Next Article in Journal
Flexible Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator Based on Low-Porosity β-Phase P(VDF-TrFE) Film for Human Vital Signs Monitoring
Next Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Colony Phenotyping with Hyperspectral Elastic Light Scattering Patterns
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Spatiotemporal Vegetation Response to Drought Using Remote Sensing Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Destructive Detection of Abnormal Chicken Eggs by Using an Optimized Spectral Analysis System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 23
Issue 4
10.3390/s23042135
sensors-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

Surface Environment and Energy Density Effects on the Detection and Disinfection of Microorganisms Using a Portable Instrument

by
Sungho Shin
1,
Brianna Dowden
1,
Iyll-Joon Doh
1,
Bartek Rajwa
2,
Euiwon Bae
3 and
J. Paul Robinson
1,4,*
1
Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
2
Bindley Bioscience Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
3
School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
4
Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2023, 23(4), 2135; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042135
Submission received: 19 January 2023 / Revised: 8 February 2023 / Accepted: 13 February 2023 / Published: 14 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Spectroscopy-Based Sensing Technologies for Food Quality and Safety)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Real-time detection and disinfection of foodborne pathogens are important for preventing foodborne outbreaks and for maintaining a safe environment for consumers. There are numerous methods for the disinfection of hazardous organisms, including heat treatment, chemical reaction, filtration, and irradiation. This report evaluated a portable instrument to validate its simultaneous detection and disinfection capability in typical laboratory situations. In this challenging study, three gram-negative and two gram-positive microorganisms were used. For the detection of contamination, inoculations of various concentrations were dispensed on three different surface types to estimate the performance for minimum-detectable cell concentration. Inoculations higher than 103~104 CFU/mm2 and 0.15 mm of detectable contaminant size were estimated to generate a sufficient level of fluorescence signal. The evaluation of disinfection efficacy was conducted on three distinct types of surfaces, with the energy density of UVC light (275-nm) ranging from 4.5 to 22.5 mJ/cm2 and the exposure time varying from 1 to 5 s. The study determined the optimal energy dose for each of the microorganisms species. In addition, surface characteristics may also be an important factor that results in different inactivation efficacy. These results demonstrate that the proposed portable device could serve as an in-field detection and disinfection unit in various environments, and provide a more efficient and user-friendly way of performing disinfection on large surface areas.

1. Introduction

Food safety is an ongoing challenge for national food supply chains and international trade [1,2,3]. To tackle this problem issue, microbiological food-safety research is categorized into two major areas covering detection and intervention. Detection aims to find the pathogens and provides information and direction for the downstream process of intervention. This can range from traditional culturing (gold standard) to more recent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods [4,5,6], biochemical methods [7], and novel instrumentations such as the elastic mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) light-scattering (ELS) technology [8,9,10] and laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) [11], as well as others. Most current detection methods rely on sampling-based techniques that require a significant length of time-to-result. Intervention utilizes results from the detection step and provides solutions to maintain a safe environment for growers, food manufacturers, and consumers. Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) is a widely accepted food-safety management system by many stakeholders in the food industry [12]. One of the key points of HACCP is applying disinfection steps to ensure that biological hazards are removed.
Disinfection methods are classified as biological, physical, or chemical. Biological methods utilize biological agents to kill or inactivate the target pathogen or toxin [13,14], while physical intervention includes irradiation and filtering [15,16]. Chemical disinfection agents, most notably chlorine or ozone, are widely used in the food industry to disinfect surfaces [17]. While there are advantages to using chemical methods to effectively disinfect large surface areas (low cost in particular), the associated risk, such as the hazardous nature of many chemicals, has created opportunities for alternative methods of intervention; for instance, UV irradiation has been widely used to disinfect large surfaces in clinical settings. Various optical techniques aimed at pathogenic bacteria and viruses have also been documented [18,19]. Hospitals are at the frontier of adopting optical disinfection methods, often based on autonomous systems [20,21,22]. While effective, these robotic devices used in hospitals require considerable capital investments.
The recent development of portable disinfection instruments has brought cost-effective and efficacious technology [23,24,25,26,27]. Some systems focus on the disinfection of individual items within a container or room, while others are designed to irradiate large areas of interest with multiple UV bands. Ideally, these systems should provide disinfection capability with multiple bands while maintaining portability [28]. A recent report utilizing the CSI-D+ device (also used in this study) demonstrated simultaneous fluorescence-based detection and UV-based sterilization capability in a single battery-operated unit. Such a design could potentially allow inspectors to employ only one unit for both assessment and disinfection. However, the effect of various confounding factors, such as the type of a substrate or an effective energy dose, are still unclear, and only a few publications thoroughly investigate the disinfection process using handheld instruments [23,29]. Compared to Sueker et al. [28], this work focuses on expanding the applicability of the proposed instrument in surface contamination detection and disinfection. This was accomplished by preparing samples containing multiple types of microorganisms and utilizing multiple types of surfaces that may be found in food processing facilities or hospitals.
Here, we report a validation study describing the detection and disinfection efficacy of the CSI-D+ device for both gram-negative and gram-positive organisms. The limit of detection size and effective energy doses have been estimated with multiple surfaces (liquid, semi-solid, and solid). These data will guide the actual implementation of this technology and the innovative handheld instrument.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

