In vitro bactericidal effect of low-temperature plasma ablation on common pathogens

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2024.11.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To preliminarily explore the killing effect of low-temperature plasma ablation on different pathogens in vitro, aiming to provide a new technical method for killing common pathogens.

Methods

Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were inoculated into culture media, cultured to the logarithmic growth stage, and prepared as 0.5 McFarland bacterial suspensions, respectively. Bacterial suspension samples (2.0 mL) were placed in sterile test tubes, and the PLACOAG mode of the low-temperature plasma ablation system was used for ablation treatments on the bacterial suspensions for 0 s, 3 s, 6 s, 9 s, 12 s, 15 s, and 18 s, respectively. Then, the samples were placed in an incubator for cultivation.The mean survival count, bactericidal logarithms, and bactericidal rate at each ablation time point in each group were calculated.

Results

The colony counts of Staphylococcus aureus (F=40.360, P<0.001), Escherichia coli (F=72.568, P<0.001), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (F=129.028, P<0.001), and Candida albicans (F=85.744, P<0.001) were statistically different among different treatment durations. The colony counts of the four pathogen groups all reached the minimum at 18 s of ablation, but they were statistically different among the four groups (F=27.105, P<0.001), with that of Candida albicans being the least, those of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the second,and that of Staphylococcus aureus being the most. The average killing logarithm values for Staphylococcus aureus (F=56.287, P<0.001), Escherichia coli (F=36.529, P<0.001), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (F=22.853,P<0.001), and Candida albicans (F=133.974, P<0.001) were statistically different among different treatment durations. The average killing logarithm values for the four pathogen groups reached the maximum value at 18 s of ablation, but they were statistically different among the four groups (F=171.764, P<0.001), with that for Candida albicans being the largest, those for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the second largest, and that for Staphylococcus aureus being the smallest. The average maximum bactericidal rate for Staphylococcus aureus (F=86.522, P<0.001), Escherichia coli (F=46.388, P<0.001), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (F=62.503, P<0.001), and Candida albicans (F=51.726, P<0.001) were statistically different among different treatment durations. The maximum bactericidal rates for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa reached their maximum values at 18 s of ablation, while that for Candida albicans reached its maximum at 12 s. There was a statistical difference in the bactericidal rates among the four treatment groups at 18s of ablation (F=20.607, P<0.001), with those for Candida albicans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the highest, followed by that for Escherichia coli, and that for Staphylococcus aureus being the lowest.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that low-temperature plasma ablation has a rapid and significant killing effect on common pathogens in vitro. The killing effect on the four common pathogens is variable and individualisation of the ablation strategy is thus required.

Key words: Low-temperature plasma, Ablation, Pathogens, Killing effect

Zhe Chang, Liyun Dang, Yi Huang, Lei Zuo, Lian Xue, Guolian Zhao, Fei Ren, Yuxin Niu, Liang Gao. In vitro bactericidal effect of low-temperature plasma ablation on common pathogens[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(11): 1037-1043.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2024.11.010

