae, it did not have the lowest MBC for them within the shortest time. MBC, being the lowest concentration that will achieve a significant log decrease, that is, greater than 3log10 [58], could be a more relevant indicator of the sanitary potency of VFAs in AD. The VFA cocktail and caproic acid had an MBC of 4 g/L within the shortest time and thus were the most effective against the three tested bacterial strains. Pelyuntha and Vongkamjan [59] also reported a higher MBC of 5 g/L, 7.5 g/L and 7.5 g/L for acetic, propionic and butyric acids, respectively, against Salmonella Enteritidis. In this study, we observed that LC50 may not be a good indicator of the antibacterial potencies of VFAs, especially in biotreatment processes where temporary inhibition and re-growth of bacterial species can occur, as demonstrated by the haphazard pattern of LC50 in E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae. A concentration which demonstrates a significant amount of kill (above 99.9%) could be more promising.

3.5. Influence of Incubation Time on VFAs Toxicity

The time-kill curve is an important tool for determining microbial dynamics in antimicrobial studies [60]. In this study, it was observed that more log kill was achieved between 24 and 48 h of incubation. This demonstrates the importance of contact time in bacteria inactivation studies [7]. Especially for the low molecular weight VFAs, which did not achieve a significant decrease before 24 h. This time-kill effect was also reported by Fan et al. [61], who assessed the time-dependent effect of lactobionic acid on Vibrio parahaemolyticus. This time-kill information is useful in designing AD for sanitary purposes, and hence, monitoring the acidogenic phase of AD within the first 24 to 48 h is important. The VFA cocktail, which is the expected combination in most natural anaerobic bioprocesses, was the most effective; this confirms that acidogenic AD is a promising method of sanitising organic wastes.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Bacterial Strains and Culture Media

Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 00775 was procured from Public Health England-National Collection of Type Cultures. Escherichia coli JCM 1649 and Klebsiella pneumoniae A17 were previously isolated and identified using Sanger sequencing from anaerobic digesters treating simulated food waste and animal manure. All strains were maintained as glycerol stock cultures at −30 °C. Luria-Bertani (LB) broth (Sigma Aldrich, Gillingham, Dorset, UK) was used for bacteria broth culture incubation. LB broth with agar (Sigma Aldrich, UK) was used for bacterial enumeration. Brilliance E. coli coliform selective medium (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK) was used to recover the E. coli and K. pneumoniae colonies, while Slanetz and Bartley medium (Oxoid, UK) was used for E. faecalis recovery from the glycerol stocks. All culture media were prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The antibiotic resistance patterns of the strains were pre-determined using the disc diffusion method following breakpoint values by the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute [62]. This was performed to establish the resistant nature of target strains to known common antibiotics. The antibiogram of the strains used is shown in Table S2 of the Supplementary Materials.

4.2. Volatile Fatty Acids (VFAs) Preparation

Five reagent grade VFAs: acetic (100%, s 1.05 g/cm), propionic (99.5%, s 0.99 g/cm), butyric (99%, s 1.14 g/cm), valeric (99%, s 0.94 g/cm) and caproic acids (96%, s 0.93 g/cm) in solution were procured from Sigma Aldrich, UK. A VFA cocktail was also prepared by mixing an equal volume of the five aforementioned VFAs. The VFAs were sterilised using a 0.22 µm filter and diluted with sterile deionised water to obtain three concentrations of 10%, 20% and 40% v/v VFA. These dilutions were used as the working stock.

4.3. Preparation of Bacterial Broth Cultures

Broth cultures of E. coli JCM 1649, K. pneumoniae A17 and E. faecalis NCTC 00775 were prepared in sterile 15 mL culture tubes containing 5 mL of freshly prepared LB broth. Culture tubes were incubated at 37 °C for 12–18 h (overnight incubation). Bacterial cell concentration was standardised by absorbance reading with a spectrophotometer at an optical density (OD) of 600 nm and a plate count to obtain a stock suspension of 107 CFU/mL. For each experimental set-up, 5 mL of overnight bacterial stock culture of each strain was inoculated into 500 mL of sterile LB broth and incubated for 1 h to enable the strains to pass the lag phase of growth and acclimatise in the fresh medium. This resulted in a starting bacterial concentration of between 107 and 108 CFU/mL.