Three different gram-negative organisms, Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922), Klebsiella pneumoniae (ATCC 13883), and Salmonella enteritidis (ATCC 13076), and two different gram-positive organisms, Listeria innocua (ATCC 33090) and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 23235), were used in this study. All organisms were cultured at 37 °C after plating on Trypticase soy agar (TSA). A single colony from each plate was diluted in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) over a 4-log range in sterile glass tubes before use. The initial starting dilution was approximately 107 CFU/mL and estimated through colony counting.

2.2. Portable Disinfection Unit

A commercially available instrument (CSI-D+; SafetySpect Inc., Grand Forks, ND, USA) was selected as test equipment for disinfection of microbiological samples. This instrument included 405 nm (violet) as a source for detection mode and 275 nm (UVC) wavelength LED arrays for the exposure during both detection and disinfection mode, and a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) module to determine the surface distance, as shown in Figure 1a. This device includes an RGB, a UV camera for image acquisition, and a display screen, as shown in Figure 1b. Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as safety goggles, was mandatory during all disinfection procedures.

2.3. Detection Procedures

Three different environments were selected to test the CSI-D+’s ability to detect microorganisms: liquid samples, semi-solid agar surface, and ceramic tile surface. All images were captured at a fixed working distance of 12.7 cm, and the excitation source and power conditions were chosen to be 405 nm and 40 mW. For liquid samples, 10 μL aliquots of inoculation duplicates were placed on an eight-well glass slide (well aperture 8 mm). Three different concentrations (108, 107, and 106 CFU/mL) were diluted using sterile MilliQ water since PBS has auto-fluorescence at 405 nm. Next, 10 μL of organisms (103 CFU/mL dilution) was spread-plated onto TSA plates using an L-shaped spreader. Each measurement was conducted while increasing incubation time every three hours from 0 to 12 h at 37 °C. Lastly, 100 μL inoculation solution was spread on the surface of a black ceramic tile (Dal-tile Corporate, Dallas, TX, USA) in a 5-cm circle diameter. The images for both the glass slide and the ceramic tile were measured after 1 h of drying in a class-II laminar hood.

2.4. Disinfection Procedures

Three different growth environments were selected for comparison, as shown in Figure 2. The bacteria were suspended in PBS and thoroughly mixed to ensure equal exposure, and their absorbance in the UV range was negligible [30]. In detail, 100 μL of the varying concentrations of each organism were dispensed into individual wells of a 96-well plate in triplicate. The specific area (4 × 3 arrays of an individual well for every energy density) was subsequently exposed to UVC light while increasing energy density from 4.5 to 22.5 mJ/cm2 with a fixed working distance of 23 cm. Note that an irradiance of 4.5 mW/cm2 was measured at a fixed working distance, and the energy density was estimated multiplying the irradiance by the exposure time of UVC. After UVC exposure, 10 μL was removed from each well and spread onto TSA plates using an L-shaped spreader [31]. All plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, followed by colony counting.
For the second setting, TSA plates were chosen, and 10 μL of each organism was removed from each dilution and spread-plated onto TSA plates in triplicate. The entire area of the TSA plate (100 mm diameter) was subsequently exposed to UVC light and directly compared with the control plates with no UVC exposure. The UVC energy density and working distance were the same as in the liquid-sample testing. Note that all plates were positioned in the center of the exposure area, and the edge of the plate was exposed with a uniform UVC dose (>85%) estimated by a power meter. All plates, including both exposed plates and unexposed plates (control), were incubated and counted.
Third, a ceramic tile was chosen as a solid surface environment since these tiles are common surfaces in kitchens and hospitals [32,33]. A bright white ceramic wall tile (Dal-tile Corporate, Dallas, TX, USA) was obtained from a local home-improvement store. Tiles measuring 108 mm × 108 mm × 8 mm were selected to match the exposure area of the TSA plates. After all tiles were autoclaved, 100 μL of each organism was spread on the top surface of the tile using an L-shaped spreader. The whole area of the tile was subsequently exposed to UVC light, maintaining the same exposure conditions as in the first and second cases. Organisms on the tile surface were then swabbed from top to bottom with a sterile cotton swab dipped into sterile PBS, followed by swabbing onto TSA plates. This procedure was repeated three times using a different swab, each time in a different location on one tile surface where the bacteria were spread. A total of three TSA plates from one tile were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h for counting. The control set was handled in the same manner except for UVC exposure.
A total of 360 PBS samples, 90 agar dishes, and 90 tile plates were tested to count. Note that only one fixed diluted concentration (103 CFU/mL from 104 dilutions) was selected in both TSA plates and the measurement of the tile after various concentration tests in the liquid matrix. The killing rate and log reduction were calculated according to Equation (1) [16] and Equation (2) [29,34], respectively. N is the number of colonies after exposure, and N0 is the initial number of colonies from control plates.
Killing   rate = 100 − N N 0 × 100 ,
and
Log   reduction = log 10 N N 0 .

3. Results

3.1. Contamination Detection

Contamination detection results are shown in Figure 3. Each image represents a serially diluted liquid drop on (a) the slide glass, (b) the TSA plate with spreading, and (c) the black tile surface with spreading via sterile swabs. The top row shows raw images from the CSI-D+ device, and the bottom row includes the processed images. Processed images were converted into grayscale bitmaps, and ROI extractions were performed in Matlab. A 2D median filter and binary image conversion (luminance threshold = 0.4) were sequentially applied to isolate the surface contamination. It was shown that inoculation of 4.51 × 104 (dispensing in slide glass) and 3.18 × 103 (spreading on tile surface) CFU/mm2 concentration (average of two determinations) is the current limit of detection after dispensing or spreading liquid samples. In addition, a single colony size greater than 0.15 mm could be detected, which takes approximately 8 h of incubation at 37 °C on a TSA plate.

3.2. Disinfection in the Liquid Sample

The disinfection results for the liquid samples are shown in Figure 4. The killing rates were calculated for the five different microorganisms. The concentrations shown in the left and right columns were 104 and 103 CFU/mL, respectively. The results from higher concentrations (106 and 105 CFU/mL) are shown in the Supplementary Figure S1. The solid black symbols indicate the killing rate values. The whiskers show standard deviations calculated from triplicates. A sigmoidal–logistic fitting curve is shown as a red dashed line.
Figure 4 shows that the effective dose for disinfection varied depending on the type of bacterial species. First, K. pneumoniae colonies in various concentrations (106~103 CFU/mL) were completely removed by a dose of at least 4.5 mJ/cm2 (exposure time of 1 s). Second, it was shown that a 10.0 mJ/cm2 (exposure time of 2 s) effective dose could eliminate three species (S. enteritidis, L. innocua, and S. aureus). Third, E. coli had a relatively higher resistance to UVC than other species. As a result, an effective energy dose above 20.0 mJ/cm2 (exposure time of 4 s) was required for a bactericidal effect. In addition, it was shown that the influence of concentration on minimum effective dose was negligible in this energy density range (4.5–22.5 mJ/cm2). Only obvious improvement appeared at lower energy density, such as in Figure 4e at 4.5 mJ/cm2. The similar effective doses were also visually represented in Figure S1.

3.3. Disinfection in Agar Media

The disinfection results in nutrient-rich agar media (TSA media, red circle) and liquid sample (PBS, black rectangle) are shown in Figure 5. The killing rates are represented along with energy density increment, and the measurements were conducted at fixed concentrations (103 CFU/mL). It was shown that similar killing rates were achieved in each species and energy densities. Similarly, each effective energy dose used for E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. enteritidis, L. innocua, and S. aureus was assumed to be greater than 20, 5, 10, 10, 10 mJ/cm2, respectively, in both PBS and TSA media. However, different killing rates were shown at 4.5 mJ/cm2 energy density in both conditions, such as 34.2% (PBS) and 49.5% (TSA) (Figure 5a), and 40.1% (PBS) and 22.6% (TSA) (Figure 5d). As shown in Figure 5 (a; E. coli) and (d; L. innocua), lower energy density resulted in a higher standard deviation of the killing rate due to a sub-optimal level of energy density.

3.4. Disinfection in the Solid Surface

The disinfection results on the solid surface (tile surface, red circle) and in nutrient-rich agar media (TSA, black rectangle) are shown in Figure 6. These results were similar for PBS and TSA media; however, results for the tile surface showed a different regime. The killing rates were the same in the case of K. pneumoniae; however, the other species showed a higher killing rate in general when tested on tile surfaces rather than TSA media. For example, a 100% killing rate of E. coli and S. aureus was achieved at 13.5 and 4.5 mJ/cm2, respectively (shown in Figure 6a,e). In addition, it could also be seen that the killing rate was higher at 4.5 mJ/cm2 energy dose for E. coli and L. innocua.
The averaged log reduction values of five distinct species in three different conditions are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Energy density conditions listed in Table 1 and Table 2 are 4.5 and 9.0 mJ/cm2, respectively. The average log reductions values were estimated using triplicate samples. The average initial number of colonies (No) was calculated from three different control plates, i.e., three different numbers (N0-1, N0-2, N0-3) were determined from each control plate and averaged. Standard deviation (SD) values are shown in brackets. As shown in both tables, averaged log reduction values were similar for PBS and TSA media; however, higher log reduction values were achieved for the tile surface. From these results, it was demonstrated that disinfection could be achieved in various matrices, and an appropriate energy dose should be required for each species.

3.5. Comparison of the Log Reduction Values

A series of survival plots representing five different microorganisms in three different environmental conditions is shown in Figure 7. Log reduction values were obtained by increasing energy densities while treating a fixed initial concentration of 103 CFU/mL. Note that the log reduction value could not be displayed for a 100% killing rate. In both liquid and nutrient-rich agar, the highest energy density was needed to reduce the concentration of E. coli. Additionally, the reduction rate for E. coli was considerably lower than that of the other organisms. For solid tile surfaces, all tested organisms showed a similar rate of reduction. For example, the averaged slope of E. coli in PBS, TSA agar, and tile surface is –0.10, –0.09, and –0.19, respectively.

4. Discussion

In this study, simultaneous contamination detection and disinfection were accomplished in various environmental conditions using a portable device. Although the selected device has two different excitation sources (UV and visible light), only the visible wavelength (405 nm) was used as an excitation source in the detection mode, since UV light could inactivate several microorganisms.
In the case of E. coli in three different dilutions, it was observed that inoculation concentrations of 4.51 × 104 and 3.18 × 103 CFU/mm2 when dispensed on the slide glass or solid tile surface generated a sufficient level of fluorescence signal to be visible in the detection mode. Similarly, S. A. Hice [35] reported that fluorescence intensities of E. coli in concentrations greater than 103 CFU/mm2 are detectable with a paper-based assay using a low-cost fluorescent reader device. Chen et al. [36] also reported that a fluorescent microscope could capture Salmonella enterica in chicken meat in concentrations ~7 × 103 CFU/mm2. In another example, Sohn et al. [37] reported that a clear 345 nm fluorescence signal from E. coli suspension (below 106 CFU/mL) resulting from two excitation wavelengths at 225 nm and 280 nm can be readily detected.
In addition, the size limit of detectable contaminant was determined to be about 0.15 mm for a single colony on an agar plate. Similarly, Sueker et al. [28] reported that the minimum detectable spot size for saliva and respiratory droplets on stainless steel plates was about 0.13 mm, using a CSI-D device (a previous model of CSI-D+). These limitations, such as detectable concentrations or spot size, are also affected by the measurement parameters, such as working distance and angle of incidence of the excitation light. The fluorescence-based detection approach might be improved by changing the direction of excitation light from orthogonal to a diagonal axis on the target surface. Similarly, several researchers reported that fluorescence emission was detected at the orthogonal angle to the excitation beam to minimize interference [38,39,40].
Disinfection efficacy can be affected by several different design parameters, including wavelength, number of LEDs used, spatial arrangement of the LEDs, and so on. Several preliminary studies are currently under development to optimize uniform irradiation of UVC light; for instance, Kim et al. [41] reported that a linear array of UVC LEDs was installed in a bar-type module. The CSI-D+ consists of one large and one small circular arrays of UVC LEDs to provide a more uniform UV dose on the target surface. This device also included a LIDAR sensor, which provides information for adjusting a specific energy density, since energy density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the energy source to the target surface. One of the benefits of the CSI-D+ is that this unit provides real-time target distance and energy density so that inspectors can cross-check with the required energy dose to effectively disinfect certain surfaces. If the distance is larger than the specified length, the user can increase the energy dose to compensate for the loss of energy density.
During the disinfection process, a suitable energy dose is necessary for the effective disinfection of species. Microbial species are categorized based on their cell-wall characteristics as gram-negative or gram-positive microorganisms [42]. Specifically, different level of energy are required to break their chemical bonds, DNA, and cellular membrane (peptidoglycan and/or lipopolysaccharide membrane) since sensitivity to UV is correlated strongly with genome length [30]. In addition, different optical properties of the surrounding area of the target samples can affect the overall inactivation efficiency [43]. In this study, resistance to UVC was found to be in the order K. pneumoniae (lowest resistance), S. aureus, S. enteritidis, L. innocua, and E. coli (highest resistance). For example, all colonies of K. pneumoniae were not viable after exposure to about 5 mJ/cm2 in every experiment; however, E. coli needed an energy dose of at least 20~25 mJ/cm2 for effective killing. A relatively high SD of log reduction was observed in E. coli (see Table 1 and Table 2). Both tested energy conditions (4.5 and 9.0 mJ/cm2) were significantly less than the effective dose (22.5 mJ/cm2). It may be hypothesized that the lethality of less potent doses is also less consistent. These differential susceptibilities to UVC lead to the same results in the other two environments (agar and tile surface). Similarly, Gunter-Ward et al. reported that inactivation UVC doses for a 5-log reduction for E. coli were about twice that required for others, such as L. monocytogenes and S. typhimurium [34].
In the case of concentration differences, it was shown that there were no clear differences in disinfection rate between relatively higher and lower concentrations, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure S1. A uniform UVC dose may result in a uniform disinfection process over a whole target area, inducing similar log reduction values, depending on concentrations. In addition, we expected to observe resistance to UVC based on the gram type since gram-positive bacteria has only a layer of peptidoglycan, while gram-negative bacteria have both peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide cell wall. Instead, it was shown that different dose levels of energy should be applied to each bacterial type, and that the type of cell wall was not the only deciding factor for resistance to UVC. Similarly, Kim and Kang demonstrated [44] that two gram-negative and two gram-positive bacteria showed different inactivation rate constants. Therefore, more thorough testing of other microorganisms should be conducted to be broadened and applicable to the practical situation.
Three different environments, liquid, nutrient agar, and solid, were used to analyze the disinfection of microorganisms in this study. PBS as liquid media was widely used in the conventional disinfection studies, and TSA agars were also commonly selected as nutrient media. In addition, ceramic tile, commonly used in kitchens and hospitals, was selected as a solid surface for the evaluation of disinfection rates. It was shown that similar energy doses were required for the disinfection in PBS and TSA media, resulting in similar log reductions, depending on species types. Interestingly, lower energy doses were required on bright white ceramic surfaces while matching the same concentrations and preparation conditions. It was assumed that reflection and scattering of UV on the layer of tile might induce a minor increase of actual effective dose in targets. Xiao et al. [45] reported that ceramic microstructures have more sources of light scattering owing to grain boundaries, pores, and other factors; however, most UVC light may be transmitted or absorbed in PBS and TSA agars. Similarly, Szczawinski et al. [46], showed that photocatalytic films such as TiO2 coated on white ceramic wall tiles are responsible for the enhancement of UV germicidal effects. To validate this hypothesis, the same-size ceramic wall tile with dark color was challenged with an additional disinfection test for E. coli. The result showed that an averaged log reduction slope of E. coli in the black tile surface was −0.10, which is half the slope value of a white tile surface and similar to that of TSA agar.
It was demonstrated that detection and disinfection through a portable unit could be valuable in certain environments, such as the food industry and hospitals. It was also shown that the selection of an appropriate energy dose could be essential for the effective disinfection of bacterial species. The usage of UV could be effective in real-time and in-field analysis; however, the limitations imposed by penetration depth of various surfaces, such as food products or packaging, still requires further testing and validation.

5. Conclusions

The efficacy of a portable device in contamination detection and inactivation was validated in this study. Several gram-negative and gram-positive microorganisms were investigated in realistic environmental situations such as liquid, semi-solid, and solid surfaces. The suitable energy densities on each type of microorganism were estimated while comparing the slope of log reduction plots. The tested device can perform over 3 log reduction of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. enteritidis, L. innocua, and S. aureus within 5, 1, 3, 3, and 2 s of UVC exposure, respectively, on both liquid and semi-solid media. In addition, it was observed that the actual effective dose in the target could vary based on surface properties such as brightness or solidity. Assuming that the optics of the fluorescence detection pathway remain fixed, the detection limit of fluorescence emission depends on the accumulated mass of the biological material; thus, a small number of microorganisms cannot be detected effectively with the current system design. To improve the detection capability, it would be beneficial to investigate the detection efficacy as a function of various optical design parameters, such as different excitation wavelengths and illumination angles, and so forth. A new portable device resulting from this redesign could be used in more realistic settings for surface disinfection, such as a food processing plant or a hospital.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/s23042135/s1: Figure S1: Plate pictures after incubation at two different concentrations (106 and 105 CFU/mL) for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S., B.D., I.-J.D., B.R., E.B. and J.P.R.; methodology, S.S., B.D., I.-J.D., B.R., E.B. and J.P.R.; software, S.S. and I.-J.D.; validation, S.S., B.D. and I.-J.D.; formal analysis, S.S. and B.D.; investigation, S.S., B.D. and I.-J.D.; resources, S.S., I.-J.D. and E.B.; data curation, S.S., B.D. and E.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S., B.D. and E.B.; writing—review and editing, S.S., B.D., I.-J.D., B.R., E.B. and J.P.R.; visualization, S.S. and E.B.; supervision, B.R., E.B. and J.P.R.; project administration, B.R., E.B. and J.P.R.; funding acquisition, B.R., E.B. and J.P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Center for Food Safety Engineering at Purdue University, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, under Agreement No. 59-8072-1-002 and Agreement No. 58-8042-0-061.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author, subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Acknowledgments

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bhunia, A.K. One Day to One Hour: How Quickly Can Foodborne Pathogens Be Detected? Future Microbiol. 2014, 9, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.-A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jarquin, R.; Hanning, I.; Ahn, S.; Ricke, S.C. Development of Rapid Detection and Genetic Characterization of Salmonella in Poultry Breeder Feeds. Sensors 2009, 9, 5308–5323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Boukharouba, A.; González, A.; García-Ferrús, M.; Ferrús, M.A.; Botella, S. Simultaneous Detection of Four Main Foodborne Pathogens in Ready-to-Eat Food by Using a Simple and Rapid Multiplex PCR (MPCR) Assay. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Reese, K.R.; Elkins, K.M. Simultaneous Detection of Foodborne Pathogens Using a Real-Time PCR Triplex High-Resolution Melt Assay. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 2, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xu, K.; Huang, J.; Ye, Z.; Ying, Y.; Li, Y. Recent Development of Nano-Materials Used in DNA Biosensors. Sensors 2009, 9, 5534–5557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bansal, S.; Singh, A.; Mangal, M.; Mangal, A.K.; Kumar, S. Food Adulteration: Sources, Health Risks, and Detection Methods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1174–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Doh, I.-J.; Sturgis, J.; Sarria Zuniga, D.V.; Pruitt, R.E.; Robinson, J.P.; Bae, E. Generalized Spectral Light Scatter Models of Diverse Bacterial Colony Morphologies. J. Biophotonics 2019, 12, e201900149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tang, Y.; Kim, H.; Singh, A.K.; Aroonnual, A.; Bae, E.; Rajwa, B.; Fratamico, P.M.; Bhunia, A.K. Light Scattering Sensor for Direct Identification of Colonies of Escherichia Coli Serogroups O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145 and O157. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Doh, I.-J.; Dowden, B.; Patsekin, V.; Rajwa, B.; Robinson, J.P.; Bae, E. Development of a Smartphone-Integrated Reflective Scatterometer for Bacterial Identification. Sensors 2022, 22, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gondhalekar, C.; Biela, E.; Rajwa, B.; Bae, E.; Patsekin, V.; Sturgis, J.; Reynolds, C.; Doh, I.-J.; Diwakar, P.; Stanker, L.; et al. Detection of E. Coli Labeled with Metal-Conjugated Antibodies Using Lateral-Flow Assay and Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2020, 412, 1291–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dzwolak, W. Assessment of HACCP Plans in Standardized Food Safety Management Systems – The Case of Small-Sized Polish Food Businesses. Food Control 2019, 106, 106716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baliyan, N.; Dhiman, S.; Dheeman, S.; Vishnoi, V.K.; Kumar, S.; Maheshwari, D.K. Bacteriophage Cocktails as Antibacterial Agents in Crop Protection. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 5, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fischetti, V.A. Bacteriophage Endolysins: A Novel Anti-Infective to Control Gram-Positive Pathogens. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 300, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Calle, A.; Fernandez, M.; Montoya, B.; Schmidt, M.; Thompson, J. UV-C LED Irradiation Reduces Salmonella on Chicken and Food Contact Surfaces. Foods 2021, 10, 1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Singh, H.; Bhardwaj, S.K.; Khatri, M.; Kim, K.-H.; Bhardwaj, N. UVC Radiation for Food Safety: An Emerging Technology for the Microbial Disinfection of Food Products. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 417, 128084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Simpson, A.M.-A.; Mitch, W.A. Chlorine and Ozone Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts in Postharvest Food Processing Facilities: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 52, 1825–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Freeman, S.; Kibler, K.; Lipsky, Z.; Jin, S.; German, G.K.; Ye, K. Systematic Evaluating and Modeling of SARS-CoV-2 UVC Disinfection. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lopez, C.A.; Pineda-Briseño, A.; Rivas, J.F.; Vazquez, P. GLAMP: Low-Cost Ozone and UV-C Light-Emitting Portable Device for Disinfection of Environments. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Informatics, Environment, Energy and Applications, Xi’an, China, 4–6 March 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  20. Scott, R.; Joshi, L.T.; McGinn, C. Hospital Surface Disinfection Using Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Technology: A Review. Healthc. Technol. Lett. 2022, 9, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mehta, I.; Hsueh, H.-Y.; Kourtzanidis, N.; Brylka, M.; Saeedi, S. Far-UVC Disinfection with Robotic Mobile Manipulator. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 13–15 April 2022. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nerandzic, M.M.; Cadnum, J.L.; Pultz, M.J.; Donskey, C.J. Evaluation of an Automated Ultraviolet Radiation Device for Decontamination of Clostridium Difficile and Other Healthcare-Associated Pathogens in Hospital Rooms. BMC Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Guridi, A.; Sevillano, E.; de la Fuente, I.; Mateo, E.; Eraso, E.; Quindós, G. Disinfectant Activity of A Portable Ultraviolet C Equipment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2019, 16, 4747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Health Quality Ontario. Portable Ultraviolet Light Surface-Disinfecting Devices for Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont. Health Technol. Assess. Ser. 2018, 18, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  25. Petersson, L.P.; Albrecht, U.-V.; Sedlacek, L.; Gemein, S.; Gebel, J.; Vonberg, R.-P. Portable UV Light as an Alternative for Decontamination. Am. J. Infect. Control 2014, 42, 1334–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. She, R.C.; Chen, D.; Pak, P.; Armani, D.K.; Schubert, A.; Armani, A.M.; Armani, A.M. Lightweight UV-C Disinfection System. Biomed. Opt. Express 2020, 11, 4326–4332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Umezawa, K.; Asai, S.; Inokuchi, S.; Miyachi, H. A Comparative Study of the Bactericidal Activity and Daily Disinfection Housekeeping Surfaces by a New Portable Pulsed UV Radiation Device. Curr. Microbiol. 2012, 64, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sueker, M.; Stromsodt, K.; Gorji, H.T.; Vasefi, F.; Khan, N.; Schmit, T.; Varma, R.; Mackinnon, N.; Sokolov, S.; Akhbardeh, A.; et al. Handheld Multispectral Fluorescence Imaging System to Detect and Disinfect Surface Contamination. Sensors 2021, 21, 7222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cheng, Y.; Chen, H.; Sánchez Basurto, L.A.; Protasenko, V.V.; Bharadwaj, S.; Islam, M.; Moraru, C.I. Inactivation of Listeria and E. Coli by Deep-UV LED: Effect of Substrate Conditions on Inactivation Kinetics. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gómez-López, V.M.; Jubinville, E.; Rodríguez-López, M.I.; Trudel-Ferland, M.; Bouchard, S.; Jean, J. Inactivation of Foodborne Viruses by UV Light: A Review. Foods 2021, 10, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Smith, O.J.; Wicaksana, A.; Davidson, D.; Spratt, D.; Mosahebi, A. An Evaluation of the Bacteriostatic Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma. Int. Wound J. 2021, 18, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jensen, D.A.; Friedrich, L.M.; Harris, L.J.; Danyluk, M.D.; Schaffner, D.W. Quantifying Transfer Rates of Salmonella and Escherichia Coli O157:H7 between Fresh-Cut Produce and Common Kitchen Surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 1530–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Neely, A.N. A Survey of Gram-Negative Bacteria Survival on Hospital Fabrics and Plastics. J. Burn Care Rehabil. 2000, 21, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gunter-Ward, D.M.; Patras, A.; Bhullar, S.M.; Kilonzo-Nthenge, A.; Pokharel, B.; Sasges, M. Efficacy of Ultraviolet (UV-C) Light in Reducing Foodborne Pathogens and Model Viruses in Skim Milk. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hice, S.A. Novel Approaches to the Low-Cost, Portable and Rapid Detection of Bacterial Pathogens in Foods and Food-Processing Environments. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa City, IA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chen, I.-H.; Horikawa, S.; Bryant, K.; Riggs, R.; Chin, B.A.; Barbaree, J.M. Bacterial Assessment of Phage Magnetoelastic Sensors for Salmonella Enterica Typhimurium Detection in Chicken Meat. Food Control 2017, 71, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sohn, M.; Himmelsbach, D.S.; Barton, F.E.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J. Fluorescence Spectroscopy for Rapid Detection and Classification of Bacterial Pathogens. Appl. Spectrosc. 2009, 63, 1251–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tebo, A.G.; Moeyaert, B.; Thauvin, M.; Carlon-Andres, I.; Böken, D.; Volovitch, M.; Padilla-Parra, S.; Dedecker, P.; Vriz, S.; Gautier, A. Orthogonal Fluorescent Chemogenetic Reporters for Multicolor Imaging. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2021, 17, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Jang, D.H.; Na, W.H.; Yoo, J.C. A Miniaturized Fluorescence System via Total Internal Reflection, for Salmonella Detection by Isothermal Amplification. Sens. Lett. 2014, 12, 1076–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lapainis, T.; Scanlan, C.; Rubakhin, S.S.; Sweedler, J.V. A Multichannel Native Fluorescence Detection System for Capillary Electrophoretic Analysis of Neurotransmitters in Single Neurons. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 387, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, D.-K.; Kang, D.-H. Inactivation Efficacy of a Sixteen UVC LED Module to Control Foodborne Pathogens on Selective Media and Sliced Deli Meat and Spinach Surfaces. LWT 2020, 130, 109422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brown, H.L. Microbial Growth. In Encyclopedia of Infection and Immunity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 324–335. ISBN 978-0-323-90303-5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gross, A.; Stangl, F.; Hoenes, K.; Sift, M.; Hessling, M. Improved Drinking Water Disinfection with UVC-LEDs for Escherichia Coli and Bacillus Subtilis Utilizing Quartz Tubes as Light Guide. Water 2015, 7, 4605–4621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, D.-K.; Kang, D.-H. UVC LED Irradiation Effectively Inactivates Aerosolized Viruses, Bacteria, and Fungi in a Chamber-Type Air Disinfection System. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00944-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xiao, Z.; Yu, S.; Li, Y.; Ruan, S.; Kong, L.B.; Huang, Q.; Huang, Z.; Zhou, K.; Su, H.; Yao, Z.; et al. Materials Development and Potential Applications of Transparent Ceramics: A Review. Mater. Sci. Eng. R. Rep. 2020, 139, 100518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Szczawiński, J.; Tomaszewski, H.; Jackowska-Tracz, A.; Szczawińska, M.E. Effect of UV Radiation on Survival of Salmonella Enteritidis on the Surface of Ceramic Tiles Coated with TiO2. Bull. Vet. Inst. Pulawy 2010, 54, 479–483. [Google Scholar]
