Review

Ways to improve biocides for metalworking fluid

  • Received: 27 November 2020 Accepted: 13 January 2021 Published: 18 January 2021
  • Metalworking fluids (MWF) are mainly emulsions of oil in water containing additives such as corrosion inhibitors, emulsifiers, defoamers, and biocides. Microbial contamination of MWF is almost systematic, and some of their constituents serve as nutrients for contaminating microorganisms. Biocides for MWF are protection products used to counter microbial contaminations and growth. Ideally, a biocide for MWF should have the following non-exhaustive criteria: have a broad-spectrum activity, be usable at low concentrations, be compatible with the formulation and the physical-chemical properties of MWF, be stable over time, retain its effectiveness in the presence of soiling, have no corrosive action on metals, present no danger to humans and the environment, be inexpensive. The future lies in the development of new molecules with biocidal activity corresponding to these ideal specifications, but in the meantime, it is possible to improve the performance of existing molecules currently on the market. Different strategies for potentiation of the activity of existing biocides are possible. The compatibility of the potentiation strategies with their use in metal working fluids is discussed.

    Citation: Patrick Di Martino. Ways to improve biocides for metalworking fluid[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(1): 13-27. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021002

    Related Papers:

    [1] Luciana C. Gomes, Filipe J. Mergulhão . Effect of heterologous protein expression on Escherichia coli biofilm formation and biocide susceptibility. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(4): 434-446. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.4.434
    [2] Amanova Sholpan, Alexandre Lamas, Alberto Cepeda, Carlos Manuel Franco . Salmonella spp. quorum sensing: an overview from environmental persistence to host cell invasion. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(2): 238-256. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021015
    [3] Laurent Coquet, Antoine Obry, Nabil Borghol, Julie Hardouin, Laurence Mora, Ali Othmane, Thierry Jouenne . Impact of chlorhexidine digluconate and temperature on curli production in Escherichia coli—consequence on its adhesion ability. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 915-937. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.915
    [4] Divakar Dahiya, Poonam Singh Nigam . An overview of three biocatalysts of pharmaceutical importance synthesized by microbial cultures. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(2): 124-137. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021009
    [5] Luciana Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, Lina Marcela Blandon Garcia, Cristine Rodrigues, Marcela Cândido Camara, Gilberto Vinícius de Melo Pereira, Juliana de Oliveira, Carlos Ricardo Soccol . Potential applications of plant probiotic microorganisms in agriculture and forestry. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 629-648. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.629
    [6] Hemant Sharma, Arun Kumar Rai, Divakar Dahiya, Rajen Chettri, Poonam Singh Nigam . Exploring endophytes for in vitro synthesis of bioactive compounds similar to metabolites produced in vivo by host plants. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(2): 175-199. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021012
    [7] Ahmed E. Kholif, Anuoluwapo Anele, Uchenna Y. Anele . Microbial feed additives in ruminant feeding. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 542-571. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024026
    [8] Monyck Jeane dos Santos Lopes, Aline Figueiredo Cardoso, Moacyr Bernardino Dias-Filho, Ely Simone Cajueiro Gurgel, Gisele Barata da Silva . Brazilian Amazonian microorganisms: A sustainable alternative for plant development. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 150-166. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025008
    [9] Kanyanat Kaewiad, Nattha Kaewnopparat, Damrongsak Faroongsarng, Juraithip Wungsintaweekul, Sanae Kaewnopparat . Statistical optimization of bambara groundnut protein isolate-alginate matrix systems on survival of encapsulated Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 713-732. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.713
    [10] Srirengaraj Vijayaram, Reshma Sinha, Caterina Faggio, Einar Ringø, Chi-Chung Chou . Biopolymer encapsulation for improved probiotic delivery: Advancements and challenges. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 986-1023. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024043
  • Metalworking fluids (MWF) are mainly emulsions of oil in water containing additives such as corrosion inhibitors, emulsifiers, defoamers, and biocides. Microbial contamination of MWF is almost systematic, and some of their constituents serve as nutrients for contaminating microorganisms. Biocides for MWF are protection products used to counter microbial contaminations and growth. Ideally, a biocide for MWF should have the following non-exhaustive criteria: have a broad-spectrum activity, be usable at low concentrations, be compatible with the formulation and the physical-chemical properties of MWF, be stable over time, retain its effectiveness in the presence of soiling, have no corrosive action on metals, present no danger to humans and the environment, be inexpensive. The future lies in the development of new molecules with biocidal activity corresponding to these ideal specifications, but in the meantime, it is possible to improve the performance of existing molecules currently on the market. Different strategies for potentiation of the activity of existing biocides are possible. The compatibility of the potentiation strategies with their use in metal working fluids is discussed.


    Biocidal products are substances or preparations for domestic or industrial use intended to destroy, repel or render harmless harmful organisms (fungi, bacteria, viruses, rodents, insects, etc.), to prevent their action or to combat them, by a chemical or biological action [1]. Biocidal products are subject to European regulation EU N° 528/2012 which harmonizes their placing on the market and their use within the European Union.

    In the EU Regulation N ° 528/2012, 22 types of biocidal products (PT) divided into 4 groups are defined according to their use:

    • Group 1 (PT 1 to 5): disinfectants (human or animal hygiene, disinfection of surfaces, disinfection of drinking water, etc.).
    • Group 2 (PT 6 to 13): protection products (protection products for wood, construction materials, fluids for metalworking, etc.). This product group only corresponds to products intended to prevent microbial and algal growth.
    • Group 3 (PT 14 to 20): pest control products (rodenticides, insecticides, repellents, etc.).
    • Group 4 (PT 21 to 22): other biocidal products (anti-fouling products, fluids used for embalming and taxidermy).

