Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30707728›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Flow cytometry, a powerful novel tool to rapidly assess bacterial viability in metal working fluids: Proof-of-principle.

Donna Vanhauteghem, Kris Audenaert, Kristel Demeyere, Fred Hoogendoorn, Geert P J Janssens, Evelyne Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donna VanhauteghemDepartment of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4742-2548
Kris AudenaertDepartment of Applied Bioscience Engineering, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristel DemeyereLaboratory of Biochemistry, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Fred HoogendoornQuaker Chemical B.V., Industrieweg 7, Uithoorn, The Netherlands.
Geert P J JanssensDepartment of Nutrition, Genetics and Ethology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Evelyne MeyerLaboratory of Biochemistry, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metalworking fluids (MWF) are water- or oil-based liquids to cool and lubricate tools, work pieces and machines, inhibit corrosion and remove swarf. One of the major problems in the MWF industry is bacterial growth as bacterial enzymes can cause MWF degradation. In addition, bacteria can form biofilms which hamper the functioning of machines. Last but not least, some bacterial by-products are toxic (e.g. endotoxins) and present potential health risks for metalworking machine operators via the formation of aerosols. Therefore, a novel fast yet accurate analytical method to evaluate and predict the antibacterial capacity of MWF would be an important asset. As such a tool is currently lacking, the present study aimed to develop a protocol based on flow cytometry (FCM) to assess the antibacterial potential of newly developed MWF independent of bacterial growth. Results of this novel method were compared to a biochallenge test currently used in MWF industry and also to traditional plate counts. Our results represent a proof-of-principle that FCM can reliably predict the antibacterial capacity of MWF already within one day of incubation with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Proteus mirabilis, being substantially faster than the current growth-based methods.

Indexed as

BacteriaEscherichia coliFlow CytometryMetallurgyMicrobial ViabilityPseudomonas aeruginosa

Identifiers

PMID30707728
PMCPMC6358156
OpenAlexW2912277094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.