4.4. Experimental Design and Set Up

The experimental design was full factorial, comprising: (a) VFA type (n = 6; acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric, caproic and VFA cocktail); (b) VFA concentration (n = 3; 1, 2 and 4 g/L); (c) bacterial species (n = 3; E. faecalis NCTC 00775, E. coli JCM 1649 and K. pneumoniae A17); and (d) time (n = 5; 0, 3, 6, 24 and 48 h). Additionally, controls without VFA, made up of bacterial culture in saline and in LB broth, were included to assess the natural decline of bacteria due to senescence and optimum bacterial growth in the presence of nutrients, respectively. The experiment was carried out in 15 mL culture tubes. Then, 9.9 mL of the acclimated LB broth culture of each strain was dispensed separately into each well-labelled 15 mL tube. To these, 0.1 mL VFA of appropriate concentration (10%, 20% and 40%) was added to give final VFA concentrations of 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.4% (1 g/L, 2 g/L and 4 g/L), respectively, in the broth culture. These concentrations were chosen as they have been reported to be the range of VFAs produced during mesophilic AD [63,64]. The tubes were capped loosely to allow for gaseous exchange and anaerobiosis and arranged into anaerobic chambers (ThermoFisher Scientific AnaeroGenTM 2.5 L, Waltham, MA, USA) with a gas generating kit (ThermoFisher Scientific AN0025A) and resazurin anaerobic indicator (ThermoFisher Scientific BR0055B). The anaerobic chambers containing the experimental tubes were incubated at 37 °C with shaking at 180 rpm for 48 h.

4.5. Sampling

Samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 24 and 48 h destructively. At each time point, 0.1 mL of sample was collected for bacterial enumeration, while the remaining content of the tube was used for pH measurement. These analyses were performed immediately after sampling. Time 0 sample was collected immediately after adding the VFA into the culture broth and homogenised by swirling for uniform mixing. For the other time points, an individual anaerobic chamber was brought out of the incubator at the stipulated time.

4.5.1. Bacterial Enumeration

The samples collected at each time point were serially diluted by a factor of 10 using 9.9 mL of phosphate-buffered saline. Then, 0.1 mL of selected dilutions were plated on LB agar (Oxoid, UK) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Colony forming units (CFUs) per ml of sample were recorded as an average of log10 CFU/mL from three replicates.

4.5.2. pH Measurement

The pH of samples at each time point was determined using a pH electrode (Mettler Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA) by dipping the electrode into the tubes containing approximately 9.9 mL of broth. The average pH readings of three replicates were recorded.

4.6. Determination of Median Concentration and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration

The median concentration (LC50), which was the concentration of VFAs that killed 50% of the bacterial strains at a given time, was determined using the Probit method [65]. Briefly, the Probit values of the bacterial death percentage were plotted against a log of VFA concentrations. The estimated LC50 was calculated using the regression of the dose-response graph. The minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of the VFAs was determined by the concentration of VFAs that achieved 3 log elimination (99.9%) [62] of the bacteria cells at a given time point when the bacteria broth was cultured on a solid agar plate.

4.7. Statistical Analysis

VFA type (“type”) and concentration (“conc”) were assessed for descriptive and inferential statistics. Time (“t”) and bacterial species (“sp”) were used to arrange, and present observed results, and the tests were predominantly of a descriptive nature. Untransformed pH and log10 transformed CFU/mL data were used for statistical and inferential analyses. The descriptive statistics were mean and standard deviation. In terms of inferential statistics, two-way and three-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) followed by Tukey Honest Significant Differences (HSD) post hoc tests were used to determine significant differences (0.0001, 0.001, 0.01 and p < 0.05) and arrange differentiated groups, respectively. All statistical analyses and plots were performed in R (v 3.5.1) using the “dplyr”, “agricolae”, “1me4”, “ggplot2”, “ggpubr”, and “ggsignif” packages.

