Mycobacterium marinum disinfectant

[jmf]

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure if this post is meant to go here, please move if not 

Anyway I'm a a bit of a newbie on biology but I keep some endangered Australia fish and would like to disinfect equipment between use.

My main concern is bacteria and in particular mycobacterium marinum.

Would something like isopropyl at 70% kill it or would ethanol be better?

Any help would be greatly appreciated 

 

[TheVat]

Sodium hypochlorite.  AKA bleach.

[jmf]

52 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Sodium hypochlorite.  AKA bleach.

From my research that seems to be not as good as ethanol or as quick

[TheVat]

In one former job, bleach was seen as the best broad spectrum germicide/fungicide, but that was clinic surfaces where we were just after bacteria.  If there is a lot of organic material - fish poo, or whatever - on equipment surfaces, bleach can be somewhat reduced in power, so it is sometimes better to opt for alcohol (ethyl is better than isopropyl) in that case.  If your equipment includes rubber, I would especially prefer ethanol, since bleach is a strong oxidizing agent that can hurt the rubber.  

In terms of speed, I am not sure which is better.  Ethanol operates on cells by dehydrating them, so that might take a little time, too.  If your research says bleach is slower, and you want something quick, then maybe you should go with that.  

If you don't mind really slow, vinegar is good, and will also eliminate any hard water deposits that may develop in equipment.  You may want to research concentration, for that.  When I kept fish, many years ago, I used vinegar, because it was considered safer than bleach and it was cheap.  (bleach, you must leave zero residue when the fish go back in, which is probably obvious)

 

[Moontanman]

I always use hydrogen peroxide to clean my fish tanks when I take them down, it must be rinsed well and allowed to dry for a few days. Sodium hypochlorite has the advantage that commercial aquarium products are sold to neutralize it.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by Moontanman

[CharonY]

Ethanol is not that great for large surface contamination as the contact time required for many bacteria is on average around 20 mins, for more robust ones it could be an hour. Instruments can be submerged in it and kept for the required time, but it tends to evaporate from surfaces before quantitative sterilization. Mycobacterium species have rather robust cell hulls, which makes them more resilient than many other species. 

They are also somewhat acid resistant, so vinegar is unlikely going to work well.

[jmf]

Thanks for all the responses. Mycobacterium species especially marinum seems to be a bacteria from hell.

It's more to sanitising nets, siphons, etc 

[CharonY]

41 minutes ago, jmf said:

Thanks for all the responses. Mycobacterium species especially marinum seems to be a bacteria from hell.

It's more to sanitising nets, siphons, etc 

They have characteristic mycolic acids which really makes them tough little buggers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycolic_acid

 

[NTuft]

@jmf I presume you looked at the study based on your comment about sodium hypochlorite. "Concentrated original Lysol" performed well, as did sodium chlorite with an activator (sounds like MMS, which might be good for disinfecting aquarium tools; but double check). I would suggest Palmolive with lactic acid or some other things, but again, the concentrated Lysol at 1% seemed effective in a study so that carries it. Perhaps the Palmolive in a strong solution for cleaning gross contamination, followed by the soak in 1% lysol. Appreciate the mention of mycolic acids...  doubt a regular soap saponifies those cords. Plus if they're acid resistant then they're the 0.1% that escapes the lactic acid, and they're catalase positive, but I doubt they'd enjoy the l-lactic acid or peroxide regardless.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238046154_Efficacy_of_Common_Disinfectants_against_Mycobacterium_marinum

Edited September 18, 2022 by NTuft
addressee

[TheVat]

A bit mystified as to why NTuft was neg repped.  Shouldn't the dispenser of the minus one share whatever points of disagreement they may have?  Would be much appreciated, and perhaps add to our knowledge.

[StringJunky]

On 9/6/2022 at 5:00 PM, TheVat said:

In one former job, bleach was seen as the best broad spectrum germicide/fungicide, but that was clinic surfaces where we were just after bacteria.  If there is a lot of organic material - fish poo, or whatever - on equipment surfaces, bleach can be somewhat reduced in power, so it is sometimes better to opt for alcohol (ethyl is better than isopropyl) in that case.  If your equipment includes rubber, I would especially prefer ethanol, since bleach is a strong oxidizing agent that can hurt the rubber.  

In terms of speed, I am not sure which is better.  Ethanol operates on cells by dehydrating them, so that might take a little time, too.  If your research says bleach is slower, and you want something quick, then maybe you should go with that.  

If you don't mind really slow, vinegar is good, and will also eliminate any hard water deposits that may develop in equipment.  You may want to research concentration, for that.  When I kept fish, many years ago, I used vinegar, because it was considered safer than bleach and it was cheap.  (bleach, you must leave zero residue when the fish go back in, which is probably obvious)

 

I thought it worked by disrupting the cell walls.

