Protocol for Evaluating the Microbial Inactivation of Commercial UV Devices on Plastic Surfaces
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Design
2.1. Materials and Reagents
- Escherichia coli strain (ATCC 25922, provided through the culture collection of the Bhullar Food Safety Lab, Olathe, KS, USA)
- Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 14458, provided through the culture collection of the Bhullar Food Safety Lab, Olathe, KS, USA)
- Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. R455004)
- Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. R455054)
- Brain–Heart Infusion broth (BHI; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. CM1136B)
- 1X Phosphate Buffer Saline (1X PBS; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. J62036K3)
- 0.1% Buffered Peptone Water (BPW; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. CM0509R)
- Cell lifter (Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY, USA, cat. no. 3008)
- Serological Pipette Tip ( ≥30 mL capacity; Thermo Scientific™, Waltham, MA, USA, cat. no. 170357N)
- Plastic coupons (or petri dish) with a 17.35 cm2 surface area (4.7 cm diameter; MilliporeSigma™, Burlington, MA, USA, cat. no. PD2004705)
2.2. Equipment
- Centrifuge (Beckman-Coulter, Brea, CA, USA; model: Allegra X-30)
- Optical Light Meter (International Light Technologies, Peabody, MA, USA; model: ILT-2400)
- 254-nm sensor (International Light Technologies, Peabody, MA, USA; model SED005/WBS320/W)
- Biosafety Cabinet (Labconco Corporation, Kansas City, MO, USA; model: Purifier Logic+ Class II, Type A2)
- Vortex Mixer (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; model: Fisherbrand™ Analog Vortex Mixer)
- Serological Pipette (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; model: Fisherbrand™ Electric Pipet Controller)
- Metal spreader (SP Industries, Inc., Warminster, PA, USA; cat. no. F37736-0009)
- Turntable (Troemner™, Thorofare, NJ, USA; cat. no. 3040046)
3. Procedure
3.1. Device Irradiance Measurements
- To prepare an enclosed low-cost UV tower with the following dimensions (Figure 1), first, construct the base from wooden beams (or boards). The placement of the horizontal beams should correspond with the experimental distances (0.6 m, 1 m, and 2 m for this protocol).
- After constructing the base, apply the construction board to the sides using nails or adhesive to cover the testing area. To facilitate the installation of the UV equipment, it may be beneficial to construct a ‘door’ by permanently adhering one side of the construction board to the frame, and using a non-permanent adhesive to affix the other side to the frame.CRITICAL STEP: this step is critical to ensuring human safety in the testing area while the devices are in operation.
- To install the UV equipment in the tower, remove the construction paper from one side of the tower (or open the ‘door’ if constructed) and fix the equipment onto the horizontal planks at 0.6 m, 1 m, or 2 m using screws. Instead of using a construction board for the top panel, plastic sheeting from a local hardware supplier can be applied to block the transmission of light from the tower.
- Turn on the UV device and wait for 5 to 10 min before recording the device′s irradiance within the testing area using the ILT-2400 Optical Light Meter equipped with the 254-nm sensor.CRITICAL STEP: this warm-up step is critical to ensuring an accurate uniform measurement of UV intensity (μW/cm2).
- OPTIONAL STEP: if interested in reporting the stability of the devices′ UV intensity over time, record the intensity for a 10-min period at each experimental distance.
- Record and report the UV intensity and dose at each experimental time–distance treatment.
3.2. Culturing Test Microorganisms
- Propagate Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 14458) by transferring a loopful of frozen culture onto TSA and performing a streak plate.
- Incubate the inoculated TSA plate at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 ± 2 h; this is the master plate that will be used for the experimental trials.
- Transfer one colony from the master plate to a culture tube containing 10 mL of TSB or BHI (according to the organism).
- Incubate the 10 mL of inoculated TSB/BHI at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 ± 2 h.
- After incubation, vortex the tube and pipette 100 µL of the inoculated medium into a centrifuge tube containing 30 mL of sterile TSB or BHI (according to the organism).
- Incubate the 30 mL of inoculated TSB/BHI at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 ± 2 h.
- To prepare the cells for experimentation, centrifuge the tube containing 30 mL of inoculated TSB/BHI at 10,000 rpm and 20 °C for 10 min.
- Following centrifugation, discard the supernatant and add 30 mL of 1X PBS.
- Vortex the tube until the pellet is completely dissolved, then centrifuge again at 10,000 rpm and 20 °C for 10 min.
- Repeat steps 8–9 twice for a total of 3 washes.
- After the last wash, add 30 mL of 0.1% BPW. This should yield a final concentration of 7–8 log CFU/mL.
3.3. Inactivation Experiments
- To inoculate a plastic coupon, dispense 100 µL of the washed cell suspension onto the coupon, forming ~50 beads of ~2 µL each in concentric circles (Figure 2).
- Dry the coupon in a biosafety cabinet for 15 min.CRITICAL STEP: do not overdry the pellet as this could negatively affect the initial and final microbial population.
- Activate the UV device for a 10-min warmup period.
- Place the samples on a plastic tray in a randomized fashion and slide the tray inside the testing area underneath the illuminated UV device (Figure 1). Store untreated control samples outside of the testing area during the experiment.
- After the treatment time has lapsed, retrieve the plastic tray from the testing area and remove the treated coupons.
- Immediately place the treated coupons into a Whirlpak bag containing 20mL of 0.1% BPW.
- PAUSE STEP: after immersing the treated coupons in 20 mL of 0.1% BPW, the lab recommends processing the samples within one hour to ensure an accurate count.
3.4. Microbial Enumeration
- Retrieve the Whirlpak bags containing the treated coupons immersed in 20 mL of 0.1% BPW.
- Using a sterile cell lifter tool, scrape the surface of the plastic coupon for 30 s.CRITICAL STEP: do not rely solely on hand massaging as the cell lifter tool is required to completely transfer the plaques of bacteria formed during the drying process to the diluent.
- After scraping the plastic coupon, hand massage the sample bag to homogenize the sample.
- Perform ten-fold serial dilutions of the sample using 9 mL of 0.1% BPW as the diluent (Steps 5–11).
- First, prepare a series of sterile culture tubes containing 9 mL of 0.1% BPW. Label the tubes T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.
- Add 1 mL of diluent from the homogenized, original sample to T1 and vortex the tube.
- Add 1 mL of diluent from T1 to T2 and vortex T2.
- Add 1 mL of diluent from T2 to T3 and vortex T3.
- Add 1 mL of diluent from T3 to T4 and vortex T4.
- Add 1 mL of diluent from T4 to T5 and vortex T5.
- Pipet 100 µL from each tube onto separate TSA plates and spread plate the samples using a flame sterilized spreader. Perform this step in duplicate.
- Perform steps 4–11 to prepare serial dilutions of the the inoculum to confirm the inoculum′s initial concentration. There should be a minimum of 6 to 7 log CFU/mL present in the inoculum.
- Using a flame sterilized spreader, spread plate 100 µL of the samples in duplicate onto TSA.
- Rest the plates for 5 min, then invert the plates and incubate at 35 ± 2 °C for 24 ± 2 h.
- After incubation, record the counts for plates yielding 25 to 250 colony forming units (CFU) and calculate the log population according to Equation (1):
- Calculate the log reduction and percent reduction according to Equations (2) and (3), respectively.Of note, either metric may be used to represent the microbial inactivation acheieved with a UV device. However, percent reduction is more common in industry reporting, whereas log reduction is primarily used in the academic (research) setting.CRITICAL STEP: Repeat the experiment at least twice to estimate the variability of the results and increase the accuracy of your results.
4. Expected Results
5. Reagents Setup
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Heßling, M.; Hönes, K.; Vatter, P.; Lingenfelder, C. Ultraviolet Irradiation Doses for Coronavirus Inactivation–Review and Analysis of Coronavirus Photoinactivation Studies. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control 2020, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhr, T.L.; Young, A.A.; Borgers-Klonkowski, E.; Kennihan, N.L.; Barnette, H.K.; Minter, Z.A.; Bohmke, M.D.; Osborn, E.B.; Hamilton, S.M.; Kimani, M.B. Hot, Humid Air Decontamination of Aircraft Confirmed That High Temperature and High Humidity Are Critical for Inactivation of Infectious, Enveloped Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) Virus. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 1185, 592621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swanson, D.; Santamaria, L. Pandemic Supply Chain Research: A Structured Literature Review and Bibliometric Network Analysis. Logistics 2021, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbonimpa, E.G.; Blatchley, E.R.; Applegate, B.; Harper, W.F. Ultraviolet A and B Wavelength-Dependent Inactivation of Viruses and Bacteria in the Water. J. Water Health 2018, 16, 796–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Green, A.; Popović, V.; Pierscianowski, J.; Biancaniello, M.; Warriner, K.; Koutchma, T. Inactivation of Escherichia Coli, Listeria and Salmonella by Single and Multiple Wavelength Ultraviolet-Light Emitting Diodes. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 47, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douki, T.; Cadet, J. Individual Determination of the Yield of the Main UV-Induced Dimeric Pyrimidine Photoproducts in DNA Suggests a High Mutagenicity of CC Photolesions. Biochemistry 2001, 40, 2495–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boyce, R.P.; Howard-Flanders, P. Release of Ultraviolet Light-Induced Thymine Dimers from DNA in E. Coli K-12. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1964, 51, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gsell, C.; Richly, H.; Coin, F.; Naegeli, H. A Chromatin Scaffold for DNA Damage Recognition: How Histone Methyltransferases Prime Nucleosomes for Repair of Ultraviolet Light-Induced Lesions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, 1652–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perkins, J.E.; Bahlke, A.M.; Silverman, H.F. Effect of Ultra-Violet Irradiation of Classrooms on Spread of Measles in Large Rural Central Schools Preliminary Report. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 1947, 37, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, B.M.; Bånrud, H.; Bøe, E.; Bjordal, O.; Drangsholt, F. Comparison of UV C Light and Chemicals for Disinfection of Surfaces in Hospital Isolation Units. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2006, 27, 729–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindblad, M.; Tano, E.; Lindahl, C.; Huss, F. Ultraviolet-C Decontamination of a Hospital Room: Amount of UV Light Needed. Burns 2020, 46, 842–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thatcher, C.H.; Adams, B.R. Impact of Surface Reflection on Microbial Inactivation in a UV LED Treatment Duct. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2020, 230, 116204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atci, F.; Cetin, Y.E.; Avci, M.; Aydin, O. Evaluation of In-Duct UV-C Lamp Array on Air Disinfection: A Numerical Analysis. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2020, 27, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommers, C.H.; Sites, J.E.; Musgrove, M. Ultraviolet Light (254 Nm) Inactivation of Pathogens on Foods and Stainless Steel Surfaces. J. Food Saf. 2010, 30, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haughton, P.N.; Lyng, J.G.; Cronin, D.A.; Morgan, D.J.; Fanning, S.; Whyte, P. Efficacy of UV Light Treatment for the Microbiological Decontamination of Chicken, Associated Packaging, and Contact Surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Haley, O.C.; Zhao, Y.; Bhullar, M. Protocol for Evaluating the Microbial Inactivation of Commercial UV Devices on Plastic Surfaces. Methods Protoc. 2022, 5, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5040065
Haley OC, Zhao Y, Bhullar M. Protocol for Evaluating the Microbial Inactivation of Commercial UV Devices on Plastic Surfaces. Methods and Protocols. 2022; 5(4):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5040065
Chicago/Turabian StyleHaley, Olivia C., Yeqi Zhao, and Manreet Bhullar. 2022. "Protocol for Evaluating the Microbial Inactivation of Commercial UV Devices on Plastic Surfaces" Methods and Protocols 5, no. 4: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5040065
APA StyleHaley, O. C., Zhao, Y., & Bhullar, M. (2022). Protocol for Evaluating the Microbial Inactivation of Commercial UV Devices on Plastic Surfaces. Methods and Protocols, 5(4), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5040065