https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2024/V18/I11/1037

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

1	Tribble DR, Krauss MR, Murray CK, et al. Epidemiology of traumarelated infections among a combat casualty cohort after initial hospitalization: the trauma infectious disease outcomes study [J]. Surg Infect( Larchmt), 2018, 19(5): 494-503.
2	Perin J, Mulick A, Yeung D, et al. Global, regional,and national causes of under-5mortality in2000-19:an updated systemati c analysis with implications for the sustainable development goals [J]. Lancet Child Adolesc Health, 2022, 6(2): 106-115.
3	温国琴. 抗生素耐药性现状及研究进展 [J]. 中国处方药, 2022, 20(8):186-190.
4	李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 等. 基于某三级医院的ICU 多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析 [J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023,17(7): 777-782
5	Wang H, Ren Y, Chang Z, et al. The increased recurrence rate of liver abscess caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae [J]. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2020, 39(7): 1315-1320.
6	郭稳. 头孢菌素类抗生素联合其他药物治疗致不良反应发生的情况分析 [J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2021, 15(11): 234-236.
7	Ding L, Guo Y, Hu FP. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance: China's nearly 40-year effort [J]. Int JAntimicrob Agents, 2023, 62(2): 106869.
8	Sy CL, Chen PY, Cheng CW, et al. Recommendations and guide- lines for the treatment of infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms [J]. J Microbiol Immunol Infect, 2022, 55(3): 359-386.
9	Wang MG, Earley M, Chen L, et al. Clinical outcomes and bacterial characteristics of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneu- m omiae .complex among patients from different global regions (CRACKLE-2):a prospective, multicentre, cohort study [J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2022, 22(3):401-412.
10	Moja L, Zanichelli V, Mertz D, et al. WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections [J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2024,30(S2): S1-S51.
11	宋丰安, 向逸冰, 胡高斌, 等. 复方黄柏液涂剂超声引导下置管冲洗对内痈患者的临床疗效 [J]. 中成药, 2022, 44(3): 771-776.
12	郑鑫. 超声引导下经皮穿刺置管引流术与腹腔镜肝脓肿切开引流术治疗细菌性肝脓肿患者对比观察 [J]. 现代医用影像学, 2019, 28(4):785-786.
13	王彦冬, 郝凯飞, 经翔, 等. 超声引导经皮颌下区穿刺置管引流在咽旁间隙脓肿治疗中的应用 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2020, 29(11):977-981.
14	王艳秋, 汪龙霞, 李秋洋, 等. 超声引导下置管引流及药物冲洗治疗较大盆腔脓肿的价值 [J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2021, 32(8): 544-546.
15	Karthik C, Sarngadharan SC, Thomas V. Low-temperature plasma techniques in biomedical applications and therapeutics: An overview [J].Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 25(1): 524.
16	向忠, 陈志武, 何秀波. 超声引导下经皮颈椎间盘穿刺低温等离子射频消融术治疗颈椎病的疗效观察 [J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2022, 37(9): 925-927.
17	戴俊, 李硕, 曹影, 等. 鼻内镜下改良高选择性翼管神经低温等离子消融术对中重度变应性鼻炎的效果研究 [J/OL].中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(6): 689-693.
18	王正, 许晓燕, 卫旭东. 低温等离子喉部分切除术治疗早期声门型喉癌的临床疗效分析 [J]. 中国眼耳鼻喉科杂志, 2023, 23(1): 77-81.
19	中华医学会急诊医学分会. 细菌性肝脓肿诊治急诊专家共识 [J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2022, 31(3): 273-280.
20	黄景胜, 张学敏. 头孢菌素类抗生素不良反应75 例分析 [J].临床合理用药, 2023, 16(11): 172-174.
21	王准, 郑伟, 盛明薇,等. 低温等离子射频消融术治疗颈椎间盘突出症合并脊髓缺血老年患者的效果 [J]. 中华麻醉学杂志, 2019, (12):1453-1455.
22	儿童扁桃体腺样体低温等离子射频消融术规范化治疗临床实践指南[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2021, 35 (3): 193-199.
23	李志成, 夏忠芳, 李隽, 等. 低温等离子消融术联合鼓膜CO₂ 激光打孔、鼓膜置管治疗儿童OSAHS 伴分泌性中耳炎的疗效比较 [J].中国现代医学杂志, 2022, 32(17): 27-32.
24	吴次南, 梁冬梅, 周碧君, 等. 微波加热金葡菌对小白鼠致病性和菌液灭活的影响 [J]. 微波学报, 2010, 26(S2): 333-336.
25	杨丽华, 张冬莹, 盛欣. 微波杀菌效果及在日常生活中的应用 [J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2020, 37(12): 945-947.
26	Koichi Sasaki, Washiro Honda, Shigemitu Ohsawa, et al. A study of microwave sterilizer for injection ampules (No.4): application to sterilization of thermally labile drug solutions [J]. J Mater Sci, 2019,58(3): 125-135.

组别	0s	3s	6s	9s	12s	15s	18s	F值	P值
金黄色葡萄球菌	462.33±89.58	443.67±34.93	404.67±33.32	237.67±12.42^abc	171.33±22.19^abc	142.67±31.888^abc	95.67±17.21^abcd	40.360	＜0.001
大肠埃希菌	314.33±19.86	221.00±7.00^a	210.33±12.10^a	180.33±39.00^a	82.00±26.23^abcd	50.33±2.89^abcd	40.67±14.84^abcd	72.568	＜0.001
铜绿假单胞菌	467.67±17.79	332.33±14.43^a	228.93±16.70^ab	162.67±16.17^abc	96.33±17.67^abc	80.67±42.55^abcd	36.00±13.00^abcd	129.028	＜0.001
白色念珠菌	401.00±10.54	335.33±20.79	38.57±22.27^ab	102.67±67.00^abc	10.12±5.84^abc	0.67±1.15^abcd	0.33±0.58^abcd	85.744	＜0.001
F值	6.913	51.931	26.844	5.770	22.761	14.921	27.105
P值	0.013	＜0.001	＜0.001	0.021	＜0.001	0.001	＜0.001

