A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
This paper details methods that demonstrate three common biofilm harvesting and disaggregation techniques on two surface types, ruggedness testing of a harvesting method and minimum information to consider when choosing and optimizing harvesting and disaggregation techniques to increase reproducibility.
Biofilm methods consist of four distinct steps: growing the biofilm in a relevant model, treating the mature biofilm, harvesting the biofilm from the surface and disaggregating the clumps, and analyzing the sample. Of the four steps, harvesting and disaggregation are the least studied but nonetheless critical when considering the potential for test bias. This article demonstrates commonly used harvesting and disaggregation techniques for biofilm grown on three different surfaces. The three biofilm harvesting and disaggregation techniques, gleaned from an extensive literature review, include vortexing and sonication, scraping and homogenization, and scraping, vortexing and sonication. Two surface types are considered: hard non-porous (polycarbonate and borosilicate glass) and porous (silicone). Additionally, we provide recommendations for the minimum information that should be included when reporting the harvesting technique followed and an accompanying method to check for bias.
The definition of biofilm has evolved over the last few decades and encompasses microbial association with a variety of biological and/or non-biological surfaces, inclusion of noncellular components1 that display differing growth and genetic expression2 within a matrix. Biofilm provides protection from environmental stresses such as drying and may render the action of chemical disinfectants less effective resulting in the survival of microbes. The survivors within a biofilm can potentially provide a source of pathogenic microorganisms that are a public health concern3.
Biofilm methods are comprised of four steps, growth, treatment, sampling (harvesting and disaggregation), and analysis. Growth, the first step, where the user determines the organism growth conditions, temperature, media, etc., is the most considered and reported upon in the biofilm literature4,5,6,7. The treatment step evaluates antimicrobials (e.g., disinfectants) to determine their efficacy either against a mature biofilm3,8,9 or the antimicrobial may be incorporated into the surface to determine the ability of the product to prevent or reduce biofilm growth10. The third step, sampling, includes steps to harvest the biofilm from the surface on which it was growing and to disaggregate the removed clumps3,8,11. The fourth step, analysis, may include viable cell counts, microscopy, fluorescence measurements, molecular outcomes, and/or a matrix component assessment8,9. Assessment of data provides information about the outcome of an experiment. Of the four, sampling is often the most overlooked step because it presumes that the chosen biofilm harvesting and/or disaggregation technique is 100% effective, often without verification11.
Planktonic suspensions of bacteria, often considered to be homogenous, require simple vortexing prior to analysis. Biofilms, however, are complex communities composed of microorganisms (prokaryotic and/or eukaryotic), exopolysaccharides, proteins, lipids, extracellular DNA and host cells12. Steps beyond traditional planktonic microbiological culture methods are needed in order to adequately harvest biofilm from a surface and then disaggregate it into a homogenous single cell suspension. An extensive literature review (information not included in this publication) demonstrated that the choice of the removal and disaggregation technique is dependent on a number of factors, including species present in the biofilm, surface that the biofilm is attached to (non-porous or porous), accessibility to growth surfaces (easily removable coupon or physical destruction of apparatus in which the biofilm is growing), surface geometry (area and shape), density of biofilm on growth surfaces, and available laboratory equipment.
When biofilm is harvested from a surface, the resulting cell suspension is heterogenous. If this nonuniform suspension is to be accurately enumerated, it must be disaggregated into individual cells. Viable plate counts assume that a colony forming unit originates from one bacterium. If aggregates of biofilm are placed on the growth medium, it is impossible to distinguish individual cells which could lead to inaccurate estimates. For example, during disinfectant efficacy testing, if a treatment removes biofilm very effectively from a surface compared to the control, the log reduction could appear artificially large compared to the control. On the other hand, a chemical disinfectant that fixes biofilm onto a surface compared to the control will appear to have a lower log reduction11. This type of scenario could lead to biased interpretation of experimental data.
