The Efficacy of Tetrasodium EDTA on Biofilms

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1057)

Abstract

The aetiology of delayed wound healing characteristic of a chronic wound is relatively unknown but is thought to be due to a combination of the patient’s underlying pathophysiology and external factors including infection and biofilm formation. The invasion of the wound by the hosts’ resident microbiome and exogenous microorganisms can lead to biofilm formation. Biofilms have increased tolerance to antimicrobial interventions and constitute a concern to chronic wound healing. Consequently, anti-biofilm technologies with proven efficacy in areas outside of wound care need evaluation to determine whether their efficacy could be relevant to the control of biofilms in wounds. The aim of this study was to assess the anti-biofilm capabilities of tetrasodium EDTA (t-EDTA) as a stand-alone liquid and when incorporated in low concentrations into wound dressing prototypes. Results demonstrated that a low concentration of t-EDTA (4%) solution was able to kill Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), S. epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis within in vitro biofilms after a 24-h contact time. The incorporation of low levels of t-EDTA into prototype fibrous wound dressings resulted in a 3-log reduction of bacteria demonstrating its microbicidal ability. Furthermore, hydrogels incorporating only a 0.2% concentration of t-EDTA (at preservative levels) caused a small reduction in biofilm. In conclusion, these studies show that t-EDTA as a stand-alone agent is an effective anti-biofilm agent in vitro. We have demonstrated that t-EDTA is compatible with numerous wound dressing platforms. EDTA could provide an essential tool to manage biofilm-related infections and should be considered as an anti-biofilm agent alone or in combination with other antimicrobials or technologies for increased antimicrobial performance in recalcitrant wounds.

Keywords

Antimicrobial Biofilm EDTA Infection Wound Dressing Wounds 

References

  1. Anon (2004) Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the salts of EDTA: Science Assessment Document for Tolerance ReassessmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Banin E, Brady KM, Greenberg EP (2006) Chelator-induced dispersal and killing of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa cells in a biofilm. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(3):2064–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Che Y, Sanderson K, Roddam LF, Kirov SM, Reid DW (2009) Iron-binding compounds impair Pseudomonas Aeruginosa biofilm formation, especially under anaerobic conditions. J Med Microbiol 58(6):765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devine D, Percival R, Wood D, Tuthill T, Kite P, Killington R, Marsh P (2007) Inhibition of biofilms associated with dentures and toothbrushes by tetrasodium EDTA. J Appl Microbiol 103(6):2516–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 8(9):881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finnegan S, Percival SL (2014) EDTA: an antimicrobial and Antibiofilm agent for use in Wound Care. Advances in Wound Care 4(7):415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Francolini I, Donelli G (2010) Prevention and control of biofilm-based medical-device-related infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59(3):227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grundler OJ, van der Steen AT, Wilmot J (2005) Overview of the European risk assessment on EDTA in ACS publicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kimmel CA (1977) Effect of route of administration on the toxicity and teratogenicity of EDTA in the rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 40(2):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kite P, Hatton D (2001) Antiseptic compositions, methods and systems. US 8541472, EP1628655Google Scholar
  11. Kite P, Eastwood K, Sugden S, Percival SL (2004) Use of in vivo-generated biofilms from hemodialysis catheters to test the efficacy of a novel antimicrobial catheter lock for biofilm eradication in vitro. J Clin Microbiol 42(7):3073–3076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kite P, Eastwood K, Percival SL. (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of EDTA formulations for use as a novel catheter lock solution for the eradication of biofilms. In Biofilms, persistence and ubiquity, Eds McBain A, Allison D, Pratten J, Spratt D, Upton M and Verran J. Bioline, Cardiff, p 181–190Google Scholar
  13. Koulaouzidou EA, Margelos J, Beltes P, Kortsaris AH (1999) Cytotoxic effects of different concentrations of neutral and alkaline EDTA solutions used as root canal irrigants. J Endod 25(1):21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moreau-Marquis S, O’toole GA, Stanton BA (2009) Tobramycin and FDA-approved iron chelators eliminate Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on cystic fibrosis cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 41(3):305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Percival SL (2017) Importance of biofilm formation in surgical infection. Br J Surg 104(2):e85–e94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Percival SL, Kite P, Eastwood K, Murga R, Carr J, Arduino MJ, Donlan RM (2005) Tetrasodium EDTA as a novel central venous catheter lock solution against biofilm. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26(6):515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Percival SL, Hill KE, Williams DW, Hooper SJ, Thomas DW, Costerton JW (2012) A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. Wound Repair Reg 20(5):647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Percival SL, Suleman L, Vuotto C, Donelli G (2015) HCAI, medical devices and biofilms: risk, tolerance and control. J Med Microbiol 64(Pt 4):323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Percival SL, Mayer D, Malone M, Swanson T, Gibson D, Schultz G (2017) Surfactants and their role in wound cleansing and biofilm management. J Wound Care (11):26, 680–690Google Scholar
  20. Raad II, Fang X, Keutgen XM, Jiang Y, Sherertz R, Hachem R (2008) The role of chelators in preventing biofilm formation and catheter-related bloodstream infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 21(4):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramage G, Wickes BL, López-Ribot JL (2007) Inhibition on Candida albicans biofilm formation using divalent cation chelators (EDTA). Mycopathologia 164(6):301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rhoads DD, Wolcott RD, Percival SL (2008) Biofilms in wounds: management strategies. J Wound Care 17(11):502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schardein J, Sakowski R, Petrere J, Humphrey R (1981) Teratogenesis studies with EDTA and its salts in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 61(3):423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shanks RM, Donegan NP, Graber ML, Buckingham SE, Zegans ME, Cheung AL, O’Toole GA (2005) Heparin stimulates Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. Infect Immun 73(8):4596–4606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weinberg E (2004) Suppression of bacterial biofilm formation by iron limitation. Med Hypotheses 63(5):863–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wingender J, Neu TR, Flemming H-C (2012) Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: characterization, structure and function. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolcott R, Costerton J, Raoult D, Cutler S (2013) The polymicrobial nature of biofilm infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 19(2):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Excellence in Biofilm Science and Technologies (CEBST), 5D Health Protection Group Ltd, Liverpool Bio-innovation HubLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations