Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
Bacterial
Isolates from Pharmaceutical Industry Environment and Water System
A.M.Ramachandran
Assistant
Professor, Department of Microbiology, Dr.N.G.P.Arts and Science College,
Coimbatore, India. Email: ramachandran@drngpasc.ac.in
Article Received: 03 August 2017 Article
Accepted: 26 September 2017 Article
Published: 04 October 2017
A B S T R A C T
Bacterial
populations inhabiting pharmaceutical environment and water systems were
investigated over a 30 days of sampling period. The systems analyzed were
different production area grade and different water types including, raw water,
treated water, drinking water, purified and Water-for-Injection (WFI). Samples
of water were tested by membrane filtration and the samples cultured using R2A
agar. Culture based methods and phenotypic identification methods were used to
characterize the isolates. The research was undertaken to produce an in-depth
study of the microbial load of pharmaceutical grade water systems as well as
the environment. The results presented act as a benchmark for industrial and
pharmaceutical microbiologists to review comparable systems against, to present
a review of the typical cultivable microorganisms recoverable from
pharmaceutical water systems and environment. Further susceptibility patterns
of these isolates were studied towards clinically significant antibiotics such
as meropenem, cloxacillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, methicillin and
cephalosporin. The mean value of antibiotic sensitivity pattern shows that
ampicillin was found to be most inert antibiotic as it was ineffective against
all isolates, whereas meropenem was found to be most promising antibiotic
followed by cephalosporin, methicillin and cloxacillin.
Keywords:
Water, Water Systems, Water-For-Injection, Purified Water, Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing grade, Bacteria, Sampling types, Beta lactam antibiotics.
INTRODUCTION
Pharma industry provides a lot of
job opportunity to the people who reside in rural area as well as in urban
area. Besides the consequence of imminent production of chemicals due to pharma
industry through air, water and ground lifelines become questionable. The
frequent monitoring of microbial life around the industry is necessary one and
it will reveal the condition of environment.
They act as early warning sensors
to detect pollution level. The pharmaceutical industry is now facing new
challenges in controlling and
preventing environmental pollution as it is expanding. In various parts of the world,
the relationship between the pharma industry and the destiny of environment has
been a controversial one. Environmental monitoring describes the
microbiological testing undertaken in order to detect changing trends of
microbial counts and microflora growth within clean room or controlled
environments [1].
Microorganisms regarded as an
important bioresource of our environment because they can be obtained in large
quantities using cultural techniques within a shortest possible time by
established fermentation methods, and they produce a regular and abundant
supply of the desired product. Because of the presence of microbes in all walks
of human life, there is constant interaction between microbes and humans. The
vast majority of the bacteria in the body are rendered harmless by the
protective effects of the immune system, and a few are beneficial. In fact, the
relationship between microbes and humans is delicate and complex.
1 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
Microorganisms found in the
manufacturing environment, water for pharmaceutical use, raw materials and
ingredients, intermediates, and finished products are frequently identified to
assist in product investigations [2]. The value of the data from an environmental
monitoring program is greatly reduced if the microorganisms isolated are not
characterized to some degree. Identification of isolates is an essential part
of understanding the microbial ecology of a manufacturing facility, monitoring
the effectiveness of microbiological control in aseptic environments and
investigating of normal microbial populations or sterility failures.
Routine
investigation might include characterization by colony and cellular morphology,
gram reaction, and key enzyme activities. This information may be sufficient to
confirm that the bacteria found in the sample are typical for that material or
manufacturing area or to indicate the effectiveness of environmental control in
an aseptic process [2].
The consumption of antibiotics
gives red alarming in the human therapy has been reported [3]. The extensive
usage of antibiotics in both human and animal medicine has resulted in the
development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria which affect the treatment of
infections [4]. Antibiotic resistance has therefore become a major public
health issue [5] and its presence in waste water, surface water, and drinking
water is well documented. The hazard associated with the pathogenicity of
microbes is aggravated by its ability to resist destruction by antibiotics [6].
This study shows the importance of properly designed sampling technique,
identification tools, careful interpretation and analysis of the results
obtained in order to discover sources of contaminations in controlled
environment to make immediate actions to prevent spreading of contaminant which
may finally influence the microbiological quality of the final products which
may lead to sever financial losses for pharmaceutical company. Besides, it also
provides a new approach for detecting source of fault in controlled
environment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Microorganisms are present in a
variety of milieux in the pharmaceutical manufacturing environment. The first
step to identification is to isolate a pure colony for analysis. This
purification is normally accomplished by sub culturing one or more times on solid
media to ensure purity, each time streaking for single colony. This technique
also allows full phenotypic expression and growth of sufficient inoculums for
the identification.
