Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biofilm penetration and disinfection efficacy of alkaline hypochlorite and chlorosulfamates

Open access
Stewart, P.S., Rayner, J., Roe, F., Rees, W.M.·2001·Journal of Applied Microbiology

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, in terms of bacterial biofilm penetration and killing, of alkaline hypochlorite (pH 11) and chlorosulfamate (pH 5.5) formulations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two species biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae were grown by flowing a dilute medium over inclined stainless steel slides for 6 d. Microelectrode technology was used to measure concentration profiles of active chlorine species within the biofilms in response to treatment at a concentration of 1000 mg total chlorine l(-1). Chlorosulfamate formulations penetrated biofilms faster than did hypochlorite. The mean penetration time into approximately 1 mm-thick biofilms for chlorosulfamate (6 min) was only one-eighth as long as for the same concentration of hypochlorite (48 min). Chloride ion penetrated biofilms rapidly (5 min) with an effective diffusion coefficient in the biofilm that was close to the value for chloride in water. Biofilm bacteria were highly resistant to killing by both antimicrobial agents. Biofilms challenged with 1000 mg l(-1) alkaline hypochlorite or chlorosulfamate for 1 h experienced 0.85 and 1.3 log reductions in viable cell numbers, respectively. Similar treatment reduced viable numbers of planktonic bacteria to non-detectable levels (log reduction greater than 6) within 60 s. Aged planktonic and resuspended laboratory biofilm bacteria were just as susceptible to hypochlorite as fresh planktonic cells. CONCLUSION: Chlorosulfamate transport into biofilm was not retarded whereas hypochlorite transport clearly was retarded. Superior penetration by chlorosulfamate was hypothesized to be due to its lower capacity for reaction with constituents of the biofilm. Poor biofilm killing despite direct measurement of effective physical penetration of the antimicrobial agent into the biofilm demonstrates that bacteria in the biofilm are protected by some mechanism other than simple physical shielding by the biofilm matrix. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study lends support to the theory that the penetration of antimicrobial agents into microbial biofilms is controlled by the reactivity of the antimicrobial agent with biofilm components. The finding that chlorine-based biocides can penetrate, but fail to kill, bacteria in biofilms should motivate the search for other mechanisms of protection from killing by antimicrobial agents in biofilms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01413.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Stewart, P. S., Rayner, J., Roe, F., & Rees, W. M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Published
2001-09-12
Volume
91
Issue
3
Pages
525-532
ISSN
  • 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2672
OpenAlex
W2128096260
Cited by
280
References
1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biofilm penetration and disinfection efficacy of alkaline hypochlorite and chlorosulfamates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01413.x
The paper
Stewart, P. S., Rayner, J., Roe, F., & Rees, W. M. (2001). Biofilm penetration and disinfection efficacy of alkaline hypochlorite and chlorosulfamates. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01413.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.