5. Conclusions

This incubation study has shown that VFAs with C2–C6 chain length (acetic to caproic acids) present at concentrations above 2 g/L have antibacterial effects against E. faecalis NCTC 00775, E. coli JCM 1649 and K. pneumoniae A17 within 48 h. The modulators of these effects on the tested strains were VFA concentration, molecular weight, and contact time. The VFA cocktail was the most effective against all the tested strains, having a lower MBC and achieving a 7 log10 decrease in bacterial counts within the first 24 h of incubation. This is a good indicator that the naturally obtainable combination of the VFAs in AD has the potential as an antibacterial agent. E. faecalis was the most resistant strain, being eliminated by VFAs mostly at the MBC of 4 g/L and not being susceptible to low molecular weight VFAs, while K. pneumoniae was the most susceptible strain with the VFAs MBC of 2 g/L. It appears that MBC may be a more useful indicator of the antibacterial efficacy of VFAs in AD rather than LC50 because the MBC achieves a more significant kill (99.9%), which is more important for waste disinfection than LC50 (50% kill). The VFA concentrations that were effective against the bacterial strains lie within the range that can be produced during the acidogenic phase of anaerobic digestion and, hence, provide a further understanding of the sanitary efficacy of AD.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules29091908/s1. Table S1: Inferential statistics to determine the significant difference using one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA and Tukey Honest post hoc tests, Table S2: Antibiogram of bacterial strains used for broth incubation, Figure S1: Correlation analysis of surviving population (log CFU/mL) (a measure of VFA toxicity) of E. faecalis NCTC 00775, K. pneumoniae A17, and E. coli JCM 1649 against pH.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., L.I.E., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; methodology, S.V.O., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; software, S.V.O. and A.J.L.-B.; validation; S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., L.I.E., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; formal analysis, S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; investigation, S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; resources, L.I.E., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; data curation, S.V.O. and A.J.L.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.O.; writing—review and editing, S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; visualisation, S.V.O., A.J.L.-B., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; supervision, A.J.L.-B., L.I.E., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; project administration, L.I.E., A.D.M., R.W.P. and K.T.S.; funding acquisition, L.I.E., A.D.M. and K.T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Global Challenge Research Fund (GCRF) funded RECIRCULATE project (Grant Ref. ES/P010857/1) and Lancaster University, UK.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article and in the Supplementary Material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jiang, Y.; Dennehy, C.; Lawlor, P.G.; Hu, Z.; Yang, Q.; McCarthy, G.; Tan, S.P.; Zhan, X.; Gardiner, G.E. Inactivation of Salmonella during dry co-digestion of food waste and pig manure. Waste Manag. 2018, 82, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Thomas, C.; Idler, C.; Ammon, C.; Herrmann, C.; Amon, T. Inactivation of ESBL-/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli during mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. Waste Manag. 2019, 84, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Forster-Carneiro, T.; Riau, V.; Perez, M. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge to obtain class B biosolids: Microbiological methods development. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 1805–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Johansen, A.; Nielsen, H.B.; Hansen, C.M.; Andreasen, C.; Carlsgart, J.; Hauggard-Nielsen, H.; Roepstorff, A. Survival of weed seeds and animal parasites as affected by anaerobic digestion at meso and thermophilic conditions. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Slimane, K.; Fathya, S.; Assia, K.; Hamza, M. Influence of inoculums/substrate ratios on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste in batch mode: Process stability and biogas production. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, L.; Jian, S.; Bi, J.; Li, Y.; Chang, Z. Anaerobic digestion in mesophilic and room temperature conditions: Digestion performance and soil-borne pathogen survival. J. Environ. Sci. 2016, 43, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Riungu, J.; Ronteltap, M.; van Lier, J.B. Build-up and impact of volatile fatty acids on E. coli and A. lumbricoides during co-digestion of urine diverting dehydrating toilet (UDDT-F) faeces. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 215, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Watcharasukarn, M.; Kaparaju, P.; Steyer, J.; Krogfelt, K.A.; Angelidaki, I. Screening Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Clostridium perfringens as indicator organisms in evaluating pathogen-reducing capacity in biogas plant. Microb. Ecol. 2009, 58, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhao, X.; Jiang, Z.; Yang, F.; Wang, Y.; Gao, X.; Wang, Y.; Chai, X.; Pan, G.; Zhu, Y. Sensitive and simplified detection of antibiotic influence on the dynamics and versatile changes of faecal short-chain fatty acids. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garcia-Aguirre, J.; Aymerich, E.; Gonzalez-Mtnez, J.; Esteban-Gutierrez, M. Selective VFA production potential from organic waste streams: Assessing temperature and pH influence. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 244, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cheah, Y.; Dosta, J.; Mata-Alvarez, J. Enhancement of volatile fatty acids production from food waste by mature compost addition. Molecules 2019, 24, 2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhou, X.; Zhu, J. Effect of pH on volatile fatty acid production from anaerobic digestion of potato peel waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 316, 123851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tenuta, M.; Conn, K.L.; Lazarovits, G. Volatile fatty acids in liquid swine manure can kill microsclerotia of Verticillium dahlia. Phytopathology 2002, 92, 548–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gómez-García, M.; Sol, C.; de Nova, P.J.G.; Puyato, M.; Mesas, L.; Puente, H.; Mencia-Ares, O.; Miranda, R.; Arguello, H.; Rubio, P.; et al. Antimicrobial activity of a selection of organic acids, their salts and essential oils against swine enteropathogenic bacteria. Porc. Health Manag. 2019, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Byappanahalli, M.N.; Nevers, M.B.; Korajkic, A.; Staley, Z.R.; Harwood, V.J. Enterococci in the environment. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 685–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lin, W.; Wang, J.; Chang, S.; Chang, F.; Fung, C.; Chuang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Shiau, Y.; Tan, M.; Wang, H.; et al. The antimicrobial susceptibility of Klebsiella pneumoniae from community settings in Taiwan, a trend analysis. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kim, M.; Lee, D.G. Propionic acid induces apoptosis-like death in Escherichia coli O157. J. Basic Microbiol. 2021, 62, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Gan, L.; Yan, C.; Cui, J.; Xue, G.; Fu, H.; Du, B.; Yuan, J. Genetic diversity and pathogenic features in Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from patients with pyogenic liver abscess and pneumonia. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e02646-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Habas, E.; Rayani, A.; Habas, A.; Farfar, K.; El Marghani, A.; Elzouki, A.N. Hemolytic uremic syndrome: An updated review. Yemen J. Med. 2022, 1, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shen, J.; Zhi, S.; Guo, D.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhao, L.; Lv, J. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance, and whole genome sequencing analysis of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) from imported foods in China during 2015–2021. Toxins 2022, 14, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Abebaw, A.; Tesera, H.; Belachew, T.; Mihiretie, G.D. The bacterial profile and antibiotic susceptibility pattern among patients with suspected bloodstream infections, Gondar, north-west Ethiopia. Pathol. Lab. Med. Int. 2018, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Park, S.; Choi, M.; Park, J.; Park, K.; Chung, M.; Ryu, S.; Kang, D. Use of organic acids to inactivate Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes on organic fresh apples and lettuce. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ajingi, Y.S.; Rodpan, S.; Usman, J.N.; Koga, Y.; Jongruja, N. Synergistic effect of Nisin with acetic acid and propionic acids inactivates Bacillus subtilis on meat and potato. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 41, 102317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fang, M.; Wang, R.; Agyekumwaa, A.K.; Yu, Y.; Xiao, X. Antibacterial effect of phenyllactic acid against Vibrio parahaemolyticus and its application on raw salmon fillets. LWT 2022, 154, 112586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Thompson, J.L.; Hinton, M. Antibacterial activity of formic and propionic acids in the diet of hens on Salmonellas in the crop. Br. Poult. Sci. 1997, 38, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Immerseel, F.V.; Russel, J.B.; Flythe, M.D.; Gantois, I.; Timbermont, L.; Pasmans, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Ducatelle, R. The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: A mechanistic explanation of the efficacy. Avian Pathol. 2006, 35, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yang, X.; Liu, Y.; Yan, F.; Yang, C.; Yang, X. Effects of encapsulated organic acids and essential oils on intestinal barrier, microbial count, and bacterial metabolites in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2858–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ouattara, B.; Simard, R.E.; Holley, R.A.; Piette, G.J.P.; Bégin, A. Antibacterial activity of selected fatty acids and essential oils against six meat spoilage organisms. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1997, 37, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Heir, E.; Solberg, L.E.; Jensen, M.R.; Skaret, J.; Grovlen, M.S.; Holck, A.L. Improved microbial and sensory quality of chicken meat by treatment with lactic acid, organic acid salts and modified atmosphere packaging. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 362, 109489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Salsali, H.; Parker, W.J.; Sattar, S.A. The effect of volatile fatty acids on the inactivation of Clostridium perfringens in anaerobic digestion. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, H.; Chen, J.; Rathod, J.; Jiang, Y.; Tsai, P.; Hung, Y.; Ko, W.; Paredes-Sabja, D.; Huang, I. Lauric acid is an inhibitor of Clostridium difficile growth in vitro and reduces inflammation in a mouse infection model. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Yang, X.; Xin, H.; Yang, C.; Yang, X. Impact of essential oils and organic acids on the growth performance, digestive functions, and immunity of broiler chickens. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kunte, D.P.; Yeole, T.Y.; Chiplonkar, S.A.; Ranade, D.R. Inactivation of Salmonella Typhi by high levels of volatile acids during anaerobic digestion. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1998, 84, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Salsali, H.; Parker, W.J.; Sattar, S.A. Impact of concentration, temperature, and pH on inactivation of Salmonella spp. By volatile fatty acids in anaerobic digestion. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kovanda, L.; Zhang, W.; Wei, X.; Luo, J.; Wu, X.; Atwill, E.R.; Vaessen, S.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. In vitro antimicrobial activities of organic acids and their derivatives on several species of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Molecules 2019, 24, 3770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Adamczak, A.; Ozarowski, M.; Karpinski, T.M. Antibacterial activity of some flavonoids and organic acids widely distributed in plants. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Brooun, A.; Liu, S.; Lewis, K. A dose-response study of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Peh, E.; Kittler, S.; Relch, F.; Kehrenberg, C. Antimicrobial activity of organic acids against Campylobacter spp. and development of combinations—A synergistic effect? PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Khan, R.U.; Naz SRaziq, F.; Qudratullah, Q.; Khan, N.A.; Laudadio, V.; Tufarelli, V.; Ragni, M. Prospects of organic acids as safe alternative to antibiotics in broiler chicken diet. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 32594–32604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bai, J.; Wu, Y.; Zhong, K.; Xiao, K.; Liu, L.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gao, H.A. A comparative study on the effects of quinic acid and shikimic acid on cellular functions of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 1187–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lin, T.; Huang, S.; Wu, C.; Liu, H.; Jinn, T.; Chen, Y.; Lin, C. Inhibition of Klebsiella pneumoniae growth and capsular polysaccharide biosynthesis by Fructus mume. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013, 2013, 621701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Morel, F.; Delmas, F.; Jobin, M.P.; Divies, C.; Guzzo, J. Improved acid tolerance of a recombinant strain of Escherichia coli expressing genes from the acidophilic bacterium Oenococcus oeni. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 33, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lin, J.; Lee, I.S.; Frey, J.; Slonczewski, J.L.; Foster, J.W. Comparative analysis of extreme acid survival in Salmonella Typhimurium, Shigella flexneri and Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1995, 177, 4097–4104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Slabbert, R.S.; Theron, M.M.; Lues, J.F.R. Investigating the development of acid tolerance in food-borne pathogens Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa and implication on the susceptibility to organic acids. Interim Interdiscip. J. 2010, 9, 64–73. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nair, M.K.M.; Joy, J.; Vasudevan, P.; Hinckley, L.; Hoagland, T.A.; Venkitanarayanan, K.S. Antibacterial effect of caprylic acid and monocaprylin on major bacterial mastitis pathogens. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 3488–3495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wang, C.; Chang, T.; Yang, H.; Cui, M. Antibacterial mechanism of lactic acid on physiological and morphological properties of Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2015, 47, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Al-Rousan, W.M.; Olaimat, A.N.; Osaili, T.M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Ajo, R.Y.; Holley, R.A. Use of acetic and citric acids to inhibit Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium and Staphylococcus aureus in tabbouleh salad. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Medeiros, L.C.; Gasparotto, L.H. Pyroligneous acid and antibacterial activity: Criticism of a paper by Araujo et al. (2018). J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 132, 1768–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Breidt, F., Jr.; Hayes, J.S.; McFeeters, R.F. Independent effects of acetic acid and pH on survival of Escherichia coli in simulated acidified pickle products. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. El-Adawy, M.; El-Aziz, M.A.; El-Shazly, L.; Ali, N.G.; El-MAgd, M.A. Dietary propionic acid enhances antibacterial and immunomodulatory effects of oxytetracycline on Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 34200–34211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Maclean, M.; MacGregor, S.J.; Anderson, J.G.; Woolsey, G. Inactivation of bacterial pathogens following exposure to light from a 405-nanometer light-emitting diode array. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 1932–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Liu, X.; Lendormi, T.; Lanoiselle, J. Conventional and innovative hygienisation of feedstock for biogas production: Resistance of indicator bacteria to thermal pasteurisation, pulsed electric field treatment and anaerobic digestion. Energies 2021, 14, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cinthi, M.; Coccitto, S.N.; Fioriti, S.; Morroni, G.; Simoni, S.; Vignaroli, C.; Giovanetti, E. Occurrence of a plasmid co-carrying cfr (D) and poxtA2 linezolid resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus casseliflavus from porcine manure, Italy. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2022, 77, 598–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Mapipa, Q.; Digban, T.O.; Nwodo, U.U. Antibiogram and detection of virulence genes among Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from rustic hospital drains. Gene Rep. 2022, 26, 101440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, C.; Wei, D.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, D.; Shi, J.; Kim, C.H.; Jiang, B.; Han, Z.; Hao, J. Production of xylonic acid by Klebsiella pneumoniae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 10055–10063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Krusong, W.; Teerarak, M.; Laosinwattana, C. Liquid and vapor-phase vinegar reduces Klebsiella pneumoniae on fresh coriander. Food Control 2015, 50, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Patra, S.; Bala, A.; Sharma, N.; Haldar, P.K. Developmental toxicity assessment of Drymaria cordata (Linn.) Willd using zebrafish embryo. Curr. Drug Saf. 2023, 18, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kim, G.; Xu, Y.J.; Farha, A.K.; Sui, Z.Q.; Corke, H. Bactericidal and antibiofilm properties of Rumex japonicus Houtt on multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 2011–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Pelyuntha, W.; Vongkamjan, K. Combined effects of Salmonella phage cocktail and organic acid for controlling Salmonella Enteritidis in chicken meat. Food Control 2022, 133, 108653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Balouiri, M.; Sadiki, M.; Ibnsouda, S.K. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J. Pharm. Anal. 2016, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Fan, Q.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, T.; Song, W.; Sheng, Q.; Yue, T. Inhibitory effects of lactobionic acid on Vibrio parahaemolyticus planktonic cells and biofilms. Food Microbiol. 2022, 103, 103963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. M26-A; Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents; Approved Guideline. Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CSLI): Wayne, PA, USA, 1999; p. 19.
  63. Yin, F.; Li, Z.; Wang, D.; Olsen, T.; Dong, H. Performance of thermal pre-treatment and mesophilic fermentation system on pathogen inactivation and biogas production of faecal sludge: Initial laboratory result. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 151, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, L.; Meng, X.; Zhou, G.; Zhou, Z.; Zheng, T.; Bai, Y.; Yuan, H.; Huhe, T. Effects of organic loading rates on the anaerobic co-digestion of fresh vinegar residue and pig manure: Focus on the performance and microbial communities. Biochem. Eng. J. 2022, 183, 108441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Finney, D.J. The estimation of the ED50 for a logistic response curve. Sankhyā Indian J. Stat. 1952, 12, 121–136. [Google Scholar]
Molecules 29 01908 g001
Figure 1. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on E. faecalis counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Figure 1. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on E. faecalis counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Molecules 29 01908 g001
Molecules 29 01908 g002
Figure 2. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on E. coli counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Figure 2. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on E. coli counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Molecules 29 01908 g002
Molecules 29 01908 g003
Figure 3. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on K. pneumoniae counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Figure 3. Effect of VFA types (C2 to C6) at 4 g/L on K. pneumoniae counts during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation in LB broth. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of 3 readings.
Molecules 29 01908 g003
Molecules 29 01908 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of the death kinetics of E. faecalis, E. coli and K. pneumoniae during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation at 4 g/L of VFAs. Graphs (a–f) are the VFA types.
Figure 4. Comparison of the death kinetics of E. faecalis, E. coli and K. pneumoniae during a 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation at 4 g/L of VFAs. Graphs (a–f) are the VFA types.
Molecules 29 01908 g004
Molecules 29 01908 g005aMolecules 29 01908 g005b
Figure 5. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during E. faecalis 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Figure 5. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during E. faecalis 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Molecules 29 01908 g005aMolecules 29 01908 g005b
Molecules 29 01908 g006aMolecules 29 01908 g006b
Figure 6. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during E. coli 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Figure 6. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during E. coli 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Molecules 29 01908 g006aMolecules 29 01908 g006b
Molecules 29 01908 g007aMolecules 29 01908 g007b
Figure 7. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during K. pneumoniae 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Figure 7. pH of LB broth with different VFA types during K. pneumoniae 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation. LB broth and saline are controls accounting for natural dynamics in the absence of VFAs and nutrients, respectively. Graphs (a–c) are the VFA concentrations (1, 2 and 4 g/L).
Molecules 29 01908 g007aMolecules 29 01908 g007b
Table 1. Percentage decrease in E. faecalis NCTC 00775 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 1. Percentage decrease in E. faecalis NCTC 00775 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Incubation Time (h)VFA TypeVFA Concentration (g/L)
124
3Acetic24.93 (32.91)25.11 (4.91)76.71 (7.18)
Propionic14.91 (18.23)40.86 (20.83)53.80 (7.27)
Butyric11.18 (20.25)33.48 (4.90)94.94 (0.81)
Valeric−135.0161.57 (7.41)94.99 (4.43)
Caproic−101.6062.14 (5.74)99.94 (0.06)
VFA cocktail38.17 (53.63)60.21 (5.47)94.82 (7.92)
6Acetic58.33 (10.75)57.90 (8.82)95.85 (0.31)
Propionic6.10 (14.12)47.25 (14.59)75.36 (10.38)
Butyric−25.9760.83 (1.11)98.23 (0.47)
Valeric−510.02−105.3998.71 (0.58)
Caproic−297.9467.22 (13.27)87.09 (18.89)
VFA cocktail1.68 (8.21)73.44 (3.37)99.77 (0.23)
24Acetic59.79 (7.64)55.29 (8.69)98.75 (1.67)
Propionic−58.9350.46 (9.10)97.42 (1.36)
Butyric−187.5074.60 (2.52)99.65 (0.12)
Valeric−281.0250.68 (41.83)100
Caproic−176.5346.32 (41.56)91.13 (15.34)
VFA cocktail−192.3875.51 (2.33)100
48Acetic76.71 (7.46)84.85 (3.38)99.96 (0.01)
Propionic−50.0977.55 (9.74)99.71 (0.06)
Butyric−25.4578.51 (5.42)99.96 (0.01)
Valeric−199.8885.21 (5.37)100
Caproic−172.1776.04 (35.10)100
VFA cocktail−74.8985.63 (3.73)100
Table 2. Percentage decrease in E. coli JCM 1649 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 2. Percentage decrease in E. coli JCM 1649 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Incubation Time (h)VFA TypeVFA Concentration (g/L)
124
3Acetic−2.3343.08 (21.43)73.00 (29.55)
Propionic−16.05−78.980.00
Butyric−24.6139.65 (50.06)31.68 (38.12)
Valeric−106.60−22.4783.82 (3.09)
Caproic−657.08−89.79100
VFA cocktail−588.1750.27 (18.64)100
6Acetic−7.8260.84 (7.24)99.96 (0.05)
Propionic−91.40−11.8184.59 (6.29)
Butyric−804.2875.22 (19.40)92.80 (3.53)
Valeric−1839.00−45.09100
Caproic−2632.9053.51 (22.01)100
VFA cocktail−5650.1881.29 (8.09)100
24Acetic−45.1291.11 (4.19)100
Propionic−9273.0269.82 (9.75)100