Quote

Abstract
Ethanol disrupts the physical structure of cell membranes. The most fluid membranes, including those that are low in cholesterol, are the most easily disordered by ethanol. Although the membrane-disordering effect is small, there is pharmacological, temporal, and genetic evidence that it is important. Animals that are resistant to ethanol intoxication because of their genetic background or because of previous exposure to ethanol are found to have brain membranes that are not easily disordered in vitro. An exception is the increased behavioral sensitivity in aging animals, which is not matched by changes in their membranes. When animals are treated chronically with ethanol, their membranes become stiffer, a response that can be regarded as adaptive. Ethanol may favor the uptake of cholesterol or saturated fatty acids into membranes, thus reducing its own effect.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3526990/

As an aside: Adding 10% water also apparently increases the penetration depth before disruption occurs.... 90% is better than 100% in that use.

Edited September 18, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I thought it worked by disrupting the cell walls.

 

Thanks - yes, it's both denaturation and then dehydration.  I should have mentioned both, with denaturation leading to dehydration.  Here's a snip from Healthline:

Alcohol kills germs through a simple chemical process known as denaturation.

Denaturation occurs when alcohol molecules break down the proteins present in the structure of germs. When the proteins break down and lose their structure, the cells can’t function properly. They lose their membrane protection, dehydrate, and quickly die. 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

On 9/18/2022 at 9:50 AM, NTuft said:

@jmf I presume you looked at the study based on your comment about sodium hypochlorite. "Concentrated original Lysol" performed well, as did sodium chlorite with an activator (sounds like MMS, which might be good for disinfecting aquarium tools; but double check). I would suggest Palmolive with lactic acid or some other things, but again, the concentrated Lysol at 1% seemed effective in a study so that carries it. Perhaps the Palmolive in a strong solution for cleaning gross contamination, followed by the soak in 1% lysol. Appreciate the mention of mycolic acids...  doubt a regular soap saponifies those cords. Plus if they're acid resistant then they're the 0.1% that escapes the lactic acid, and they're catalase positive, but I doubt they'd enjoy the l-lactic acid or peroxide regardless.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238046154_Efficacy_of_Common_Disinfectants_against_Mycobacterium_marinum

I think you have forgotten that the OP is talking about aquariums. Things like "Lysol" and Palmolive are quite poisonous to aquatic life and would be worse than the bacterium.  

[NTuft]

On 9/19/2022 at 9:13 AM, Moontanman said:

I think you have forgotten that the OP is talking about aquariums. Things like "Lysol" and Palmolive are quite poisonous to aquatic life and would be worse than the bacterium.  

Any thoughts/experience on/with methylene blue for that purpose? Or what do you suppose could treat in the aquarium?

On 9/5/2022 at 10:39 PM, jmf said:

but I keep some endangered Australia fish and would like to disinfect equipment between use.

On 9/7/2022 at 7:31 PM, jmf said:

Thanks for all the responses. Mycobacterium species especially marinum seems to be a bacteria from hell.

It's more to sanitising nets, siphons, etc 

 

I should correct my over-selling of Palmolive -- they make a claim about efficacy that is limited to a few bacterial strains, so even my altered claim of efficacy is probably still an over-statement.

 

I do not think ethanol directly interacts with cell membrane lipids, but rather has a dehydrating action by drawing water out through or away from membrane proteins. That said, we ought to be discussing peptidoglcan cell walls of bacteria or outer membrane of lipopolysaccharide/protein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-positive_bacteria

Quote

Conversely, gram-negative bacteria cannot retain the violet stain after the decolorization step; alcohol used in this stage degrades the outer membrane of gram-negative cells, making the cell wall more porous and incapable of retaining the crystal violet stain. Their peptidoglycan layer is much thinner and sandwiched between an inner cell membrane and a bacterial outer membrane, causing them to take up the counterstain (safranin or fuchsine) and appear red or pink.

Despite their thicker peptidoglycan layer, gram-positive bacteria are more receptive to certain cell wall targeting antibiotics than gram-negative bacteria, due to the absence of the outer membrane.

I do not think bacteria make cholesterol.

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, NTuft said:

Any thoughts/experience on/with methylene blue for that purpose? Or what do you suppose could treat in the aquarium?

Methylene blue can be used as a rinse to clean off nets, When I ran a petshop I kept methylene blue in containers near the fish bagging station to keep nets soaked in why waiting to be used. I've also used peroxide in the net dip containers and I use peroxide to clean equipment like filters and other accessories. Drying the plastic parts out over night will remove the peroxide.  

"in the aquarium" is tricky, most people would use antibiotics instead of disinfectants, few disinfectants are any better at killing bacteria than they are at killing fish.  

11 hours ago, NTuft said:

 

I should correct my over-selling of Palmolive -- they make a claim about efficacy that is limited to a few bacterial strains, so even my altered claim of efficacy is probably still an over-statement.

Palmolive or any soap is a bad idea in aquariums, it's difficult to really rinse off but it's deadliness to aquatic life is less than it used to be but still not low enough to be used in an aquarium.