Antimicrobial efficiency and stability of two decontamination solutions
Two decontamination solutions, commercially produced BASE•128 and laboratory decontamination solution (LDS), with analogous content of antibiotic and antimycotic agents, were compared in their antimicrobial efficiency and stability (pH and osmolarity). Both solutions were compared immediately after thawing aliquots frozen for 1, 3 or 6 months. Agar well diffusion method was used to test their antimicrobial efficiency against five human pathogens: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis. The difference in the inhibition of growth between the two decontamination solutions was mostly not statistically significant, with few exceptions. The most pronounced difference between the LDS and BASE•128 was observed in their decontamination efficacy against E. coli and E. faecalis, where the LDS showed to be more efficient than BASE•128. The osmolarity value of LDS decreased with cold-storage, the osmolarity values of the BASE•128 could not be measured as they were below the range of the osmometer. Slight changes were found in pH of the less stable LDS solution, whose pH increased from initial value 7.36 ± 0.07 to 7.72 ± 0.19 after 6 m-storage. We verified that BASE•128 and LDS are similarly efficient in elimination of possible placental bacterial contaminants and may be used for decontamination of various tissues.
KeywordsTissue decontamination Amniotic membrane decontamination Antimicrobial efficiency Decontamination solution
This work was supported by European Regional Development Fund, Project BBMRI-CZ III: EF16_013/0001674. Institutional support was provided by Progres-Q26/LF1 and by SVV, Project 260367/2017.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
- Ashraf NN, Siyal NA, Sultan S, Adhi MI (2015) Comparison of efficacy of storage of amniotic membrane at-20 and-80 degrees centigrade. J Coll Phys Surg Pak 25(4):264–267Google Scholar
- Baorto EP (2017) Staphylococcus aureus infection. Medscape. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/971358-overview. Accessed 11 May 2018
- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2018) M100—performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 28th edn. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, WayneGoogle Scholar
- de Kraker ME, Wolkewitz M, Davey PG, Koller W, Berger J, Nagler J et al (2011) Clinical impact of antimicrobial resistance in European hospitals: excess mortality and length of hospital stay related to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55(4):1598–1605CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Friedrich M (2017) Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Medscape. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/226748-overview. Accessed 10 May 2018
- Gonzales G (2017) Proteus infections. Medscape. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/226434-overview. Accessed 10 May 2018
- Keitel S (2017) Guide to the quality and safety of tissues and cells for human application, European Committee (Partial Agreement) on organ transplantation, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM), 3nd edn, Council of Europe, pp 197–201Google Scholar
- Madappa T (2017) Escherichia coli (E. coli) infections medication. medscape. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/217485-medication. Accessed 10 Feb 2018
- Ramirez Estrada S, Borgatta B, Rello J (2016) Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia management. Infect Drug Resist 20(9):7–18Google Scholar
- Rautmann G, Daas A, Buchheit KH (2010) Collaborative study for the establishment of the second international standard for amphotericin B. Pharmeuropa Bio Sci Notes 1:1–13Google Scholar
- The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) (2018) Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 8.0. http://www.eucast.org. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
- World Health Organization (2018) WHO publishes list of bacteria for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. http://www.who.int/en/news-room/detail/27-02-2017-who-publishes-list-of-bacteria-for-which-new-antibiotics-are-urgently-needed. Accessed 11 May 2018