Isolation of bacteria from
adverse environment
The sample for the present study
was collected from a pharmaceutical industry, Orchid Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. is a leading Pharma industry located in SIPCOT,
Alathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.
2 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
They
manufacture almost all pharmaceutical preparation like Injection, Ointments,
Syrups and Tablets etc. The Company has a well-established Microbiology
Department and they perform different tests pertaining to GMP of medicine
before moving to the market.
Sampling locations
Samples were taken from
representative different classes and locations in pharmaceutical facility
including: 1-Water system:
2- Class 100 (The highest grade
of cleanliness)
3-Class
10000 (High grade of cleanliness)
4-Class
100000 (Intermediate measure of cleanliness)
Specimen collection
Water sampling [7]
The whole process of water
sampling was performed under strict aseptic conditions. Water samples were
collected in sterile polypropylene sample containers with leak proof lids. When
collecting the sample, enough air space was left in the bottle to allow for
proper mixing before examination. Sample ports were flushed and disinfected
with 70% IPA (Iso Prophyl Alchocol) to avoid sample contamination. Before
collecting the sample 5 to 10 liters of water drained out as pere USP. The
sample bottle was kept closed until it had to be filled. Cap was removed
carefully and was replaced immediately. The volume of sample was collected to
be sufficient to carry out all tests required (not less than 100 ml).
Active air sampling [8]
Air sampler was placed in the
center of each room at a height of approximately 1meter above the floor. Before
sampling the instrument was disinfected with 70% IPA. One thousand liters of
air sampling were obtained by Merck air sampler. The TCA plates were incubated
for 48 hours at 30ºC - 35ºC and then for 72 hours at 20ºC - 25ºC. After
incubation, the colonies were counted and recorded.
·
Active
air sampling locations in class 100 area-garment changing airlocks, near
reactors, near sampling table and sterilized material unloading room.
·
Active
air sampling locations in class 10000 area-media preparation and storage room,
sterilization room, Water testing room, and incubator room.
·
Active
air sampling locations in class 10000 area- used media discarding room,
corridor, and garment washing room.
3 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
Surface monitoring
I-Contact plate method [9]
1-Surface
sampling was performed with raised RODAC plates. The tryptone soya agar in
contact plates was mixed with neutralizers (Tween 80 and lecithin), which
inactivate many residual disinfectants.
2-During
sampling, a contact plate was pressed onto the area to be tested. Any
microorganisms on the surface of the area tested (which should ideally be flat)
were transferred onto the contact plate.
3-After the sample had been
obtained; the area tested had been wiped down with isopropyl alcohol 70 % to
remove any residue left by the contact plate. The plates were incubated under
upside down condition with two different temperature condition such as for 48
hours at 30ºC - 35ºC and then for 72 hours at 20ºC - 25ºC.
·
Surface
monitoring locations at class 100 area-sampling scoop, aluminium containers,
surface of reactors and air curtains
·
Surface
monitoring locations at class 10000 area-garment cabinet, air locks cross over
bench, corridor wall
·
Surface
monitoring locations at class 100000 area- meduia discarding room wall,
autoclave jacket wall, waste material storage room
II-Swabbing method [10]
1-Swab
samples were collected by a sterile swab, moistening it by inserting it into a
second tube which contained a sponge soaked with sterile 1.5 ml of phosphate
buffered saline (PBS) at pH 7.2. The sampling area was wiped with swab with a
radiated fashion. After sampling, the swab was streaked on SCDA plates and the
plates were incubated for 48 hours at 30ºC - 35ºC and then for 72 hours at 20ºC
- 25ºC.
·
Swabbing
locations at class 100 area- cross over bench, electrical panels, view glass,
valves and knobs and unloading port of the reactors.
·
Swabbing
locations at class 100000 area- inner surface of the discarding autoclave,
waste material discarding drum and wash basin of the discarding room.
Identification using BBL CRYSTAL
identification systems
The tests used in the BBL CRYSTAL
E/NF identification system are based on microbial utilization and degradation
of specific substrates detected by various indicator systems. Gram-positive
ID kit includes tests for fermentation, oxidation, degradation and
hydrolysis of various substrates. Chromogenic substrates upon hydrolysis
produce color changes that can be detected visually. Identification is derived
from a comparative analysis of the reaction pattern of the test isolate to
those held in the data base [11]. Prior to BBL CRYSTAL
4 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
E/NF
panel set-up, Oxidase and Indole tests should be performed from a nonselective
isolation plate no more than 24 hours old.
Identification:
Identification
can be obtained by using the analytical profile index. The pattern of the
reactions obtained must be coded into a numerical profile.
Characterization of bacterial
isolates
The
first step is to determine the Gram reaction and cellular morphology of
the bacteria isolates. This is a critical step for phenotypic identification
schemes.
The
biochemical studies for the identification of isolate were performed by
different tests such as Catalase test, Oxidase test, Methyl red (MR) test,
Voges-Proskauer test, Citrate utilization test, Fermentation of carbohydrate
test according to the methods described in manual of methods for general
bacteriology [12].
Inoculums Preparation for
antibiotic sensitivity
Eight bacterial isolates were sub
cultured on non-selective nutrient agar slants. The bacterial cultures were
incubated overnight at 37°C. 0.5 McFarland density of bacterial isolates was
adjusted using normal saline (0.85% NaCl) using Spectrophotometer to bacterial
population of 1.0 x 108 cfu/ml.
Antibiotic Susceptibility Test
An antibiotic susceptibility test
was performed using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method [13]. The following
antibiotic discs at the final concentrations that are indicated were used:
ampicillin (AP) 10 g, cephalosporin (KF) 5 g, chloramphenicol (C) 30 g,
amoxycillin (A) 10 g, and meropenem (MP) 10 g. These antibiotics were chosen
because they are either used in both human medicine and animal veterinary
practice. Besides most of the gram positive bacteria are sensitive to these
beta lactom antibiotics [14]. All these antibiotics were obtained from local
pharmacy store and working solution having 10mg/ml concentration of each
antibiotic was used for the study.
Three
colonies were picked from each sample and each colony was transferred in to 3mL
of sterile distilled water to prepare bacterial suspension. Aliquots of 100 L
from each suspension were spread-plated on Mueller-Hinton agar plates.
Antibiotic discs were applied on to the plates using sterile needles and the
plates were incubated at 37oC
for 24 hours. After incubation, the antibiotic inhibition zone diameters were
measured. Results were
5 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 9, Pages 01-13, October 2017
observed
and the sensitive isolates were selected using standard reference values of
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards [15].
RESULTS
Result of samples taken from
different area in pharmaceutical industry:
1-Water system: All the
water samples were collected by daily basis for 30 days and the results were
recorded and shown in table 2. But the number sampling points are varied with
the type of water. It is ranging from 2 to 98. Raw water samples were taken
from the water station while the treated water from the corresponding water
treated plant. Drinking water samples were taken from the canteen and the
pantries. Both the purified water and the WFI water sample were taken from the
sterile and non sterile area of our facility. The total numbers of raw water
samples were 60 samples among which all samples (100%) showed positive growth
none of the samples showed no growth whereas the WFI water samples were showed
very minimum (<1%) positive growth. However, TW, DW, and PW were observed
positive growth as 40.3%, 26.35% and 21.2% respectively. The number of CFU in
PW and WFI samples were recorded as per ml of samples but the rest of the samples
were recorded as 100 ml of samples.
Table
2: Isolates from different type water samples for 30 days
|
Types of
|
No. of
|
Total
|
Inhouse
|
Positive samples
|
Negative
|
|
||
S No.
|
water
|
sampling
|
No. of
|
Declared limit of
|
samples
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
samples
|
points
|
samples
|
CFU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Raw water
|
02
|
02´30
|
<500/100ml
|
60
|
100
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Treated
|
10
|
10´30
|
<500/100ml
|
121
|
40.3
|
179
|
59.7
|
|
water
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Drinking
|
09
|
09´30
|
<500/100ml
|
71
|
26.3
|
209
|
73.7
|
|
water
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Purified
|
98
|
98´30
|
80-100/ml
|
623
|
21.2
|
2317
|
78.8
|
|
water
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
WFI
|
57
|
57´30
|
5-10/ml
|
1710
|
<1
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
2- Class 100
(The highest grade of cleanliness) Active air sampling, Surface monitoring
and Swabbing method
Samples
were taken from both microbiology laboratory and production area in facility by
following appropriate techniques. Results were shown in table 3. All
samples of class 100 showed no growth.
