The Role of Ionic Strength and Mineral Size to Zeta Potential for the Adhesion of P. putida to Mineral Surfaces
Electrostatic interaction energy (ΔEEDL) is a part of the Extended Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (XDLVO) theory, which, together with van der Waals (ΔEVDW) and acid base (ΔEAB) interaction energies, has been extensively used to investigate the initial adhesion of bacteria to surfaces. Electrostatic or electrical double layer interaction energy is considerably affected by surface potential; however it cannot be determined experimentally and is usually replaced by zeta (ζ) potential via electrophoretic mobility. This paper focusses on the effect of ionic concentration as a function of pH and the effect of mineral grain size on ζ potential. It was found that both ionic strength and mineral grain size play a major role in determining the value of ζ potential for the adhesion of P. putida to hematite and quartz surfaces. Higher ζ potential values lead to higher electrostatic interaction energies and eventually to higher total XDLVO interaction energy resulting in bacterial repulsion.
[1] Flemming. HC, Biofilms and Environmental Protection. Water Sci
Technol, 1993. 27(7-8): p. 1-10.
[2] Hermansson, M., The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion. Colloids and
Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 1999. 14(1–4): p. 105-119.
[3] Carpentier, B. and O. Cerf, Biofilms and their consequences, with
particular reference to hygiene in the food industry. Journal of Applied
Bacteriology, 1993. 75(6): p. 499-511.
[4] Karunakaran E, et al., "Biofilmology": a multidisciplinary review of the
study of microbial biofilms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2011. 90(6): p.
1869-81 LID - 10.1007/s00253-011-3293-4
[5] Donlan, R.M. and J.W. Costerton, Biofilms: survival mechanisms of
clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2002. 15(2): p.
167-93.
[6] Costerton J. W, Montanaro L, and Arciola C. R, Biofilm in implant
infections: its production and regulation. Int J Artif Organs, 2005.
28(11): p. 1062-8.
[7] Kumar, C.G. and S.K. Anand, Significance of microbial biofilms in food
industry: a review. Int J Food Microbiol, 1998. 42(1-2): p. 9-27.
[8] Gristina, A.G., Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion
versus tissue integration. Science, 1987. 237(4822): p. 1588-95.
[9] Lewis, K., Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,
2001. 45(4): p. 999-1007.
[10] Katsikogianni, M. and Y.F. Missirlis, Concise review of mechanisms of
bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating
bacteria-mineral interactions. Eur Cell Mater, 2004. 8: p. 37-57.
[11] Busscher, H.J. and A.H. Weerkamp, Specific and non-specific
interactions in bacterial adhesion to solid substrata. FEMS
Microbiology Letters, 1987. 46(2): p. 165-173.
[12] Fletcher, M., The physiological activity of bacteria attached to solid
surfaces. Adv Microb Physiol, 1991. 32: p. 53-85.
[13] Costanzo, P.M., et al., Comparison between Direct Contact Angle
Measurements and Thin Layer Wicking on Synthetic Monosized Cuboid
Hematite Particles. Langmuir, 1995. 11(5): p. 1827-1830.
[14] Boks N.P, et al., Forces involved in bacterial adhesion to hydrophilic
and hydrophobic surfaces. Microbiology, 2008. 154(Pt 10): p. 3122-33
LID - 10.1099/mic.0.2008/018622-0 [doi].
[15] van Loosdrecht M. C, et al., The role of bacterial cell wall
hydrophobicity in adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1987. 53(8): p.
1893-7.
[16] Jacobs A, et al., Kinetic adhesion of bacterial cells to sand: cell surface
properties and adhesion. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2007. 59(1): p.
35-45.
[17] Derjaguin, B.V. and L. Landau, Theory of the Stability of Strongly
Charged Lyophobic Sols and of the Adhesion of Strongly Charged
Particles in Solutions of Electrolytes. Acta Phys. Chim. URSS, 1941. 14:
p. 633-662.
[18] Verwey E.J.W and Overbeek J.T.G, “Theory of the stability of lyophobic
colloids. The interaction of particles having an electric double layer.”
with the collaboration of K. van Ness. Elsevier, New York-Amsterdam,
1948, 216 pp. Journal of Polymer Science, 1949. 4(3): p. 413-414.
[19] Bhattacharjee, S., M. Elimelech, and M. Borkovec, DLVO interaction
between colloidal particles: beyond Derjaguin's approximation.
Croatica Chemica Acta, 1998. 71: p. 883-903. [20] Sharma, P.K. and K. Hanumantha Rao, Adhesion of Paenibacillus
polymyxa on chalcopyrite and pyrite: surface thermodynamics and
extended DLVO theory. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2003.
29(1): p. 21-38.
[21] Kosmulski M, et al., Synthesis and characterization of goethite and
goethite-hematite composite. Adv Colloid Interface Sci, 2003. 103(1): p.
57-76.
[22] Shashikala, A.R. and A.M. Raichur, Role of interfacial phenomena in
determining adsorption of Bacillus polymyxa onto hematite and quartz.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2002. 24(1): p. 11-20.
[23] Bunt, C.R., D.S. Jones, and I.G. Tucker, The effects of pH, ionic strength
and polyvalent ions on the cell surface hydrophobicity of Escherichia
coli evaluated by the BATH and HIC methods. International Journal of
Pharmaceutics, 1995. 113(2): p. 257-261.
[24] Chen, W., 'What is Zeta Potential' Dow Chemical. American Filtration
and Separation Society (AFS)
[1] Flemming. HC, Biofilms and Environmental Protection. Water Sci
Technol, 1993. 27(7-8): p. 1-10.
[2] Hermansson, M., The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion. Colloids and
Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 1999. 14(1–4): p. 105-119.
[3] Carpentier, B. and O. Cerf, Biofilms and their consequences, with
particular reference to hygiene in the food industry. Journal of Applied
Bacteriology, 1993. 75(6): p. 499-511.
[4] Karunakaran E, et al., "Biofilmology": a multidisciplinary review of the
study of microbial biofilms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2011. 90(6): p.
1869-81 LID - 10.1007/s00253-011-3293-4
[5] Donlan, R.M. and J.W. Costerton, Biofilms: survival mechanisms of
clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2002. 15(2): p.
167-93.
[6] Costerton J. W, Montanaro L, and Arciola C. R, Biofilm in implant
infections: its production and regulation. Int J Artif Organs, 2005.
28(11): p. 1062-8.
[7] Kumar, C.G. and S.K. Anand, Significance of microbial biofilms in food
industry: a review. Int J Food Microbiol, 1998. 42(1-2): p. 9-27.
[8] Gristina, A.G., Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion
versus tissue integration. Science, 1987. 237(4822): p. 1588-95.
[9] Lewis, K., Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,
2001. 45(4): p. 999-1007.
[10] Katsikogianni, M. and Y.F. Missirlis, Concise review of mechanisms of
bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating
bacteria-mineral interactions. Eur Cell Mater, 2004. 8: p. 37-57.
[11] Busscher, H.J. and A.H. Weerkamp, Specific and non-specific
interactions in bacterial adhesion to solid substrata. FEMS
Microbiology Letters, 1987. 46(2): p. 165-173.
[12] Fletcher, M., The physiological activity of bacteria attached to solid
surfaces. Adv Microb Physiol, 1991. 32: p. 53-85.
[13] Costanzo, P.M., et al., Comparison between Direct Contact Angle
Measurements and Thin Layer Wicking on Synthetic Monosized Cuboid
Hematite Particles. Langmuir, 1995. 11(5): p. 1827-1830.
[14] Boks N.P, et al., Forces involved in bacterial adhesion to hydrophilic
and hydrophobic surfaces. Microbiology, 2008. 154(Pt 10): p. 3122-33
LID - 10.1099/mic.0.2008/018622-0 [doi].
[15] van Loosdrecht M. C, et al., The role of bacterial cell wall
hydrophobicity in adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1987. 53(8): p.
1893-7.
[16] Jacobs A, et al., Kinetic adhesion of bacterial cells to sand: cell surface
properties and adhesion. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2007. 59(1): p.
35-45.
[17] Derjaguin, B.V. and L. Landau, Theory of the Stability of Strongly
Charged Lyophobic Sols and of the Adhesion of Strongly Charged
Particles in Solutions of Electrolytes. Acta Phys. Chim. URSS, 1941. 14:
p. 633-662.
[18] Verwey E.J.W and Overbeek J.T.G, “Theory of the stability of lyophobic
colloids. The interaction of particles having an electric double layer.”
with the collaboration of K. van Ness. Elsevier, New York-Amsterdam,
1948, 216 pp. Journal of Polymer Science, 1949. 4(3): p. 413-414.
[19] Bhattacharjee, S., M. Elimelech, and M. Borkovec, DLVO interaction
between colloidal particles: beyond Derjaguin's approximation.
Croatica Chemica Acta, 1998. 71: p. 883-903. [20] Sharma, P.K. and K. Hanumantha Rao, Adhesion of Paenibacillus
polymyxa on chalcopyrite and pyrite: surface thermodynamics and
extended DLVO theory. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2003.
29(1): p. 21-38.
[21] Kosmulski M, et al., Synthesis and characterization of goethite and
goethite-hematite composite. Adv Colloid Interface Sci, 2003. 103(1): p.
57-76.
[22] Shashikala, A.R. and A.M. Raichur, Role of interfacial phenomena in
determining adsorption of Bacillus polymyxa onto hematite and quartz.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2002. 24(1): p. 11-20.
[23] Bunt, C.R., D.S. Jones, and I.G. Tucker, The effects of pH, ionic strength
and polyvalent ions on the cell surface hydrophobicity of Escherichia
coli evaluated by the BATH and HIC methods. International Journal of
Pharmaceutics, 1995. 113(2): p. 257-261.
[24] Chen, W., 'What is Zeta Potential' Dow Chemical. American Filtration
and Separation Society (AFS)
@article{"International Journal of Biological, Life and Agricultural Sciences:70850", author = "M. Z. Fathiah and R. G. Edyvean", title = "The Role of Ionic Strength and Mineral Size to Zeta Potential for the Adhesion of P. putida to Mineral Surfaces", abstract = "Electrostatic interaction energy (ΔEEDL) is a part of the Extended Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (XDLVO) theory, which, together with van der Waals (ΔEVDW) and acid base (ΔEAB) interaction energies, has been extensively used to investigate the initial adhesion of bacteria to surfaces. Electrostatic or electrical double layer interaction energy is considerably affected by surface potential; however it cannot be determined experimentally and is usually replaced by zeta (ζ) potential via electrophoretic mobility. This paper focusses on the effect of ionic concentration as a function of pH and the effect of mineral grain size on ζ potential. It was found that both ionic strength and mineral grain size play a major role in determining the value of ζ potential for the adhesion of P. putida to hematite and quartz surfaces. Higher ζ potential values lead to higher electrostatic interaction energies and eventually to higher total XDLVO interaction energy resulting in bacterial repulsion.
", keywords = "XDLVO, Electrostatic interaction energy, zeta
potential, P. putida, mineral.", volume = "9", number = "7", pages = "800-6", }