In preparation for the publication, a review of the literature determined that common approaches to harvesting and disaggregating biofilm include scraping, swabbing, sonication, vortexing or a combination of these. Scraping is defined as physical removal of biofilm from surfaces with a sterile stick, spatula or other tool. Swabbing refers to removal of biofilm from surfaces with a cotton tipped stick or other fixed absorbent material. Sonication refers to disruption of biofilm from surfaces via ultrasonic waves distributed through water. Vortexing refers to the use of a mixer to achieve a liquid vortex of the sample inside a tube. Homogenization uses rotating blades to shear harvested biofilm clumps into a single cell suspension. In this paper, we present three harvesting and disaggregation methods for two different surface types, hard/non-porous and porous.
A list of recommended minimum information that researchers should include in the methods sections of publications is provided. We hope that inclusion of this information enables other researchers to reproduce their work. There is no perfect harvesting and disaggregation method, therefore, recommendations for how to check the technique are also provided.
Three common methods to harvest and disaggregate biofilm from common growth surfaces are demonstrated in this article. This information will enable researchers to better understand the overall precision and bias of a biofilm test method. Methods described are as follows: (1) A Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm grown on polycarbonate coupons (hard non-porous surface) under high fluid shear in the CDC Biofilm Reactor is harvested and disaggregated following a five step combination of vortexing and sonication to achieve biofilm harvest and disaggregation (2) A P. aeruginosa biofilm grown on borosilicate glass coupons (hard non-porous surface) in the drip flow reactor under low fluid shear is harvested and disaggregated using scraping and homogenization (3) An Escherichia coli biofilm grown in silicone tubing (porous surface) is harvested and disaggregated using scraping, followed by sonication and vortexing.
1. Vortexing and sonication
2. Scraping and homogenization
3. Scraping, vortexing and sonication
Validation/Confirmation of a Harvesting Method
Several studies that were conducted in our laboratory examined the ability of vortexing and sonication to effectively harvest biofilm grown in the biofilm reactor (ASTM E2562)2 using the Single Tube Method (ASTM E2871)8.
A P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 biofilm was grown according to ASTM E25622 on borosilicate glass coupons. After 48 hours, four coup...
Minimum Information for Harvesting and Disaggregation Methods
To create reproducible biofilm data across the scientific community, it is imperative that authors include as much detail as possible regarding each of the growth, treatment, sampling and analysis steps of a biofilm method. The standardization of biofilm methods has aided in this endeavor as it allows the researcher to reference a specific method and any relevant modifications. However, many papers include only a sentence or two to descr...
The authors have no disclosures.
We wish to acknowledge Danielle Orr Goveia, Blaine Fritz, Jennifer Summers and Fei San Lee for their contributions to this paper.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
50 mL conical vials | Thermo Scientific | 339652 | |
100 mL glass beakers | Fisher Scientific | FB102100 | |
5 mL serological pipettes | Fisher Scientific | 13-678-12D | For adding treatment to vials containing coupons. |
50 mL serological pipettes | Fisher Scientific | 13-678-14C | For adding neutralizer to vials at the end of treatment contact time. |
Applicator sticks | Puritan | 807 | |
Hemostats | Fisher Scientific | 16-100-115 | |
Metal spatula | Fisher Scientific | 14-373 | |
PTFE policemen | Saint-Gobain | 06369-04 | |
S 10 N - 10 G - ST Dispersing tool | IKA | 4446700 | For homogenization of biofilm samples. |
Scissors | Fisher Scientific | 08-951-20 | |
Silicone Foley catheter, size 16 French | Medline Industries | DYND11502 | |
Silicone tubing, size 16 | Cole-Parmer | EW96400-16 | |
Splash Guards | BioSurface Technologies, Inc. | CBR 2232 | |
T 10 basic ULTRA-TURRAX Disperser | IKA | 3737001 | For homogenization of biofilm samples. |
Tubing connectors | Cole-Parmer | EW02023-86 | |
Ultrasonic Cleaner | Elma | TI-H15 | |
Vortex-Genie 2 | Scientific Industries | SI-0236 | |
Vortex-Genie 2 Vertical 50 mL Tube Holder | Scientific Industries | SI-V506 |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved