Abstract
Biofilms cause many problems in the drinking water distribution systems (DWDS) and are difficult to remove via conventional disinfection methods. Halogenated furanones produced by Delisea pulchra can hinder biofilm formation and maintenance and look promising as an alternative solution that can be used either as a preventive measure or co-treatment against biofilms in DWDS. However, limited toxicology studies that have been done on halogenated furanones formed as by-products of disinfection have reported the chemicals to be mutagenic or carcinogenic. Hence, there is a need for more toxicology studies to affirm the possible harmful effects of halogenated furanones. We propose to use zerbrafish embryos as the model organism for a toxicology …show more content…
To test for cytotoxicity (e.g. LD50, EC50, and teratogenicity potential) of halogenated furanones from Delisea pulchra using zebrafish embryos.
2. Compare cytotoxicity of halogenated furanones from Delisea pulchra against that of synthetic halogenated furanones
3. To determine whether and, if possible, how they can be applied to disinfection for water distribution systems.
Introduction/Background
Biofouling and biocorrosion are some of the major problems caused by microbial biofilms in drinking water distribution systems (DWDS) [1]. In 1956, Vernon estimated that it cost England about £20 million just to maintain and replace underground pipes and this cost was estimated to increase by three to four percent annually. Later, in 1964, Booth estimated that microbes caused about half of the cases of damaged underground pipes [2]. That number has been expected to have increased since …show more content…
They shows high tolerance towards many disinfectants used. Although the microbial cells within are vulnerable, they gain protection from the EPS in the matrix which retards penetration of some disinfectants into the biofilms. Some of the cells within also activate the response pathways to the different antimicrobials. The biofilm may also provide different microenvironments that have altered pH and other abiotic factors as compared with their surroundings, which may inhibit disinfection. Some cells within biofilm also change physiologically, making some disinfection methods ineffective [4]. Hence, new alternative strategies to combat growing threat of biofilms is
Biofilms cause many problems in the drinking water distribution systems (DWDS) and are difficult to remove via conventional disinfection methods. Halogenated furanones produced by Delisea pulchra can hinder biofilm formation and maintenance and look promising as an alternative solution that can be used either as a preventive measure or co-treatment against biofilms in DWDS. However, limited toxicology studies that have been done on halogenated furanones formed as by-products of disinfection have reported the chemicals to be mutagenic or carcinogenic. Hence, there is a need for more toxicology studies to affirm the possible harmful effects of halogenated furanones. We propose to use zerbrafish embryos as the model organism for a toxicology …show more content…
To test for cytotoxicity (e.g. LD50, EC50, and teratogenicity potential) of halogenated furanones from Delisea pulchra using zebrafish embryos.
2. Compare cytotoxicity of halogenated furanones from Delisea pulchra against that of synthetic halogenated furanones
3. To determine whether and, if possible, how they can be applied to disinfection for water distribution systems.
Introduction/Background
Biofouling and biocorrosion are some of the major problems caused by microbial biofilms in drinking water distribution systems (DWDS) [1]. In 1956, Vernon estimated that it cost England about £20 million just to maintain and replace underground pipes and this cost was estimated to increase by three to four percent annually. Later, in 1964, Booth estimated that microbes caused about half of the cases of damaged underground pipes [2]. That number has been expected to have increased since …show more content…
They shows high tolerance towards many disinfectants used. Although the microbial cells within are vulnerable, they gain protection from the EPS in the matrix which retards penetration of some disinfectants into the biofilms. Some of the cells within also activate the response pathways to the different antimicrobials. The biofilm may also provide different microenvironments that have altered pH and other abiotic factors as compared with their surroundings, which may inhibit disinfection. Some cells within biofilm also change physiologically, making some disinfection methods ineffective [4]. Hence, new alternative strategies to combat growing threat of biofilms is