Identification of bacteria in drinking and purified water during the monitoring of a typical water purification system

BACKGROUND: A typical purification system that provides purified water which meets ionic and organic chemical standards, must be protected from microbial proliferation to minimize cross-contamination for use in cleaning and preparations in pharmaceutical industries and in health environments. METHODOLOGY: Samples of water were taken directly from the public distribution water tank at twelve different stages of a typical purification system were analyzed for the identification of isolated bacteria. Two miniature kits were used: (i) identification system (api 20 NE, Bio-Mérieux) for non-enteric and non-fermenting gram-negative rods; and (ii) identification system (BBL crystal, Becton and Dickson) for enteric and non-fermenting gram-negative rods. The efficiency of the chemical sanitizers used in the stages of the system, over the isolated and identified bacteria in the sampling water, was evaluated by the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method. RESULTS: The 78 isolated colonies were identified as the following bacteria genera: Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium and Acinetobacter. According to the miniature kits used in the identification, there was a prevalence of isolation of P. aeruginosa 32.05%, P. picketti (Ralstonia picketti) 23.08%, P. vesiculares 12.82%,P. diminuta 11.54%, F. aureum 6.42%, P. fluorescens 5.13%, A. lwoffi 2.56%, P. putida 2.56%, P. alcaligenes 1.28%, P. paucimobilis 1.28%, and F. multivorum 1.28%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that research was required for the identification of gram-negative non-fermenting bacteria, which were isolated from drinking water and water purification systems, since Pseudomonas genera represents opportunistic pathogens which disperse and adhere easily to surfaces, forming a biofilm which interferes with the cleaning and disinfection procedures in hospital and industrial environments

Chemical resistance of the gram-negative bacteria to different sanitizers in a water purification system

BACKGROUND: Purified water for pharmaceutical purposes must be free of microbial contamination and pyrogens. Even with the additional sanitary and disinfecting treatments applied to the system (sequential operational stages), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Pseudomonas picketti, Flavobacterium aureum, Acinetobacter lowffi and Pseudomonas diminuta were isolated and identified from a thirteen-stage purification system. To evaluate the efficacy of the chemical agents used in the disinfecting process along with those used to adjust chemical characteristics of the system, over the identified bacteria, the kinetic parameter of killing time (D-value) necessary to inactivate 90% of the initial bioburden (decimal reduction time) was experimentally determined. METHODS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Pseudomonas picketti, Flavobacterium aureum, Acinetobacter lowffi and Pseudomonas diminuta were called in house (wild) bacteria. Pseudomonas diminuta ATCC 11568, Pseudomonas alcaligenes INCQS , Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 3178, Pseudomonas picketti ATCC 5031, Bacillus subtilis ATCC 937 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 were used as 'standard' bacteria to evaluate resistance at 25°C against either 0.5% citric acid, 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 70% ethanol, 0.5% sodium bisulfite, 0.4% sodium hydroxide, 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, or a mixture of 2.2% hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) and 0.45% peracetic acid. RESULTS: The efficacy of the sanitizers varied with concentration and contact time to reduce decimal logarithmic (log(10)) population (n cycles). To kill 90% of the initial population (or one log(10 )cycle), the necessary time (D-value) was for P. aeruginosa into: (i) 0.5% citric acid, D = 3.8 min; (ii) 0.5% hydrochloric acid, D = 6.9 min; (iii) 70% ethanol, D = 9.7 min; (iv) 0.5% sodium bisulfite, D = 5.3 min; (v) 0.4% sodium hydroxide, D = 14.2 min; (vi) 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, D = 7.9 min; (vii) mixture of hydrogen peroxide (2.2%) plus peracetic acid (0.45%), D = 5.5 min. CONCLUSION: The contact time of 180 min of the system with the mixture of H(2)O(2)+ peracetic acid, a total theoretical reduction of 6 log(10 )cycles was attained in the water purified storage tank and distribution loop. The contact time between the water purification system (WPS) and the sanitary agents should be reviewed to reach sufficient bioburden reduction (over 6 log(10))

Detecting imipenem resistance in Acinetobacter baumannii by automated systems (BD Phoenix, Microscan WalkAway, Vitek 2); high error rates with Microscan WalkAway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Increasing reports of carbapenem resistant <it>Acinetobacter baumannii </it>infections are of serious concern. Reliable susceptibility testing results remains a critical issue for the clinical outcome. Automated systems are increasingly used for species identification and susceptibility testing. This study was organized to evaluate the accuracies of three widely used automated susceptibility testing methods for testing the imipenem susceptibilities of <it>A. baumannii </it>isolates, by comparing to the validated test methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Selected 112 clinical isolates of <it>A. baumanii </it>collected between January 2003 and May 2006 were tested to confirm imipenem susceptibility results. Strains were tested against imipenem by the reference broth microdilution (BMD), disk diffusion (DD), Etest, BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway and Vitek 2 automated systems. Data were analysed by comparing the results from each test method to those produced by the reference BMD test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>MicroScan performed true identification of all <it>A. baumannii </it>strains while Vitek 2 unidentified one strain, Phoenix unidentified two strains and misidentified two strains. Eighty seven of the strains (78%) were resistant to imipenem by BMD. Etest, Vitek 2 and BD Phoenix produced acceptable error rates when tested against imipenem. Etest showed the best performance with only two minor errors (1.8%). Vitek 2 produced eight minor errors(7.2%). BD Phoenix produced three major errors (2.8%). DD produced two very major errors (1.8%) (slightly higher (0.3%) than the acceptable limit) and three major errors (2.7%). MicroScan showed the worst performance in susceptibility testing with unacceptable error rates; 28 very major (25%) and 50 minor errors (44.6%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Reporting errors for <it>A. baumannii </it>against imipenem do exist in susceptibility testing systems. We suggest clinical laboratories using MicroScan system for routine use should consider using a second, independent antimicrobial susceptibility testing method to validate imipenem susceptibility. Etest, whereever available, may be used as an easy method to confirm imipenem susceptibility.</p