Mikrobiol. Z. 2018; 80(2):104-116. Ukrainian.
doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/microbiolj80.02.104

Differential Sensitivity of Mycobacterium to Chlorine Disinfectants

Paliy A.P.

Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine
83 Pushkinskaya Str., Kharkiv, 61023, Ukraine

Aim. To study the bactericidal properties of chlorinated disinfectants to diferent types of mycobacteria and to make a comparative assessment of the resistance of cultures of microorganisms to their action. Methods. The objects of the research were 16 cultures of diferent species of mycobacteria from the collection of pathogens of infectious diseases of animals of the National Scientifc Center “Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine” (Kharkov). As model disinfectants used drugs “Chlorantoin” and “Biochlor” at different concentrations and exposures. Results. The conducted experiments stated that the resistance of mycobacterium to the same disinfectant varies within the limits of one species. Mycobacterium’s M. scrofulaceum, M. intracellulare, M. fortuitum are the most resistant to the disinfectant “Biochlor” and the culture M. fortuitum is the most resistant to the preparation “Chlorantoin”. Taking into consideration the average statistic indices it was proved, that epizootic isolate of tuberculosis agent M. bovis hows more sizeable resistance to the bactericide action of disinfectors in comparison with referent culture M. bovis strain Vallee. The long-term effect of chlorinated disinfectants on a microbial cell causes irreversible changes not only internal (cytoplasm, nucleoid), but also external (cell wall, cytoplasmic membrane) structures of mycobacteria. The distribution analysis of mycobacterium cultures according to the average indices of their resistance grade to the different solutions of disinfectors action at the fxed exposition, showed that M. scrofulaceum, M. intracellulare, M. fortuitum, M. avium mycobacterium species have the greatest resistance. Conclusions. The resistance of mycobacteria to the same disinfectant varies within one species, which must be taken into account when developing and using antimicrobial agents. The complex approach to the search and application of new disinfectants with the account of dynamics as to bacteria destruction by the action of diferent disinfectors enables to improve regimes and charts as for the disinfection conduction, its quality in the whole complex of anti-epizootic measures.

Keywords: Mycobacterium, disinfectant, “Chlorantoin”, “Biochlor”, concentration, exposition, resistance, bactericide action.

Full text (PDF, in Ukrainian)

  1. Krasilnikov AP, Gudkova EI. [A study of the sensitivity of enterobacteria to disinfectants]. J. Microbiol. Epidemiol. and immunobiol. 1993;5:22-28. Russian.
  2. Oschepkov VG, Arjakov VN. [Sensitivity of microorganisms to drugs widely used for disinfection]. Siber. Bullet. of agricult. Science. 2003;3:99-102. Russian.
  3. Roszak D., Colwell R. Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural. Microbiol. Rev. 1987;51:365-379.
  4. Alekseeva IG. [Study of the features of the formation of stability of test microorganisms and clinical isolates to disinfectants in solution and on surfaces]. Fundamental sciences and the progress of clinical medicine. Mjscow, 2008. P. 13-14. Russian.
  5. Brown-Elliott BA, Wallace Jr.RJ. Clinical and Taxonomic Status of Pathogenic Nonpigmented or Late-Pigmenting Rapidly Growing Mycobacteria. Clinical Microbiol. Rev. 2002;15(4):716-746. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.15.4.716-746.2002
  6. Tortoli E. Impact of Genotypic Studies on Mycobacterial Taxonomy: the New Mycobacteria of the 1990s. Clinical Microbiol. Rev. 2003;16(2):319-354. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.16.2.319-354.2003
  7. Grange JM. The biology of the genus mycobacterium. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1996;81:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1996.tb04827.x
  8. Paliy AP, Zavgorodniy AI. [Comparative study of bactericidal properties of new disinfectants]. Bulletin of National Agrarian University of Armenia. 2013;2:39-41. Russian.
  9. Kotova AL, Rakisheva AS. [Resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to disinfectants]. Bulletin of KazNMU. 2013;4(1):5-6. Russian.
  10. Diachenko GM, Kravchenko NO. [The variability of mycobacterium, induced by antibacterial drugs, and its importance in the epizootics of tuberculosis]. Scientific and technical bulletin Institute of Animal Biology and State Scientific-Research Control Institute of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Feed Additives. 2009;10(4):130-135. Ukranian.
  11. Martma OV. [The current state of the problem of atypical mycobacteria in veterinary medicine]. Veterinary Medicine. 1982;5:22-24. Russian.
  12. Kislichkina AA, Stepanshina VN, Shemiakin IG. [Mycobacteriosis]. Problems of tuberculosis and lung diseases. 2009;5:3-9. Russian.
  13. Shandala MG. [Prospects and problems of modern disinfectology]. Disinfection business. 2003;3:119-125. Russian.
  14. Shkarin VV, Kovalishena OV, Blagonravova AS. [Characteristics of resistance to disinfectants of pathogens of community-acquired infections]. Disinfection business. 2008;3:52-57. Russian.
  15. Collins FM. Bactericidal activity of alkaline glutaraldehyde solution against a number of atypical mycobacterial species. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1986;61(3):247-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1986.tb04283.x
  16. Parhomenko NA, Pinchuk NG, Belavceva NI. [Sensitivity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium bovis to quaternary ammonium compounds]. In: Lab. research as a tool to provide. epizootic. welfare and food safety. product: Proceedings of the Scientific Conference; 2012 Sep 25-27; Kiev, 2012. P. 97-98.
  17. Arhipova OP, Kovalev VM. [Disinfection with activated chloramine solutions of some objects infected with spores of anthrax bacillus and tubercle bacillus]. Proceedings Research Institute of Children's Infections. 1949;5:15-17. Russian.
  18. Kravchenko MA, Fedorova LS, Eremeeva NI, Kanishev VV. [The issues of overcoming the resistance of mycobacteria of different species to disinfectants]. Disinfection business. 2007;3:35-39. Russian.
  19. Grange JM. The biology of the genus Mycobacterium. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1996;81:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1996.tb04827.x
  20. Telenti A. Genetics of drug resistance in tuberculosis. Tuberculosis. 1997;18(1):55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-5231(05)70355-5
  21. Heginbothom ML. The relationship between the in vitro drug susceptibility of opportunist mycobacteria and their in vivo response to treatment. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2001;5(6):539-545.
  22. Wagner D, Young LS. Nontuberculous mycobacterial infections: a clinical review. Infection. 2004;32(5):257-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-004-4001-4
  23. Kolichev NM. [Atypical mycobacteria – an indicator of the quality of disinfection]. Veterinary Medicine. 1982;7:22-24. Russian.
  24. Primm TP, Lucero C, Falkinham JO. Impact on health of environmental mycobacteria. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004;17:98-106. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.17.1.98-106.2004
  25. Blum BR. [Tuberculosis. Pathogenesis, protection, control]. M: Medicine; 2002. Russian.
  26. Schlisser T. Testing of Chemical Disinfectants for veterinary Medicine. Selection and sensitivity of test Bacteria. Sonderelruck aus Hygiene und Medlizin. 1979;4:51-56.
  27. Alagezan RG. [Detergents and disinfectants in the dairy industry]. Moscow: Light and food industry; 1981. Russian.
  28. Zavgorodniy AI, Paliy AP, Zagrebelniy VO, Repin MV. [Ultrastructural changes in atypical mycobacteria after exposure to "Chloroanthoin"]. Vet. Medicine: mizhvid. temat. science. coll. 2012;96:107-110. Ukranian.