Sensors 23 02135 g001 550
Figure 1. The portable disinfection unit (CSI-D+) used for the present study. (a) Without the front cover, showing illumination structure, and (b) a frontal view of the unit with a user interface screen.
Figure 1. The portable disinfection unit (CSI-D+) used for the present study. (a) Without the front cover, showing illumination structure, and (b) a frontal view of the unit with a user interface screen.
Sensors 23 02135 g001
Sensors 23 02135 g002 550
Figure 2. Three different growth environments tested in this study. (a) Liquid sample (PBS), (b) nutrient-rich TSA agar, and (c) solid tile surface.
Figure 2. Three different growth environments tested in this study. (a) Liquid sample (PBS), (b) nutrient-rich TSA agar, and (c) solid tile surface.
Sensors 23 02135 g002
Sensors 23 02135 g003 550
Figure 3. Detection image as (a) drop on a slide glass, (b) nutrient-rich TSA agar plate, and (c) black solid tile surface. The top and bottom pictures represent raw and processed images, respectively.
Figure 3. Detection image as (a) drop on a slide glass, (b) nutrient-rich TSA agar plate, and (c) black solid tile surface. The top and bottom pictures represent raw and processed images, respectively.
Sensors 23 02135 g003
Sensors 23 02135 g004a 550Sensors 23 02135 g004b 550
Figure 4. Killing rate as a function of energy density in a liquid sample for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus. The left and right concentrations are 104 and 103 CFU/mL, respectively.
Figure 4. Killing rate as a function of energy density in a liquid sample for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus. The left and right concentrations are 104 and 103 CFU/mL, respectively.
Sensors 23 02135 g004aSensors 23 02135 g004b
Sensors 23 02135 g005 550
Figure 5. Killing rate as a function of energy density in a liquid sample (black rectangle) and nutrient-rich agar media (red circle) for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus.
Figure 5. Killing rate as a function of energy density in a liquid sample (black rectangle) and nutrient-rich agar media (red circle) for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus.
Sensors 23 02135 g005
Sensors 23 02135 g006 550
Figure 6. Percentage of killing rate as a function of energy density in nutrient-rich agar media (black rectangle) and solid surface (red circle) for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus.
Figure 6. Percentage of killing rate as a function of energy density in nutrient-rich agar media (black rectangle) and solid surface (red circle) for (a) E. coli, (b) K. pneumoniae, (c) S. enteritidis, (d) L. innocua, and (e) S. aureus.
Sensors 23 02135 g006
Sensors 23 02135 g007 550
Figure 7. Series of survival plots for five different microorganisms (a) in liquid sample, (b) on nutrient-rich agar, and (c) on solid tile surface.
Figure 7. Series of survival plots for five different microorganisms (a) in liquid sample, (b) on nutrient-rich agar, and (c) on solid tile surface.
Sensors 23 02135 g007
Table
Table 1. Summary table of log reduction values depending on microorganisms at 4.5 mJ/cm2 energy density (exposure time of 1 s). Standard deviation values are shown in brackets.
Table 1. Summary table of log reduction values depending on microorganisms at 4.5 mJ/cm2 energy density (exposure time of 1 s). Standard deviation values are shown in brackets.
PBSTSA AgarTile
E. coli–0.190 (0.11)–0.297 (0.19)–0.919 (0.10)
K. pneumoniae---
S. enteritidis–0.708 (0.12)–0.679 (0.06)–0.954 (0.07)
L. innocua–0.223 (0.06)–0.111 (0.04)–0.914 (0.04)
S. aureus–0.825 (0.06)–0.746 (0.07)-
Table
Table 2. Summary table of log reduction values depending on microorganisms at 9.0 mJ/cm2 energy density (exposure time of 2 s).
Table 2. Summary table of log reduction values depending on microorganisms at 9.0 mJ/cm2 energy density (exposure time of 2 s).
PBSTSA AgarTile
E. coli–0.795 (0.35)–0.891 (0.20)–1.749 (0.25)
K. pneumoniae---
S. enteritidis–1.785 (0.15)–1.900 (0.15)-
L. innocua–2.690 (0.07)–1.656 (0.23)-
S. aureus---
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

Shin, S.; Dowden, B.; Doh, I.-J.; Rajwa, B.; Bae, E.; Robinson, J.P. Surface Environment and Energy Density Effects on the Detection and Disinfection of Microorganisms Using a Portable Instrument. Sensors 2023, 23, 2135. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042135

AMA Style

Shin S, Dowden B, Doh I-J, Rajwa B, Bae E, Robinson JP. Surface Environment and Energy Density Effects on the Detection and Disinfection of Microorganisms Using a Portable Instrument. Sensors. 2023; 23(4):2135. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042135

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shin, Sungho, Brianna Dowden, Iyll-Joon Doh, Bartek Rajwa, Euiwon Bae, and J. Paul Robinson. 2023. "Surface Environment and Energy Density Effects on the Detection and Disinfection of Microorganisms Using a Portable Instrument" Sensors 23, no. 4: 2135. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042135

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop