Scratching the surface: how microbes adhere to worktops

Caleb Kimbrough/Flickr

Have you ever noticed when cleaning a sink or a saucepan that certain spots get tougher to clean over time, and the harder you scrub them, the worse it gets?

This sometimes happens when we clean things with abrasive products like scouring pads. In an effort to shift the stubborn stains or dirt, you scratch the surface you are cleaning and make it rougher. This in turn means that dirt gets lodged more easily in the scratches – so next time, you have to scrub even harder to get rid of them, and the cycle continues.

Professor Jo Verran is a microbiologist at Manchester Metropolitan University researching the science behind this kind of phenomenon – how microbes interact with surfaces and what that means for hygiene. Jo gave a talk on her work at our Annual Conference last month.

“A hygienic surface needs to be smooth, hard, inert and easy to clean,” she says. “Stainless steel is a good example of that – but stainless steel will scratch. So how does scratching or cleaning or scrubbing affect its clean-ability?”

Surfaces like stainless steel are used widely in places where hygiene is key, such as professional kitchens, food factories and hospitals, so studying how they retain microbes is important. This involves creating realistic models for surface wear, and how that affects any interaction with micro-organisms.

Initially, Jo’s group used a fairly simple way to quantify roughness. You take the profile of a surface along a cross-section, and measure how flat or bumpy it is. A totally smooth surface would give you a flat line, while a rough one would give you a series of ‘hills’ and ‘valleys’, like a landscape.

Taking the average distance of these peaks and troughs from the centre gives you a single number (Ra), that represents roughness. A rougher surface has more nooks and crannies where microbes can get lodged, so lower Ra values are considered more hygienic.

“We started asking questions – what about the type and degree of roughness? What about the size of the cells, the presence of organic material?” says Jo. “Does it matter if you have loads of bacteria that are easy to remove? Or is it worse not to have many bacteria but you can’t get them off?”

The group soon moved beyond Ra values. For one thing, it only tells you about roughness along a particular line. And because Ra is just an average, it also reveals nothing about the shapes or the properties of the features on the surface ‘landscape’. To study the effect of those, you need a 3D representation of the surface – which an atomic force microscope (AFM), provides.

“The AFM has a nano size probe, and it scans across the surface in a series of parallel lines,” Jo explains. “It goes up and down as the surface goes up and down, and the movement of the probe is captured by a laser, so you get an indirect image of the surface.”

The AFM allows you to look at surface features on a nanometre scale (billionths of a metre) rather than a micrometre scale (millionths of metre). Once the team began to look at surfaces in this way, it was possible to look at different kinds of roughness (pits or scratches, for example), and see whether they had an impact on microbial retention. But it also meant the team could start to mimic real world surface wear patterns in the laboratory.

“We were able to take the AFM into food factories, look at in situ surfaces, and get images,” she says. “Then, back in the lab, we would recreate the different types of surface topographies. This meant that we had lots of replicate ‘worn’ surfaces for further studies.”

Staphylococcus aureus cells retained on linear surface features. Image courtesy of the researchers.

The team also studied the attachment of microbes as well as their retention – so, not only how many cells ‘settled’ onto different surfaces, but how firmly they stayed there. By increasing the force of the AFM probe as it moved across the surface, they could measure how easy it was to remove individual cells.

By doing this kind of work, Jo’s team has been able to look in incredible detail at what makes some surfaces more hygienic than others, and what the best cleaning regimes are. They’ve also been able to test the properties of different coatings – for example, adding a titanium coating to stainless steel discouraged the retention of E. coli, and made it easier to remove.

“What we were trying to do was quantify, measure and visualise phenomena that everyone takes for granted,” Jo says. “We weren’t making massive advances in general understanding of scientific principles, but we were providing a more scientific underpinning for it. I think this is really important!”

Anand Jagatia

This entry was posted in Clinical and Medical Microbiology, Food Microbiology, Technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Scratching the surface: how microbes adhere to worktops

  1. Jamie Green says:

    Besides what was mentioned about a titanium coating on stainless steel helping to prevent the adhesion of E. coli, did the researcher have any other interesting results?

    • anandjagatia says:

      Hi Jamie – thanks for your question! Here’s what Jo Verran had to say:

      “We have developed and/or used a variety of different anti-adhesive/anti-microbial surfaces. One interesting result was the use of a photocatalytic paint on one of our buildings – as a public demonstration of effectiveness. Photocatalytic surfaces contain titanium dioxide which, when irradiated by light (particularly UV), releases highly active components that destroy dirt and microorganisms. The area coated with photocatalytic paint is obviously cleaner (whiter) than the paint lacking titanium dioxide.”

  2. Krystle S. says:

    Did any of the research indicate the most resilient type of surface? Or which surface had the quickest growth?

    • anandjagatia says:

      Hi Krystie – thanks for commenting! Here’s what Jo Verran had to say:

      “Harder materials are less easy to abrade – so stainless steel is better than plastics in that context. Ceramic surfaces can chip rather than scratch, so the type of surface features can vary depending on the nature of the surface. It is always a good idea to use as little abrasion as possible when cleaning, so as not to damage the surface, but to remove the soil and any microorganisms (for example a soft brush and a denture paste when cleaning dentures).

      Many of the applications we look at focus more on hygienic surfaces (hard, inert, easy to clean), where we would hope that microorganisms would not have the opportunity to grow (for which they would need moisture and food), but would be removed effectively. We are also interested in the survival of cells on surfaces – we do not want to transfer viable cells from an inert surface to one where food is more accessible, allowing the microorganisms to grow (eg from a food contact surface onto food). Porous surfaces (rubber, silicon) are hard to clean and may retain food/microorganisms.”

  3. Whitney says:

    I really enjoyed reading your post. Like Jamie asked, did researchers find out other ways to eliminate the amount of microbes on other surfaces?

    • anandjagatia says:

      Hi Whitney – thanks for taking the time to comment. We put your question to Jo Verran:

      “Thanks! We look at a range of different mechanisms, for example: antimicrobial properties of essential oils and their incorporation into textiles; antimicrobial/fruit ripening agents for use in packaging of delicate products; antimicrobials such as silver, copper, zinc ions incorporated into carriers that allow slow release, thus extending the activity and effective life of the material; modifying photocatalytic surfaces so that they are effective in fluorescent light rather than UV…and so on.”

  4. Lydia says:

    Is this information that will one day be shared or set a new standard for food preparation facilities?

    • anandjagatia says:

      Hi Lydia – thanks for your question. Here’s what Jo had to say:

      “We publish our work in scientific journals, whose contents are freely available. We also try to ensure that findings are disseminated – as for example through this podcast. Sometimes we write articles for magazines. I am currently part of a team working with the BSI (British Standards Institute) on developing standards.”

  5. Gabrielle B says:

    Since stainless steel surfaces are widely used where hygiene is a necessity, does this research accumulate any evidence or theories for a better cleaning regimen for stainless steel that would be acceptable and safe to use in hospital settings?

  6. Could this have a adverse effect as well? People who are unfamiliar with how microbes would could kill the goods ones along with the bad.

  7. Ashley says:

    Where does this research go from here? What will be done with the results that the group found?

  8. Destini says:

    Like Whitney asked, could this have an adverse effect? It is important to eliminate as many bad microbes as possible however, some are actually good for the body.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s