Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2014 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000500244 |
Resumo: | The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning and decontamination procedures in liquid nitrogen tanks. We evaluated 151 canisters and 133 bottoms from 133 nitrogen tanks of companies or farms for the presence of bacteria and fungi. Samples were collected from the canisters and the bottom of tanks containing liquid nitrogen. Tanks were divided into Group 1 (G1): tanks decontaminated with 2% glutaraldehyde - Glutaron® II (n = 16 canisters in 8 tanks); Group 2 (G2): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 20 canisters in 10 tanks); and Group 3 (G3): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 115 canisters in 115 tanks). Tanks in Groups 1 and 2 belonged to companies; Group 3 tanks belonged to farms. The culture of canisters showed twelve genera of bacteria and five genera of fungi. Bacillus cereuswas the most prevalent bacterial contaminant (42/133) in liquid nitrogen tanks (31.57%). Decontamination by 2% glutaraldehyde plus 70% ethanol was effective and no difference was found between the decontamination methods of Groups 1 and 2. In Group 3 the decontamination method was considered effective. Handling procedures with high hygienic standards should be recommended to avoid contamination of liquid nitrogen tanks on farms. |
id |
SBZ-1_6e57b75e4a4cc7c7838578fea0d3e0be |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1516-35982014000500244 |
network_acronym_str |
SBZ-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanksartificial inseminationbacteriafungisemenThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning and decontamination procedures in liquid nitrogen tanks. We evaluated 151 canisters and 133 bottoms from 133 nitrogen tanks of companies or farms for the presence of bacteria and fungi. Samples were collected from the canisters and the bottom of tanks containing liquid nitrogen. Tanks were divided into Group 1 (G1): tanks decontaminated with 2% glutaraldehyde - Glutaron® II (n = 16 canisters in 8 tanks); Group 2 (G2): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 20 canisters in 10 tanks); and Group 3 (G3): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 115 canisters in 115 tanks). Tanks in Groups 1 and 2 belonged to companies; Group 3 tanks belonged to farms. The culture of canisters showed twelve genera of bacteria and five genera of fungi. Bacillus cereuswas the most prevalent bacterial contaminant (42/133) in liquid nitrogen tanks (31.57%). Decontamination by 2% glutaraldehyde plus 70% ethanol was effective and no difference was found between the decontamination methods of Groups 1 and 2. In Group 3 the decontamination method was considered effective. Handling procedures with high hygienic standards should be recommended to avoid contamination of liquid nitrogen tanks on farms.Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia2014-05-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000500244Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia v.43 n.5 2014reponame:Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ)instacron:SBZ10.1590/S1516-35982014000500004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPessoa,Gilson AntonioRubin,Mara Iolanda BatistellaSilva,Carlos Antonio MondinoRosa,Denize Costa daeng2015-09-23T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-35982014000500244Revistahttps://www.rbz.org.br/pt-br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||bz@sbz.org.br|| secretariarbz@sbz.org.br1806-92901516-3598opendoar:2015-09-23T00:00Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
title |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
spellingShingle |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks Pessoa,Gilson Antonio artificial insemination bacteria fungi semen |
title_short |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
title_full |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
title_fullStr |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
title_full_unstemmed |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
title_sort |
Decontamination of naturally contaminated liquid nitrogen storage tanks |
author |
Pessoa,Gilson Antonio |
author_facet |
Pessoa,Gilson Antonio Rubin,Mara Iolanda Batistella Silva,Carlos Antonio Mondino Rosa,Denize Costa da |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Rubin,Mara Iolanda Batistella Silva,Carlos Antonio Mondino Rosa,Denize Costa da |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pessoa,Gilson Antonio Rubin,Mara Iolanda Batistella Silva,Carlos Antonio Mondino Rosa,Denize Costa da |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
artificial insemination bacteria fungi semen |
topic |
artificial insemination bacteria fungi semen |
description |
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning and decontamination procedures in liquid nitrogen tanks. We evaluated 151 canisters and 133 bottoms from 133 nitrogen tanks of companies or farms for the presence of bacteria and fungi. Samples were collected from the canisters and the bottom of tanks containing liquid nitrogen. Tanks were divided into Group 1 (G1): tanks decontaminated with 2% glutaraldehyde - Glutaron® II (n = 16 canisters in 8 tanks); Group 2 (G2): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 20 canisters in 10 tanks); and Group 3 (G3): decontamination with 70% ethanol (n = 115 canisters in 115 tanks). Tanks in Groups 1 and 2 belonged to companies; Group 3 tanks belonged to farms. The culture of canisters showed twelve genera of bacteria and five genera of fungi. Bacillus cereuswas the most prevalent bacterial contaminant (42/133) in liquid nitrogen tanks (31.57%). Decontamination by 2% glutaraldehyde plus 70% ethanol was effective and no difference was found between the decontamination methods of Groups 1 and 2. In Group 3 the decontamination method was considered effective. Handling procedures with high hygienic standards should be recommended to avoid contamination of liquid nitrogen tanks on farms. |
publishDate |
2014 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-05-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000500244 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000500244 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S1516-35982014000500004 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia v.43 n.5 2014 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) instacron:SBZ |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) |
instacron_str |
SBZ |
institution |
SBZ |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||bz@sbz.org.br|| secretariarbz@sbz.org.br |
_version_ |
1750318151010091008 |