Butyric−8295.1687.50 (9.25)100
Valeric−3867.8350.44 (31.53)100
Caproic−2413.2388.92 (10.56)100
VFA cocktail−3038.8012.96 (18.43)100
48Acetic−102.6699.69 (0.47)100
Propionic−9465.8290.19 (3.05)100
Butyric−8962.3598.31 (1.14)100
Valeric−4461.7489.14 (16.19)100
Caproic−1932.4797.39 (4.51)100
VFA cocktail−1539.65100100
Table 3. Percentage decrease in K. pneumoniae A17 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 3. Percentage decrease in K. pneumoniae A17 counts (CFU/mL) at 1, 2 and 4 g/L of VFAs during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Incubation Time (h)VFA TypeVFA Concentration (g/L)
124
3Acetic−8.0313.00 (41.92)72.70 (34.68)
Propionic36.35 (5.77)62.77 (1.53)97.51 (2.46)
Butyric66.59 (14.75)53.90 (14.80)100
Valeric39.53 (3.23)44.87 (4.42)100
Caproic−2312.32−683.9799.81 (0.05)
VFA cocktail5.51 (8.71)50.35 (13.21)100
6Acetic15.01 (8.21)69.74 (17.10)98.35 (1.66)
Propionic35.83 (8.71)51.93 (9.45)99.96 (0.06)
Butyric39.55 (17.28)73.77 (7.01)100
Valeric−44.1771.52 (3.66)100
Caproic−1603.4883.87 (9.88)99.98 (0.03)
VFA cocktail−724.5767.76 (15.16)100
24Acetic−13.80−19.8099.42 (0.38)
Propionic63.18 (8.97)88.86 (7.70)100
Butyric−123.8899.79 (0.17)100
Valeric62.35 (13.31)99.05 (0.55)100
Caproic−1615.55100100
VFA cocktail98.36 (0.19)99.15 (0.67)100
48Acetic97.71 (1.67)97.24 (2.40)99.90 (0.08)
Propionic−28.3299.93 (0.12)100
Butyric43.54 (76.74)100100
Valeric86.08 (9.37)100100
Caproic−668.53100100
VFA cocktail64.92 (20.72)99.90100
Table 4. Overview of the antibacterial effect of VFAs against selected bacterial strains at 4 g/L.
Table 4. Overview of the antibacterial effect of VFAs against selected bacterial strains at 4 g/L.
VFA (4 g/L)Most Effective AgainstLeast Effective Against
Acetic acidE. coliK. pneumoniae
E. faecalis
Propionic acid E. faecalis
E. coli
K. pneumoniae
Butyric acidK. pneumoniaeE. faecalis
Valeric acidE. faecalis
E. coli
K. pneumoniae
Caproic acidsE. faecalis
E. coli
K. pneumoniae
VFA cocktailE. faecalis
E. coli
K. pneumoniae
Table 5. LD 50 (g/L) and MBC (g/L) of Enterococcus faecalis during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 5. LD 50 (g/L) and MBC (g/L) of Enterococcus faecalis during 48 h mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Time3 h6 h24 h48 h
VFAsLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBC
Acetic acid2.41>41.01>41.07>40.774
Propionic acid3.02>42.56>42.46>42.12>4
Butyric acid2.60>42.38>42.20>42.134
Valeric acid2.47>43.24>42.2142.094
Caproic acid2.1842.55>42.56>42.114
VFA cocktail1.35>41.71>42.1342.094
Table 6. LD 50 (g/L) and MBC (g/L) of Escherichia coli over 48 h period during mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 6. LD 50 (g/L) and MBC (g/L) of Escherichia coli over 48 h period during mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Time3 h6 h24 h48 h
VFAsLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBC
Acetic acid2.88>42.2041.9441.904
Propionic acid5.50>44.01>42.1542.064
Butyric acid4.41>42.44>42.0741.944
Valeric acid4.01>42.9442.2042.064
Caproic acid2.9442.2042.0741.994
VFA cocktail2.2342.1042.3441.852
Table 7. LD 50 (g/L) of Klebsiella pneumoniae over 48 h period during mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Table 7. LD 50 (g/L) of Klebsiella pneumoniae over 48 h period during mesophilic anaerobic incubation.
Time3 h6 h24 h48 h
VFAsLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBCLD 50MBC
Acetic acid4.37>41.76>43.63>40.084
Propionic acid1.30>41.3740.9240.102
Butyric acid1.0641.2441.8540.822
Valeric acid1.3742.1540.7840.392
Caproic acid3.04>42.1141.8521.852
VFA cocktail1.7141.8540.0940.652
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Otite, S.V.; Lag-Brotons, A.J.; Ezemonye, L.I.; Martin, A.D.; Pickup, R.W.; Semple, K.T. Volatile Fatty Acids Effective as Antibacterial Agents against Three Enteric Bacteria during Mesophilic Anaerobic Incubation. Molecules 2024, 29, 1908. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091908

AMA Style

Otite SV, Lag-Brotons AJ, Ezemonye LI, Martin AD, Pickup RW, Semple KT. Volatile Fatty Acids Effective as Antibacterial Agents against Three Enteric Bacteria during Mesophilic Anaerobic Incubation. Molecules. 2024; 29(9):1908. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091908

Chicago/Turabian Style

Otite, Saanu Victoria, Alfonso José Lag-Brotons, Lawrence I. Ezemonye, Alastair D. Martin, Roger W. Pickup, and Kirk T. Semple. 2024. "Volatile Fatty Acids Effective as Antibacterial Agents against Three Enteric Bacteria during Mesophilic Anaerobic Incubation" Molecules 29, no. 9: 1908. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091908

APA Style

Otite, S. V., Lag-Brotons, A. J., Ezemonye, L. I., Martin, A. D., Pickup, R. W., & Semple, K. T. (2024). Volatile Fatty Acids Effective as Antibacterial Agents against Three Enteric Bacteria during Mesophilic Anaerobic Incubation. Molecules, 29(9), 1908. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29091908

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop