Highlighting the limitations of static microplate biofilm assays for industrial biocide effectiveness compared to dynamic flow conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The minimal inhibitory concentration of an antimicrobial required to inhibit the growth of planktonic populations (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC]) remains the 'gold standard' even though biofilms are acknowledged to be recalcitrant to concentrations that greatly exceed the MIC. As a result, most studies focus on biofilm tolerance to high antimicrobial concentrations, whereas the effect of environmentally relevant sub-MIC on biofilms is neglected. The effect of the MIC and sub-MIC of an isothiazolinone biocide on a microbial community isolated from an industrial cooling system was assessed under static and flow conditions. The differential response of planktonic and sessile populations to these biocide concentrations was discerned by modifying the broth microdilution assay. However, the end-point analysis of biofilms cultivated in static microplates obscured the effect of sub-MIC and MIC on biofilms. A transition from batch to the continuous flow system revealed a more nuanced response of biofilms to these biocide concentrations, where biofilm-derived planktonic cell production was maintained despite an increase in the frequency and extent of biofilm sloughing. A holistic, 'best of both worlds' approach that combines the use of static and continuous flow systems is useful to investigate the potential for the development of persistent biofilms under conditions where exposure to sub-MIC and MIC may occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".