3-Class 10000 (High grade
of cleanliness) Active air sampling and Surface monitoring
All samples were taken using
contact plates from production area and microbiology laboratory in facility. In
class 10000 area the swabbing method was not practiced. In classes 10000 area
by air sampling (178 samples) and by surface monitoring (227 samples) showed
positive growth. Out of 390 active air samples of class 10000 area 212 samples
(54.4%) and 450 surface samples of class10000 area (49.6%) showed no growth.
Results were shown in Table (4).
4-Class 100000
(Intermediate measure of cleanliness) Active air sampling, Surface
monitoring and swabbing
method
Table 3: Isolates from class 100 area (Days of
sampling 30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inhouse
|
Positive samples
|
Negative samples
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Total No. of
|
Declared
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
S No.
|
|
Types of sampling
|
|
samples
|
limit of
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
Active air sampling
|
|
59x30=1780
|
<l
|
00
|
00
|
1780
|
|
100
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
Surface monitoring
|
|
08x30=240
|
<1
|
00
|
00
|
240
|
|
100
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
Swabbing
|
|
|
02x30=60
|
<1
|
00
|
00
|
60
|
|
100
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4: Isolates from class
10000
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inhouse
|
Positive samples
|
Negative samples
|
|
||||
|
|
Types of
|
Total No. of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
S No.
|
|
Declared limit of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
sampling
|
|
samples
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
CFU
|
No.
|
|
%
|
No.
|
|
%
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
Active air
|
13x30=390
|
|
10-60
|
178
|
|
45.6
|
212
|
|
54.4
|
|
||
|
sampling
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
Surface
|
15x30=450
|
|
10-40
|
227
|
|
50.4
|
223
|
|
49.6
|
|
||
|
monitoring
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
Table 5: Isolates from class 100000
|
|
Total
|
Inhouse
|
Positive samples
|
Negative samples
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
Declared
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S
No.
|
Types
of sampling
|
number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
limit of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
samples
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
CFU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Active
air sampling
|
18x30=540
|
<500
|
540
|
100
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Surface monitoring
|
22x30=660
|
<100
|
660
|
100
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Swabbing
|
41x30=1230
|
<200
|
1230
|
100
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the samples from classes 100000 area
showed positive growth (Table 5). None of the samples showed negative
growth.
Distribution of identified microorganisms from the
positive samples of environmental monitoring specimens
There
are 16 bacterial species (Table1) were isolated from various facilities of
pharmaceutical industry. Among which the most predominantly isolated species is
Micrococcus luteus and the rare or less commonly isolated species were Kocuria
rosea, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus auricularis, Staphylococcus
warneri, Helococcus kunzii and Streptococcus vestibularis.
There
were two gram positive bacilli isolates and the rest were gram positive cocci
but all the isolates showed positive Catalase and Oxidase test. However, none
of the gram negative organism was isolated.
Table1:
Identification of bacterial isolates by BBL CRYSTAL system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GRAM
|
BIOCHEMICAL
|
ORIGION OF
|
|
|
S.
NO.
|
ORGANISMS
|
COLONY MORPHOLOGY
|
ORGANISM
|
|
|
||
REACTIONS
|
TEST
RESULT
|
AREA
|
|
||||
|
|
|
ISOALTION
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Micrococcus
luteus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
Circular,
convex, yellow, entire, smooth and
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase
+ve
|
Surface
monitoring
|
Class 10000
|
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Micrococcus lylae
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
Circular,
convex, yellow, entire, mucoid
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase
+ve
|
Surface
monitoring
|
Class 10000
|
|
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Kocuria
rosea
|
Circular, convex, yellow, opaque and mucoid
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Surface
monitoring
|
Class 10000
|
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Kocuria kristinae
|
Circular,
convex, dull, yellow, smooth and
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class
100000
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Staphylococcus
capitis
|
Circular,
flat, white entire, smooth and mucoid
|
G+ve cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class 10000
|
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Staphylococcus hominis
|
Circular,
convex, white, entire smooth and
|
G+ve cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class 100000
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Staphylococcus
|
Circular,
convex, yellow, smooth and mucoid
|
G+ve cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class 100000
|
|
saprophyticus
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Staphylococcus
|
Circular,
flat, white, opaque and mucoid
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class 10000
|
|
epidermidis
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Staphylococcus auricularis
|
Circular,
convex, dull, white, opaque and
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Swabbing
|
Class 10000
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
Staphylococcus cohnii ssp
|
Circular, convex, white,
opaque and mucoid
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Water
|
Raw water
|
|
cohnii
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Kytococcus
sedentarius
|
Circular,
convex, pale yellow, entire, smooth
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Water
|
Drinking
water
|
|
and mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Brevibacillus brevis
|
Irregular,
flat,creamy brown,butyrus, smooth
|
G+ve
bacilli
|
Catalase +ve
|
Air sampling
|
Class 10000
|
|
and mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.
|
Staphylococcus warneri
|
Circular,
convex, grayish white, smooth and
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Air sampling
|
Class
100000
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helococcus kunzii
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.
|
|
Pinpointed,
convex,grey, smooth and mucoid
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Air sampling
|
Class 10000
|
|
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.
|
Streptococcus vestibularis
|
Circular,
convex, whitish yellow, entire, smooth
|
G+ve
cocci
|
Catalase +ve
|
Surface
monitoring
|
Class
100000
|
|
and mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leifsonia
aquatica
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.
|
|
Circular,convex,yellow,
butyrous, opaque and
|
G+ve
bacilli
|
Catalase +ve
|
Water
|
Raw water
|
|
|
mucoid
|
Oxidase +ve
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
6. Antibiotic resistance patterns of different pathogens
Organisms
|
|
Zone of
inhibitiona
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ampicillin
|
Cephalosporin
|
Methicillin
|
|
Cloxacillin
|
Meropenem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Micrococcus sp.
|
06
|
20
|
14
|
|
23
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kocuria sp.
|
07
|
13
|
17
|
|
19
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staphylococcus sp.
|
04
|
19
|
20
|
|
26
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Streptococcus vestibularis
|
08
|
17
|
22
|
|
20
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kytococcus sedentarius
|
05
|
11
|
15
|
|
18
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brevibacillus brevis
|
03
|
16
|
18
|
|
20
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helococcus kunzii
|
06
|
07
|
16
|
|
19
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leifsonia aquatic
|
04
|
13
|
19
|
|
22
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean value
|
5.4
|
14.5
|
17.6
|
|
20.9
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zone of inhibition in mm
|
40
30
20
10
0
Antibiogram of isolates
Ampicillin
Cephalosporin
Methicillin
Cloxacillin
Meropenem
Bacterial isolates
a-Zone of inhibition in mm;
Values are average of replicates
Figure 1. Sensitivity pattern of
bacterial isolates against antibiotics
9 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
The
antibiotic resistance patterns in terms of average zones of diameter
considering duplicate plates for bacterial isolates against each of five
antibiotics of 10mg/ml concentration were calculated and shown in table 6.
Eight genera of isolates were subjected to an antibiotic susceptibility test
using 5 different antibiotics from which their antibiotic sensitive profiles
and their phenotypes were compiled. The results obtained are depicted in figure
1. The results revealed that a large proportion of the environmental isolates
were resistant to ampicillin, followed by cephalosporin, methicillin and
cloxacillin. None of the isolates were resistant to meropenem.
DISCUSSION
Maintaining the integrity of a
clean room is a constant battle [16]. There are 3 prime sources of
contamination. The first is from human errors. To control this source of
contamination, human hands must be washed with disinfectant. 70% IPA is the
widely used skin disinfectant because of its mild nature. Contamination may
also result from the room surface areas. To avoid such contamination, floors,
walls and ceilings must be swept with disinfectants. The third contamination
source is from the room air. UV irradiation is the most convenient way to
sterilize room air although it is advised the fumigation with suitable
disinfectant periodically reduce and limit the microbial load in the production
area at pharmaceutical industry [17].
Reduction
in the number of bacteria in the treated water could be due to the treatment
process, when comparing drinking water to raw water. However, occurrence of
bacteria in the water after treatment could also harbour potential pathogens
and the health risk caused by these should be taken into consideration when
water is distributed. This is of particular importance when the drinking water
abstraction and purification facility are at a relatively short distance from
the sewage treatment and effluent disposal facility. In Mafikeng, the latter is
the case.
To date there are several
techniques such as MALDI-TOF MS or ribotyping that seem to be the attractive
technologies of rapid microbial identification. The absence of sample
preparation, coupled with rapid analysis and high throughput make them
indispensable for clinical investigations where precise identification affect
diagnosis and treatment options. The ability of MALDI-TOF MS to identify
bacteria to the species level in pure cultures and simple microbial mixtures
has been established. Besides, this method is free from restrictions related to
conditions of microbial cultivation [18].
These results are in agreement
with the findings of other workers [19]. It was found that Staphylococcus
and spore-forming Bacillus were more resistant to UV than the other
vegetative bacteria [20, 21].
To ensure a clean room conforming
to the designated classification, constant monitoring of contaminant sources
and identification of the predominant contaminant bacteria is usually necessary
[22]. This study found that the predominant contaminant bacteria were a group
of Gram positive bacteria: either spore-forming Bacillus, or
nonsporulating Staphylococcus and Micrococcus.
10 | P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
This
study found that 8 bacterial genus identified isolates were Gram positive
bacteria, either spore-forming
Brevibacillus, which is known to confer resistance to extreme
environmental conditions, or non-sporulating
Staphylococcus
and
Micrococcus, which have a thick cell wall and the rest of the bacterial
genus also. The thick wall of a cell or spore is a reasonable
explanation for resistance to UV irradiation because this kind of non-ionizing
radiation penetrates weakly. However, to 70% IPA and hydrogen peroxide
solutions, the cell wall could not be a reasonable explanation for retarding
disinfectant entrance.
A
further objective of this study was to characterise the isolates using their
antibiotic sensitive profiles. The results revealed that a large proportion of
the environmental isolates were resistant to ampicillin followed by
cephalosporin and methicilli. The trend was in accordance with earlier studies
that showed resistance towards
-lactam antibiotics
[23]. All these results could be attributed to the overuse of these antibiotics
in the clinical and veterinary setting. All isolates were found to be
susceptible to meropenem in line with an earlier observation [24].
CONCLUSION
This
paper, in reviewing data from three inter-connected pharmaceutical water
systems (raw water, treated water, drinking water, purified and
Water-for-Injection) and different pharmaceutical environment grade has
established a benchmark of the typical microorganisms that can be isolated and
recovered on culture media. Whilst is recognized that each facility and
geographical locale will differ; the types of organisms recovered bear some
similarity to earlier reviews of industrial and laboratory water. Therefore,
the results compiled provide empirical support for some of the more theoretical
discussions about the microbial ecology of pharmaceutical grade environment and
water. The study revealed that the most common isolates are Micrococcus
luteus and other gram positive cocci. Tracking and trending of bacterial
load is an important part of pharmaceutical microbiology, providing the basis
for evaluating microbiological risks on products and environments, and this
paper, through its long-term historical review, is designed to help with this
review process. The fourth generation antibiotic i.e. Meropenem is found to
have significant efficacy and can be considered appropriate for empirical
treatment of above eight bacterial genera. Although the present study can lead
to beneficially assistance in the identification and to control these bacterial
strains in pharmaceutical production environment as well an in the water system.
REFERENCES
[1] Sandle, T. 2006. Environmental
Monitoring Risk Assessment. Journal of GXP Compliance, 10(2):231-237.
[2] Sutton SVW and Cundell AM. 2004.
Microbial Identification in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Pharmacopeial forum.
30(5), 1884-1894.
[3] B. Vaseeharan, P. Ramasamy, T.
Murugan, and J. C. Chen, 2005. “In vitro susceptibility of antibiotics against
Vibrio spp.
And Aeromonas spp. isolated fromPenaeus monodon hatcheries and
ponds,” International Journal of
Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 285–291.
11
| P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
[4]
M. Akram, M. Shahid, and A. U. Khan, 2007. “Etiology and antibiotic resistance
patterns of community-acquired urinary tract infections in J N M C Hospital
Aligarh, India,” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials,
vol. 6, article 4, pp. 1–10.
[5] J. E. Moore, P. J. A. Moore, B.
C. Millar., 2010.“The presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria along the River
Lagan,” Agricultural Water Management, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 217–221.
[6] T. I.Lobova, Y. V. Barkhatov, O.
V. Salamatina, and L. Y. Popova, 2008. “Multiple antibiotic resistance of heterotrophic
bacteria in the littoral zone of Lake Shira as an indicator of human impact on
the ecosystem,”
Microbiological Research, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 152– 160.
[7]
Bordner, J., Hennessee, G. L. A. & Chandross, R. J. (1978). Cryst.
Struct. Commun.7, 513–515.
[8] Pitt, J.I., Hocking, A.D., 1999.
Fungi and Food Spoilage2nd ed. Aspen publisher, Inc, Maryland.
[9] Kastango, E.S.,
Douglass, K. 2001. Quality assurance for sterile products. Int. J. Pharm.
Compd. 5:246–253.
[10] Sanderson, E.W., M. Jaiteh, M.A.
Levy, K.H. Redford, A.V. Wannebo, and G. Woolmer. 2002. The Human Footprint and
the Last of the Wild. BioScience 52(10) 891-904.
[11] Murray, Gerhardt, P. R., Wood, W.
A. And Krieg, N. R. 1995. Manual of Methods For General Bacteriology.
American Society for Microbiology, Washington. Pp. 267-281.
[12] Gerhardt, P., Murray, R. G. E.,
Wood, W. A. And Krieg, N. R. 1981.Manual of Methods For General Bacteriology.
American Society for Microbiology, Washington. Pp. 267-281.
[13] W. Kirby, W. Bauer, J. Sherris,
and M. Turck, 1966. “Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single
disk method,” The American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 45, no.
4, pp. 493–496.
[14] J. L. Martinez, 2009. “Environmental
pollution by antibiotics and by antibiotic resistance determinants,”
Environmental Pollution, vol. 157, no. 11, pp.
2893–2902.
[15] National Committee for
Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1999. “Performance standards for antimicrobial
disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacterial isolates from animals,”
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory
Standards,Wayne,
Pa,USA, Approved standard, M31-A19, (11).
[16] Nagarkar, P.P., Ravetkar, S.D.,
Watve, M.G., 2001. Oligophilic bacteria as tools to monitor aseptic
pharmaceutical production units. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 67(3):
1371-1374.
[17] WU Gen-fu, LIU Xiao-hua 2007.
Characterization of predominant bacteria isolates from clean rooms in a
pharmaceutical production unit. Journal of Zhejiang University., 8(9):666-672
12
| P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
Volume 1,
Issue 8, Pages 56-60, September 2017
[18] Singhal N., Kumar M., Kanaujia PK
and Virdi JS 2015. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry:an emerging technology for
microbial identification and diagnosis. Front Microbiology. 6(791),16.
[19] Onaolapo, J.A., 1995.
Contamination of hospital disinfectantsand antiseptics. Int. Biodeter.
Biodegr., 36(3-4):471-472.
[20] Newcombe, D.A., Schuerger, A.C.,
Benardini, J.N., Dickinson, D., Tanner, R., Venkateswaran, K., 2005. Survival
of spacecraft-associated microorganisms under simulated martian UV irradiation.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71(12):8147-8156.
[21] Shaban, A.M., El-Taweel, G.E.,
Ali, G.H., 1997. UV ability to inactivate microorganisms combined with factors
affecting radiation. Wat. Sci. Technol., 35(11-12):107-112.
[22] Rosch, P., Harz, M., Schmitt, M.,
Peschke, K.D., Ronneberger, O., Burkhardt, H., Motzkus, H.W., Lankers, M.,
Hofer, S.,Thiele, H., Popp, J., 2005. Chemotaxonomic identification of single
bacteria by micro-Raman spectroscopy: application to clean-room-relevant
biological contaminations.Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71(3):1626-1637.
[23] C. L. Obi, P.O. Bessong, M.Momba,
N. Potgieter, A. Samie, and E. O. Igumbor, 2004. “Profiles of antibiotic
susceptibilities
of bacterial isolates and physico-chemical quality of water supply in rural
Venda communities,
South
Africa,” Water SA, vol. 30, no. 4, pp.515–519.
[24]
J. Lin, P. T. Biyela, and T. Puckree, 2004. “Antibiotic resistance profiles of
environmental isolates from
Mhlathuze
River, KwaZulu- Natal (RSA),” Water SA, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 23–28.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
authors would like to thank the orchid pharmaceutical ltd for their technical
support throughout this study. The assistance received from Dr NGP Arts and
Science College and the employees of orchid pharmaceutical ltd is also hereby
acknowledged.
13
| P a g e Online
ISSN: 2456-883X Publication
Impact Factor: 0.825 Website:
www.ajast.net
No comments:
Post a Comment