组别	0s	3s	6s	9s	12s	15s	18s	F值	P值
金黄色葡萄球菌	462.33±89.58	443.67±34.93	404.67±33.32	237.67±12.42^abc	171.33±22.19^abc	142.67±31.888^abc	95.67±17.21^abcd	40.360	＜0.001
大肠埃希菌	314.33±19.86	221.00±7.00^a	210.33±12.10^a	180.33±39.00^a	82.00±26.23^abcd	50.33±2.89^abcd	40.67±14.84^abcd	72.568	＜0.001
铜绿假单胞菌	467.67±17.79	332.33±14.43^a	228.93±16.70^ab	162.67±16.17^abc	96.33±17.67^abc	80.67±42.55^abcd	36.00±13.00^abcd	129.028	＜0.001
白色念珠菌	401.00±10.54	335.33±20.79	38.57±22.27^ab	102.67±67.00^abc	10.12±5.84^abc	0.67±1.15^abcd	0.33±0.58^abcd	85.744	＜0.001
F值	6.913	51.931	26.844	5.770	22.761	14.921	27.105
P值	0.013	＜0.001	＜0.001	0.021	＜0.001	0.001	＜0.001

组别	3s	6s	9s	12s	15s	18s	F值	P值
金黄色葡萄球菌	0.02±0.03	0.06±0.36	0.29±0.02^ab	0.43±0.06^ab	0.52±0.10^abc	0.69±0.08^abcd	56.287	＜0.001
大肠埃希菌	0.15±0.01	0.17±0.24	0.24±0.10	0.60±0.14^abc	0.80±0.03^abc	0.91±0.16^abcd	36.529	＜0.001
铜绿假单胞菌	0.15±0.02	0.28±0.05	0.46±0.04	0.69±0.08^ab	0.81±0.26^ab	1.13±0.15^abcd	22.853	＜0.001
白色念珠菌	0.08±0.03	0.24±0.07	0.67±0.34^a	1.01±0.11^ab	2.50±0.17^abc	2.60±0^abc	133.974	＜0.001
F值	20.166	12.229	3.444	17.785	89.814	171.764
P值	＜0.001	0.002	0.072	0.001	＜0.001	＜0.001

组别	3s	6s	9s	12s	15s	18s	F值	P值
金黄色葡萄球菌	0.02±0.03	0.06±0.36	0.29±0.02^ab	0.43±0.06^ab	0.52±0.10^abc	0.69±0.08^abcd	56.287	＜0.001
大肠埃希菌	0.15±0.01	0.17±0.24	0.24±0.10	0.60±0.14^abc	0.80±0.03^abc	0.91±0.16^abcd	36.529	＜0.001
铜绿假单胞菌	0.15±0.02	0.28±0.05	0.46±0.04	0.69±0.08^ab	0.81±0.26^ab	1.13±0.15^abcd	22.853	＜0.001
白色念珠菌	0.08±0.03	0.24±0.07	0.67±0.34^a	1.01±0.11^ab	2.50±0.17^abc	2.60±0^abc	133.974	＜0.001
F值	20.166	12.229	3.444	17.785	89.814	171.764
P值	＜0.001	0.002	0.072	0.001	＜0.001	＜0.001

组别	3s	6s	9s	12s	15s	18s	F值	P值
金黄色葡萄球菌	3.97±7.56	12.41±7.21	48.56±2.69^ab	62.91±4.80^ab	69.11±6.90^abc	79.29±3.72^abc	86.522	＜0.001
大肠埃希菌	29.62±2.22	33.01±3.85	42.57±12.42	73.89±8.35^abc	83.97±0.92^abc	87.04±4.72^abcd	46.338	＜0.001
铜绿假单胞菌	28.99±3.08	47.86±6.18	65.24±3.45^ab	79.42±3.78^ab	82.76±9.09^abc	92.31±2.78^abc	62.503	＜0.001
白色念珠菌	16.38±5.19	42.89±9.62^a	74.40±16.71^ab	90.19±2.52^ab	99.83±0.29^ab	99.92±0.14^ab	51.726	＜0.001
F值	17.989	14.946	5.728	13.653	14.440	20.607
P值	0.001	0.001	0.022	0.002	0.001	＜0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export