Share This Article:

Comparison of Direct Microbial Count Procedures for Planktonics and Sessiles Enumeration

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:2964KB) PP. 2033-2037
DOI: 10.4236/fns.2014.521214    3,044 Downloads   3,460 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

In the present investigation, the sensitivity of different direct microbial count procedures applied on systems containing both planktonics and sessiles was tested. The direct count pour plate was compared with direct epifluorescent microscopic enumerations in order to evaluate the efficiency of the studied techniques in giving information about microbial activity or viability. Our results indicate that the standard plate count procedure is the most sensitive method to estimate viable and cultivable planktonic cells. On the other hand, direct enumeration by epifluorescent microscopy may become an interesting alternative to count sessile cells.

Cite this paper

Speranza, B. , Racioppo, A. , Bevilacqua, A. , Sinigaglia, M. and Altieri, C. (2014) Comparison of Direct Microbial Count Procedures for Planktonics and Sessiles Enumeration. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 5, 2033-2037. doi: 10.4236/fns.2014.521214.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Rodriguez, G.G., Phipps, D., Ishiguro, K. and Ridgway, H.F. (1992) Use of a Fluorescent Redox Probe for Direct Visualization of Actively Respiring Bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 58, 1801-1808.
[2] Epstein, S.S. and Rossel J. (1995) Methodology of in Situ Grazing Experiments: Evaluation of a New Vital Dye for Preparation of Fluorescently Labelled Bacteria. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 128, 143-150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps128143
[3] Arizcun, C., Vasseur, C. and Labadie, J.C. (1998) Effect of Several Decontamination Procedures on Listeria monocytogenes Growing in Biofilms. Journal of Food Protection, 61, 731-734.
[4] Vaughan, A., Buzzini, P. and Clementi, F. (2012) Laboratorio Didattico di Microbiologia. Casa Editrice Ambrosiana, Milano.
[5] Zwietering, M.H., Jogenburger, I., Rombouts, F.M. and Van’t Riet, K. (1990) Modelling of the Bacterial Growth Curve. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56, 1875-1881.
[6] Coalier, J., Prevost, M. and Rompre, A. (1994) The Optimization and Application of Two Direct Viable Count Methods for Bacteria in Distributed Drinking Water. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 40, 380-386.
[7] Davies, D. (2003) Understanding Biofilm Resistance to Antibacterial Agents. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2, 114-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1008
[8] Schaule, G., Flemming, H. C. and Ridgway, H. F. (1993) Use of 5-Cyano-2,3-ditolyl tetrazolium Chloride for Quantifying Planktonic and Sessile Respiring Bacteria in Drinking Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59, 3850-3857.
[9] Leriche, V., Briandet, R. and Carpentier, B. (2003) Ecology of Mixed Biofilms Subjected Daily to a Chlorinated Alkaline Solution: Spatial Distribution of Bacterial Species to Another. Environmental Microbiology, 5, 64-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2003.00394.x

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.