    For a biocide to enter the European market, it must be ensured that it is effective against the claimed target organisms, it does not induce unacceptable deleterious effects on non-target organisms and in particular on humans, but also that it does not induce resistance or cross resistance on target organisms. The undesirable effects of certain biocides which have been widely used for a long time, such as the isothiazolinone derivatives, have led to reduce their use and to better warning users of the risks associated with their exposure [2]. The intensive use of biocides can also lead to reductions in their effectiveness or even to reductions in the effectiveness of other chemicals [3]. The structure, activity of biocides as well as tolerance and bacterial resistance to biocides have already been reviewed [4][9]. In some bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a decrease in sensitivity to chlorhexidine gluconate is associated with a decrease in sensitivity to various antibiotics due to the activity of efflux pumps [10]. Impaired cell permeability to antimicrobials is a major mechanism of bacterial resistance to biocides and antibiotics [11]. Target modification or inactivation of biocides occur rarely and are limited to particular biocides such as triclosan or organomercurials, respectively [12],[13]. Phenotypic and physiological adaptation to particular growth patterns such as availability of certain nutrient substrates, reduced growth rate, nutrient limitation, or biofilm formation can alter the sensitivity of bacteria to biocides [9].

    After a few reminders on biocides, a focus will be on the biocides used in the protection of metalworking fluids and the possibilities for improving their efficiency.

    In general, the action of a biocide against microorganisms takes place in three phases: the physical-chemical absorption of the biocide on the microbial surface, the penetration of the biocide into the cell and the action of the biocide on target sites [6],[7]. However, the penetration of the biocide into the microorganism is not always necessary for its action, which reduces the number of phases of action of some biocides. A biocide acts on one or more cellular targets such as the cytoplasmic membrane, or intracellular biological macromolecules (proteins, nucleic acids, etc.). As there is a diversity of the envelope structures of microorganisms (Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria, bacterial spores, Mycobacteria, yeasts, moulds, viruses) and a diversity of molecular structures of biocides, each biocide presents its own inactivation mechanism and spectrum of activity. The main mechanisms of microorganism inactivation by organic biocides and bacterial targets for biocides are presented in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Mechanisms of microorganism inactivation by different families of organic molecules with biocidal activity.
    Types of Biocides Mechanisms of action
    Acids Interaction with cell membranes
    Active halogen compounds Binding to -SH groups, inhibition and inactivation of proteins
    Alcohols Protein denaturation, dissolution of cell membranes
    Aldehyde and compounds releasing formaldehyde Binding to NH2 groups, inhibition and inactivation of proteins and nucleic acids
    Biguanides Interaction with cell membranes, inhibition and inactivation of proteins and nucleic acids
    Cationic surfactants Modification of membrane potential, destabilization of cell membranes
    Isothiazolinones Inhibition of Enzymes
    Oxidizing or chlorine releasing compounds Oxidation of cellular components, interaction with cell membranes, inactivation of proteins and nucleic acids
    Phenolic compounds Protein denaturation, alteration of cell membranes

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The bactericidal and bacteriostatic activities of biocides are conventionally determined against planktonic bacteria by determining a Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and a Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC). The MIC is the lowest concentration of the product that inhibits in 18 hours the visible multiplication of a bacterial suspension calibrated at 106 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/mL [14]. The MBC is the lowest concentration of the product that reduces the viability of a calibrated initial bacterial population by a pre-determined reduction varying from 3 to 5 logs (3 to 5 decimal reductions) depending on the context [15][17]. The antibacterial activity of biocides can also be determined against bacteria attached to a surface and against bacteria inside biofilms. The ‘germ carrier’ method makes it possible to determine the activity of water-miscible liquid biocides towards bacteria artificially fixed on non-porous supports by drying [18]. To date, there is no standard technique for determining the activity of biocides solutions against biofilms. However, protocols are described in the literature, and guidance from public agencies are available [19][22].

    In addition to the quantification of the antibacterial activity of a fluid containing a biocide, it is possible to have qualitative information on this activity using fluorescent markers of bacterial cell integrity (SYBR® Green II and propidium iodide) and markers of bacterial metabolic activity (ChemChrome V6 or 5-cyano-2,3-ditolyl tetrazolium chloride staining) [23],[24]. SYBR® Green is a fluorescent nucleic acid marker capable of entering all cells, regardless of their physiological state. Propidium iodide (PI) is a fluorescent nucleic acid dye that can penetrate only cells that have lost their membrane integrity (dead or structurally damaged cells). Upon excitation at 488 nm after SYBR® Green-PI double labelling, there can be a fluorescence resonance energy transfer from the SYBR® Green to the PI when these two fluorochromes are attached nearby one another on DNA. Under these conditions, the green fluorescence energy of SYBR® Green is absorbed by the PI, which can then fluoresce red. Cells whose membranes are compromised, and therefore permeable to PI, fluoresce in red, while cells with intact membranes, and therefore impermeable to PI, fluoresce in green. ChemChrome V6 reveals esterase activity in active bacterial cells. This non-fluorescent lipophilic molecule passively penetrates and accumulates in cells. In the intracellular compartment of active cells, it undergoes enzymatic hydrolysis by esterases, which forms the green fluorescent carboxyfluorescein product. Reduction of 5-cyano-2,3-ditolyl tetrazolium chloride (CTC) by the dehydrogenase activity of the respiratory chain induces the formation of the insoluble compound formazan that fluoresces red. The use of a combination of these fluorescent dies makes it possible to determine whether cells are inactivated which may be a reversible state and / or structurally altered which is generally an irreversible state which indicates cell death [25].

    Metal Working Fluids (MWF) serve several purposes: lubricating the interface between a tool and a metal surface, cooling, and removing debris from surfaces [26]. MWFs must have good stability over time. In addition to preparing an oil and water emulsion, the formulation of an MWF includes many additives such as amines, esters, corrosion inhibitors, emulsifiers, defoamers, and biocides. MWFs are used by diluting concentrated stock solutions with water. Since the concentrated solution represents only a few percent of the final product, the quality of the dilution water is essential to obtain a stable MWF. This water naturally brings contaminating microorganisms, as do all surfaces coming into contact with the MWF. These contaminating microorganisms can develop in the MWF in the form of suspended biomass but also on surfaces in contact with the MWF (reservoir wall, pipe interior and machine surface) in the form of fixed biomass and as floating biofilm at the surface of the fluid in reservoirs [26][28]. A microorganism inside a biofilm has a reduced sensitivity to biocides compared to the same microorganism in planktonic form [29],[30]. Among the additives used in the formulation of an MWF, the choice of biocides used, their concentration, their activity in the end-product are essential elements for the stability of MWF.

    Ideally, a biocide for metalworking fluid should have the following non-exhaustive criteria: have a broad-spectrum activity, be usable at low concentrations, be compatible with the formulation and the physical-chemical properties of metalworking fluids, be stable over time, retain its effectiveness in the presence of soiling, have no corrosive action on metals, present no danger to humans and the environment, be inexpensive.

    The selection and evaluation of the efficacy of the biocides used to ensure the stability of MWFs and limit bacterial growth is a critical point in their formulation [31]. Microbial contamination of water-miscible metalworking fluids is extremely common with culturable micro-organisms concentrations as high as 109 CFU mL−1 [32]. The contaminating microbial populations evolve quantitatively and qualitatively during the lifetime of an MWF. This means that a biocidal system for MWF has to face constant but evolving challenges with diverse microorganisms for a long period of time. The constituents of MWF serve as nutrients for microbial growth. Some compounds of MWF are more sensitive to rapid microbial degradation than others, which induces non-uniform biodegradation of MWF [32],[33]. High rates of microbial degradation have been observed for fatty acids as well as for fatty acid amides. Fatty alcohol ethoxylates can also be degraded by bacteria isolated from a contaminated mineral oil based MWF emulsion. The nutrients in the fluid change as microorganisms consume carbon sources and form new growth substrates that can be used by other microorganisms by degrading ingredients in the MWF formulation. Thus, nitrite and nitrate are formed in MWF during the microbial degradation of monoethanolamine (MEA) [33]. Nitrates can then be reduced by different bacterial species like Comamonas testosteroni and Pseudomonas putida. In addition, new sources of organic and mineral nutrients are released after cell death and lysis over time.

    The main agents of MWF deterioration are Gram-negative bacteria [31][35]. Pseudomonadaceae are strict aerobic organisms present consistently in emulsions with relatively moderate levels of contamination (up to 106 CFU/mL) [31],[33]. When the biocontamination increases with a bacterial concentration of at least 108 CFU/mL, facultative anaerobic organisms such as Enterobacteriaceae can become dominant with the presence of sulphur-producing bacteria at lower levels (103–105 CFU/mL). During the last stages of biodegradation, characterized by a drop in pH and an onset of phase shift of the emulsion, bacterial biodiversity increases and various Gram-negative bacteria can be isolated, such as Acinetobacter, Achromobacter and Alcaligenes. Many species of Gram-positive bacteria (Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus and Bacillus) and atypical Mycobacteria also called non-tuberculous are other common contaminants of MWF [32][37]. These fast-growing Mycobacteria are important members of MWF related biofilms. Yeasts and filamentous fungi are often present in contaminated MWF but at low concentrations (102–104 CFU/mL). Fusarium oxysporum has been identified in MWF emulsions based on mineral oils [33]. In addition to inducing biodeterioration of MWFs, contaminating microorganisms present a health risk to operators working in contact with them [38],[39].

    The main objective of the use of biocides is to limit microbial growth within MWFs, but certain contaminants, such as Pseudomonadaceae, are capable of degrading these biocides [34],[40],[41], in particular when they develop in the form of biofilm [42].

    The first approach to potentiate the activity of a biocide is to combine several biocides with synergistic activity [43],[44]. It also helps overcome the biocide resistance of some microorganisms. Combinations of biocides have been described as exhibiting a synergistic effect, i.e. the efficacy of the combined antimicrobials is greater than the sum of the individual compounds [45].

    The choice of biocides that can be used for metalworking is limited to the regulatory list of products for the protection of working or cutting fluids (TP13, products to fight against microbial alterations in fluids used for working or cutting metal, glass or other materials) (Table 2).

    While the biocides on this list provide some level of protection to MWFs, some of them have significant limitations. Thus, triazine-based biocides are not very effective against bacteria reducing sulphates (Sulphate Reducing Bacteria, SRB) and against Mycobacteria [46]. In addition, these biocides act by releasing formaldehyde which is very volatile. Biocides based on BIT (1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one) have the advantage of having a mechanism of action independent of formaldehyde. On the other hand, they are not very effective against Pseudomonadaceae and Mycobacteria and are inactivated in the event of contamination by SRBs. Oxazolidines are effective against Pseudomonadaceae, SRBs, and Mycobacteria. An increase in the action spectrum of oxazolidines is obtained by association with OIT (2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one) with antifungal properties. MBM (N, N′-methylenebismorpholine) exhibits a broad spectrum of antifungal and antibacterial activity including against Mycobacteria. However, MBM can induce eye irritation and skin sensitization.

    Table 2.  List of TP13 products authorized in the European Union to fight against microbial alterations in fluids used for working or cutting metal, glass or other materials. Abbreviations of biocides are given in brackets.
    Substance name EC number CAS number
    alpha, alpha′, alpha″-trimethyl-1,3,5-triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol (HPT) 246-764-0 25254-50-6
    1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT) 220-120-9 2634-33-5
    (benzyloxy)methanol 238-588-8 14548-60-8
    Biphenyl-2-ol 201-993-5 90-43-7
    1,3-bis(hydroxymethyl)-5,5-dimethylimidazolidine-2,4-dione (DMDMH) 229-222-8 6440-58-0
    2-butyl-benzo[d]isothiazol-3-one (BBIT) 420-590-7 876403
    cis-1-(3-chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-1-azoniaadamantane chloride (cis CTAC) 426-020-3 51229-78-8
    Chlorocresol 200-431-6 59-50-7
    2,2-dibromo-2-cyanoacetamide (DBNPA) 233-539-7 10222-01-2
    4,4-dimethyloxazolidine 257-048-2 51200-87-4
    7a-ethyldihydro-1H,3H,5H-oxazolo[3,4-c]oxazole (EDHO) 231-810-4 7747-35-5
    (ethylenedioxy)dimethanol (Reaction products of ethylene glycol with paraformaldehyde (EGForm)) 222-720-6 3586-55-8
    Glutaral (Glutaraldehyde) 203-856-5 111-30-8
    2,2′,2″-(hexahydro-1,3,5-triazine-1,3,5-triyl)triethanol (HHT) 225-208-0 1029713
    3-iodo-2-propynylbutylcarbamate (IPBC) 259-627-5 55406-53-6
    N-methyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one (MBIT) Not available 2527-66-4
    Methenamine 3-chloroallylochoride (CTAC) 223-805-0 4080-31-3
    2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MIT) 220-239-6 2682-20-4
    3,3′-methylenebis[5-methyloxazolidine] (Oxazolidin/MBO) 266-235-8 66204-44-2
    N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecylpropane-1,3-diamine (Diamine) 219-145-8 2372-82-9
    N,N′-methylenebismorpholine (MBM) 227-062-3 5625-90-1
    Mixture of 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (Mixture of CMIT/MIT) 55965-84-9
    2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (OIT) 247-761-7 26530-20-1
    2-Phenoxyethanol 204-589-7 122-99-6
    Pyridine-2-thiol-1-oxide-, sodium salt (Sodium pyrithione) 223-296-5 3811-73-2
    Silver chloride 232-033-3 7783-90-6
    Sodium 2-biphenylate 205-055-6 132-27-4
    Tetrahydro-1,3,4,6-tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)imidazole[4,5-d]imidazole-2,5′1H,3H)-dione (TMAD) 226-408-0 5395-50-6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Thus, it appears advantageous to include in the formulation of MWF, one or more constituents having an action of potentiation of the activity of the biocides present. These constituents must share several characteristics of the specifications for MWF biocides and in particular, be usable at low concentrations, be compatible with the formulation and physicochemical properties of MWF, be stable over time, not have a corrosive action on metals, do not present a danger to humans and the environment, be inexpensive.

    Different avenues for enhancers/boosters of biocide activity, and/or alternatives to biocides exist in the literature. Examples of enhancer/booster agents are presented in Table 3.

    Table 3.  Different categories of enhancers/boosters of biocide activity and alternatives to biocides.
    Category of enhancer/booster and alternative agents Examples
    Organic permeabilizing agents Ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA)
    Ethylene diamine disuccinate (EDDS)
    Polyethyleneimine (PEI)
    meso-2,3-dimercatosuccinic acid (DMSA)
    Metals Lithium
    Copper
    Organic and inorganic acids Acetic acid
    Citric acid
    Phosphoric acid
    Sorbic acid
    Multifunctional agents for self-protection Glycerol
    Levulinic acid

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The first type of molecule that can potentiate the action of biocides corresponds to organic permeabilizing agents acting on microbial membranes. Among these molecules are ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA), polyethyleneimine (PEI), and meso-2,3-dimercatosuccinic acid (DMSA). In the study published by Alakomi et al., EDTA, PEI, and DMSA were tested alone or in the presence of a biocide (benzalkonium chloride) or different antibiotics for an effect on the growth of Pseudomonas and Stenotrophomonas, two Gram-negative bacteria [47]. Each of the three compounds increases membrane permeability, the addition of MgCl2 to the reaction medium decreases or abolishes this effect depending on the permeabilizer and its concentration. The addition of DMSA induces acidification of the medium, an effect not encountered with the other two permeabilizers. PEI increases the sensitivity of Pseudomonas to different hydrophobic antibiotics, this effect is not found or partially found in other bacterial species. PEI increases the effectiveness of benzalkonium chloride against Pseudomonas in the planktonic state (in suspension), but EDTA does not. EDTA and DMSA alone have an inhibiting effect on biofilm formation of different bacterial species tested, but not PEI. EDTA also enhances the bacteriostatic activity of glutaraldehyde and tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS) against planktonic SRB [48],[49]. Ethylene diamine disuccinate (EDDS) biodegradable chelator improves glutaraldehyde efficacy against SRB biofilms both as preventive or curative treatment [50],[51].

    There is a family of synthetic polyethyleneimines (PEIs) which are weakly basic polycationic aliphatic polymers. PEI-based hydrogels have been approved by the FDA as surgical dressings which underscores their safety. Linear PEIs (LPEIs) or branched PEIs (RPEIs) target the cytoplasmic membrane of bacteria and yeast, causing rapid microbicidal properties [52]. LPEIs distinguish between membranes of mammals and those of bacterial models, while RPEIs lack selectivity and can induce toxicity in humans.

    In the study published by Lefebvre et al., The action of EDTA alone and in the presence of biocides was tested against biofilms formed by P. aeruginosa and by the Gram-positive species Staphylococcus aureus [20]. EDTA alone at a concentration of 20 mM induces a significant decrease in the cultivable bacterial concentration in biofilms of P. aeruginosa (factor 100) and S. aureus (factor 20). The addition of the same concentration of EDTA to different formulations of commercial biocides for medical use (Prontosan, Octeniline, Providone iodine) conducted to a reduction in the cultivable bacterial concentration in biofilms of the two species varying from 95 to more than 99%. In addition, during these tests, biocidal concentrations lower than the recommended usage concentrations were used in order to demonstrate the synergistic action between EDTA and the biocides.

    This type of molecules with permeabilizing activity is therefore of potential interest as an enhancer/booster of the activity of biocides in metal treatment fluids, even if it seems necessary to test several of them with respect to different species of bacteria contaminating these fluids. Their use could increase the antibacterial activity of MWF formulations and could decrease the concentration of biocides in these formulations.

    The second type of enhancer/booster of biocidal activity is also a permeabilizer but of a different nature [53]. It is lithium. In the study published by Di Maiuta et al., the enhancer/booster activity of lithium provided in various ways in solutions of biocides (formulations containing isothiazolinones associated with formaldehyde liberators or isothiazolinones associated with glutaraldehyde) was tested against strains of Pseudomonas putida and Methylobacterium extorquens resistant to formaldehyde. Lithium was supplied in a solution of calcium carbonate either via neutralization-dispersion or in the form of lithium carbonate. Regardless of its mode of supply, lithium had an activity to enhance/boost the activity of the biocidal solutions tested. What is particularly interesting in this study was that the enhancer/booster activity was observed with respect to bacterial strains which have developed resistance to certain biocides and that in the formulations used, biocides also used in the fluids for the treatment of metals were present (CMIT/MIT). Lithium would act by disrupting the Na+/H+ antiport system which would lead to a toxic accumulation of Na+ ions intracellularly and to a disturbance of the electrochemical gradient of protons at the level of the bacterial membrane. The membrane would then be depolarized and lose its integrity. While there is a literature on lithium toxicity, it appears that the risks associated with its use generally appear to be limited [54].

    Other metals such as copper exhibit in themselves an antimicrobial activity but above all are capable of potentiating the action of biocides used in MWFs by a synergistic action [55],[56]. The use of Cu2+ with biocides reduces the effective concentration of biocide and thus minimizes the toxicity of its use. However, the toxicity of copper and its implication in various human pathologies make its use in industrial environment uncertain [57].

    Adding organic acids to the formulation of MWFs could also provide benefits in terms of increased antimicrobial activity. Organic acids affect microbial activity by cytoplasmic acidification, and by accumulation of the dissociated acid anion to toxic levels intracellularly [58]. The acidic pH in the internal cell damages or alters the functionality of enzymes, structural proteins and DNA [59]. Organic acids are only active against microorganisms in their undissociated form, the only form capable of crossing the cell membrane. Once in the cell, organic acids dissociate and can act. In addition, hydrophobic organic acids such as sorbic acid increase membrane permeability and cause interference with membrane proteins [60]. Organic acids with shorter carbon chains like acetic acid and sorbic acid have better antimicrobial activity than acids with long carbon chains [61].

    Organic acids are widely used in the food industry as food preservatives and as decontamination agents for poultry carcasses or meat products. They are recognized as safe substances and approved as food preservatives by the European Union, WHO and FDA [62]. Organic acids are considered to be naturally occurring preservatives. Acetic acid exhibits antibacterial activity against different strains of Salmonella [59]. On the other hand, cells in the stationary phase are 100 times more resistant to the action of acetic acid than cells in the exponential phase of growth. In addition, the sensitivity of Salmonella to acetic acid is strain dependent. Interestingly, acetic acid has a synergistic action with various natural phenols with antimicrobial properties such as Thymol or Carvacrol [63]. However, the conditions of use of acetic acid in the food industry are very different from the conditions of use of MWF. Citric acid has antibacterial activity by chelating metals, with increased activity compared to monocarboxylic acids such as lactic acid [64]. Phosphoric acid is an inorganic acid that exhibits more effective antibacterial activity against Gram-positive cocci of the species Enterococcus faecalis than citric acid [65]. Concentrations and effective contact times are lower for phosphoric acid than for citric acid. Sorbic acid is an unsaturated fatty acid widely used for its antibacterial and antifungal properties as a preservative in foodstuffs, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Sorbate inhibits a large panel of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, both aerobic and anaerobic [66]. Interestingly, sorbate inhibits the germination of bacterial spores but in a strain dependent manner. The antimicrobial activity of sorbic acid depends on many environmental and physicochemical factors such as the activity of water, pH, temperature, the composition of the product containing it (presence of salts, antioxidants, sugars, antimicrobials). The concentrations of sorbic acid required to inhibit bacterial growth vary widely depending on the genus or species of bacteria. Thus, it is 10 mg/L for Lactobacillus but 10,000 mg/L for Clostridium. Potassium sorbate is only able to delay the growth of certain moulds (Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillium aurantiogriseum) [67], and certain resistant strains develop in the presence of high concentrations of potassium sorbate (> 12000 ppm) [68]. Thus, one of the problems associated with the use of organic acids as food preservatives is the gradual decrease in sensitivity or even the acquisition of resistance for certain microorganisms [69]. Furthermore, sorbic acid can exhibit genotoxicity in vitro on different cell lines and in vivo in some animal models [70]. However, no carcinogenic activity has been reported for long-term use of sorbic acid and its potassium salt in mice and rats. Sorbic acid is not genotoxic in itself, but products of its oxidation are toxic. In contrast, potassium sorbate is irritating to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but does not exhibit any proven toxicity at usual concentrations [71].

    An important limitation to the use of organic acids to potentiate the action of biocides in MWFs is that they can constitute substrates of choice for microbial metabolism and are therefore very easily biodegraded [72],[73]. So, some organic acids like citric acid enter the tricarboxylic acid cycle (Krebs cycle), where they are converted into CO2 and H2O. Citrate is an essential substrate for microbial respiration [73]. Benzoic acid can be converted to protocatechuate before being transformed into CO2 and H2O by the same route [72]. Lactic acid is first oxidized to pyruvate which is oxidized to acetyl-CoA and then transformed into citrate which is then degraded to CO2 and H2O.

    In the cosmetics industry, there has been a development of so-called self-protected products in recent years [74]. Thus, traditional preservatives are replaced by other cosmetic ingredients which are used mainly as functional constituents of a cosmetic product, but which significantly contribute to the total preservative function, since they have antimicrobial properties. Levulinic acid (4-oxo-pentanoic acid) is an example of this type of multifunctional ingredient. Addition to emulsions of levulinic acid at relatively low concentrations (≤ 0.3%) in addition to other antimicrobial agents provides broad spectrum antimicrobial properties against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger [74]. However, in a recent study, levulinic acid alone was found to be ineffective in protecting a cosmetic formulation [68]. Levulinic acid can be combined with the ionic surfactant SDS (sodium dodecyl sulphate) to potentiate its action against different types of microorganisms [75]. In this case, the most effective concentrations are in the range of 2 to 3%. The combination of levulinic acid and SDS promotes the detachment of bacterial cells from the biofilm and kills detached cells by the action of the undissociated form of levulinic acid. Synergistic action between SDS and lactic acid for their antibacterial activity has also been demonstrated [76],[77]. Levulinic acid and SDS are recognized by the FDA as safe for use in food.

    Quite recently, a new generation of MWF composed of glycerol and water rather than mineral oil and water has been described [78]. Glycerol has lubricating, corrosion protection and viscosity modulating properties [78]. Glycerol, like all short chain alcohols, exhibits a bacteriostatic and fungistatic effect if its concentration is high enough. Thus, these glycerol and water based MWFs do not contain conventional biocides. A glycerol concentration of at least 30 to 35% is necessary to limit microbial growth in an acceptable manner [79],[80]. Nevertheless, glycerol present at lower concentration can serve as a nutrient and improve microbial development.

    Metalworking fluids are multifunctional, their stability in use is an essential property to take into account in their formulation. To ensure the stability of MWFs against microbial contamination, the use of biocides comes up against a choice limited by the regulations, and imperfect antimicrobial properties of the authorized molecules. Several strategies for optimizing the antimicrobial properties of MWFs are possible: seeking a synergistic action between several biocides; developing self-protected MWFs; adding enhancer/booster of biocidal activity to the formulation of MWF. For this, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth study of the types of ingredients used in the formulation of MWFs, taking into account potential antimicrobial properties for the choice of some of them (acids, bases, surfactants, etc.), and consider adding new ingredients compatible with the regulations and the final formulation of MWFs. When evaluating new ingredients with antimicrobial properties or enhancer/booster of antimicrobial activity, this activity must be determined against planktonic cells but also against the same cells inside biofilms. A gain in antimicrobial activity against planktonic and biofilm microorganisms provides a double advantage in terms of stability of an MWF under conditions of use.


    Acknowledgments



    This work was supported in part by a grant from the company CONDAT.

    Conflict of interest



    The author declares no conflicts of interest in this article.

    [1] EU Regulation N° 528/2012 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R0528.
    [2] Silva V, Silva C, Soares P, et al. (2020) Isothiazolinone biocides: chemistry, biological, and toxicity profiles. Molecules 25: 991.
    [3] Catao E, Gallois N, Fay F, et al. (2021) Metal resistance genes enrichment in marine biofilm communities selected by biocide-containing surfaces in temperate and tropical coastal environments. Environ Pollut 268: 115835.
    [4] Parr JA (1990) Industrial biocide formulation—The way forward. Int Biodeter 26: 237-244.
    [5] Morton LHG, Greenway DLA, Gaylarde CC, et al. (1998) Consideration of some implications of the resistance of biofilms to biocides. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 41: 247-259.
    [6] McDonnell G, Russell AD (1999) Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 12: 147-179.
    [7] Maillard JY (2002) Bacterial target sites for biocide action. J Appl Microbiol 92: 16S-27S.
    [8] Chapman JS (2003) Biocide resistance mechanisms. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 51: 133-138.
    [9] Morente EO, Fernández-Fuentes MA, Grande Burgos MJ, et al. (2013) Biocide tolerance in bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol 162: 13-25.
    [10] Longtin J, Seah C, Siebert K, et al. (2011) Distribution of antiseptic resistance genes qacA, qacB, and smr in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated in Toronto, Canada, from 2005 to 2009. Antimicrob Agents CH 55: 2999-3001.
    [11] Tkachenko O, Shepard J, Aris VM, et al. (2007) A triclosan-ciprofloxacin cross-resistant mutant strain of Staphylococcus aureus displays an alteration in the expression of several cell membrane structural and functional genes. Res Microbiol 158: 651-658.
    [12] McMurry LM, Oethinger M, Levy SB (1998) Triclosan targets lipid synthesis. Nature 394: 531-532.
    [13] Miller SM (1999) Bacterial detoxification of Hg (II) and organomercurials. Essays Biochem 34: 17-30.
    [14]  ISO 20776–1: 2019 Susceptibility testing of infectious agents and evaluation of performance of antimicrobial susceptibility test devices—Part 1: Broth micro-dilution reference method for testing the in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents against rapidly growing aerobic bacteria involved in infectious diseases .
    [15] NF EN 1040 (2006) .T72–152 Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics-Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of basic bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics - Test method and requirements (phase 1).
    [16] NF EN 1276 (2019) .T72–173 Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics-Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants and antiseptics used in food, industrial, domestic and institutional areas - Test method and requirements (phase 2, step 1).
    [17] Parvekar P, Palaskar J, Metgud S, et al. (2020) The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of silver nanoparticles against Staphylococcus aureusBiomater Investig Dent 7: 105-109.
    [18] NF T72-190 (1988) .T72–190 Water-miscible contact disinfectants used in liquid state. Germ carrier method. Determination of the bactericidal, fungicidal and sporicidal activity.
    [19] Parker AE, Walker DK, Goeres DM, et al. (2014) Ruggedness and reproducibility of the MBEC biofilm disinfectant efficacy test. J Microbiol Methods 102: 55-64.
    [20] Lefebvre E, Vighetto C, Di Martino P, et al. (2016) Synergistic antibiofilm efficacy of various commercial antiseptics, enzymes and EDTA: a study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents 48: 181-188.
    [21] Gilbert P, Das JR, Jones MV, et al. (2001) Assessment of resistance towards biocides following the attachment of micro-organisms to, and growth on, surfaces. J Appl Microbiol 91: 248-254.
    [22] European Chemicals Agency (2018) .Guidance on the BPR: Volume II Efficacy-Assessment and Evaluation (Parts B + C).
    [23] Helmi K, David F, Di Martino P, et al. (2018) Assessment of flow cytometry for microbial water quality monitoring in cooling tower water and oxidizing biocide treatment efficiency. J Microbiol Methods 152: 201-209.
    [24] Nicol M, Ben Mlouka MA, Berthe T, et al. (2019) Anti-persister activity of squalamine against Acinetobacter baumanniiInt J Antimicrob Agents 53: 337-342.
    [25] Ayrapetyan M, Williams TC, Baxter R, et al. (2015) Viable but nonculturable and persister cells coexist stochastically and are induced by human serum. Infect Immun 83: 4194-4203.
    [26] Brinksmeier E, Meyer D, Huesmann-Cordes AG, et al. (2015) Metalworking fluids—Mechanisms and performance. CIRP Annals 64: 605-628.
    [27] Cook PE, Gaylarde CC (1988) Biofilm formation in aqueous metal working fluids. Int Biodeter 24: 265-270.
    [28] Ortiz C, Guiamet PS, Videla HA (1990) Relationship between biofilms and corrosion of steel by microbial contaminants of cutting-oil emulsions. Int Biodeter 26: 315-326.
    [29] Morton LHG, Greenway DLA, Gaylarde CC, et al. (1998) Consideration of some implications of the resistance of biofilms to biocides. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 41: 247-259.
    [30] Falkinham JO (2009) Effects of biocides and other metal removal fluid constituents on Mycobacterium immunogenumAppl Environ Microbiol 75: 2057-2061.
    [31] Shennan JL (1983) Selection and evaluation of biocides for aqueous metal-working fluids. Tribol Int 16: 317-330.
    [32] Gilbert Y, Veillette M, Duchaine C (2010) Metalworking fluids biodiversity characterization. J Appl Microbiol 108: 437-449.
    [33] Rabenstein A, Koch T, Remesch M, et al. (2009) Microbial degradation of water miscible metal working fluids. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 63: 1023-1029.
    [34] Sandin M, Mattsby-Baltzer I, Edebo L (1991) Control of microbial growth in water-based metal-working fluids. Int Biodeter 27: 61-74.
    [35] van der Gast CJ, Knowles CJ, Wright MA, et al. (2001) Identification and characterisation of bacterial populations of an in-use metal-working fluid by phenotypic and genotypic methodology. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 47: 113-123.
    [36] Moore JS, Christensen M, Wilson MRW, et al. (2000) Mycobacterial contamination of metal working fluids: involvement of a possible new taxon of rapidly growing mycobacteria. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61: 205-213.
    [37] Kapoor R, Yadav JS (2012) Expanding the mycobacterial diversity of metalworking fluids (MWFs): evidence showing MWF colonization by Mycobacterium abscessusFEMS Microbiol Ecol 79: 392-399.
    [38] Wilson RW, Steingrube VA, Bottger EC, et al. (2001) Mycobacterium immunogenum sp. nov., a novel species related to Mycobacterium abscessus and associated with clinical disease, pseudo-outbreaks and contaminated metalworking fluids: an international cooperative study on mycobacterial taxonomy. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51: 1751-1764.
    [39] Burton CM, Crook B, Scaife H, et al. (2012) Systematic review of respiratory outbreaks associated with exposure to water-based metalworking fluids. Ann Occup Hyg 56: 374-388.
    [40] Trafny EA (2013) Microorganisms in metalworking fluids: current issues in research and management. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 26: 4-15.
    [41] Moscoso F, Deive FJ, Villar P, et al. (2012) Assessment of a process to degrade metal working fluids using Pseudomonas stutzeri CECT 930 and indigenous microbial consortia. Chemosphere 86: 420-426.
    [42] Molin G, Nilsson I (1985) Degradation of phenol by Pseudomonas putida ATCC11172 in continuous culture at different ratios of biofilm surface to culture volume. Appl Environ Microbiol 50: 946-950.
    [43] Lundov MD, Johansen JD, Zachariae C, et al. (2011) Low-level efficacy of cosmetic preservatives. Int J Cosmet Sci 33: 190-196.
    [44] Sondossi M, Riha VF, Rossmoore HW, et al. (1993) Factors involved in bactericidal activities of formaldehyde and formaldehyde and formaldehyde condensate/isothiazolone mixtures. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 32: 243-261.
    [45] Lambert RJ, Johnston MD, Hanlon GW, et al. (2003) Theory of antimicrobial combinations: biocide mixtures—synergy or addition? J Appl Microbiol 94: 747-759.
    [46] Bhattacharya A (2017) Biocides for metal working fluids: India outlook. Lube Magazine 138: 37-40.
    [47] Alakomi HL, Paananen A, Suihko ML, et al. (2006) Weakening effect of cell permeabilizers on Gram-negative bacteria causing biodeterioration. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 4695-4703.
    [48] Zhao K, Wen J, Gu T, et al. (2005) Effects of biocides and a biocide enhancer on SRB growth. Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings New York: AIChE.
    [49] Wen J, Gu T (2007) Evaluations of a green biocide and a green biocide enhancer for the mitigation of biocorrosion using an electrochemical bioreactor. Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings New York: AIChE.
    [50] Wen J, Zhao K, Gu T, et al. (2009) A green biocide enhancer for the treatment of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) biofilms on carbon steel surfaces using glutaraldehyde. Int Biodeter Biodegrad 63: 1102-1106.
    [51] Wen J, Xu D, Gu T, et al. (2012) A green triple biocide cocktail consisting of a biocide, EDDS and methanol for the mitigation of planktonic and sessile sulfate-reducing bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28: 431-435.
    [52] Fox SJ, Fazil MH, Dhand C, et al. (2016) Insight into membrane selectivity of linear and branched polyethylenimines and their potential as biocides for advanced wound dressings. Acta Biomater 37: 155-164.
    [53] Di Maiuta N, Schwarzentruber P, Dow CS (2011) Enhancement of the antimicrobial performance of biocidal formulations used for the preservation of white mineral dispersions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 89: 429-439.
    [54] McKnight RF, Adida M, Budge K, et al. (2012) Lithium toxicity profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 379: 72-728.
    [55] Sondossi M, Riha VF, Rossmoore HW (1990) The potentiation of industrial biocide activity with Cu2+. I: synergistic effect of Cu2+ with formaldehyde. Int Biodeterior 26: 51-61.
    [56] Riha VF, Sondossi M, Rossmoore HW (1990) The potentiation of industrial biocide activity with Cu2+. II. Synergistic effects with 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one. Int Biodeter 26: 303-313.
    [57] Hordyjewska A, Popiołek Ł, Kocot J (2014) The many ‘faces’ of copper in medicine and treatment. Biometals 27: 611-621.
    [58] Taylor TM, Joerger R, Palou E, et al. (2012) Alternatives to traditional antimicrobials for organically processed meat and poultry. Organic meat production and processing Iowa State University Press, 211-237.
    [59] Mani-López E, García HS, López-Malo A (2012) Organic acids as antimicrobials to control Salmonella in meat and poultry products. Food Res Int 45: 713-721.
    [60] Stratford M, Plumridge A, Nebe-von-Caron G, et al. (2009) Inhibition of spoilage mould conidia by acetic acid and sorbic acid involves different modes of action, requiring modification of the classical weak-acid theory. Int J Food Microbiol 136: 37-43.
    [61] Cabezas-Pizarro J, Redondo-Solano M, Umaña-Gamboa C, et al. (2017) Antimicrobial activity of different sodium and potassium salts of carboxylic acid against some common foodborne pathogens and spoilage-associated bacteria. Rev Argent Microbiol 50: 56-61.
    [62] Surekha M, Reddy SM (2000) Preservatives, classification and properties. Encyclopedia of food microbiology New York: Academic Press, 1710-1717.
    [63] Zhou F, Ji B, Zhang H, et al. (2007) Synergistic effect of thymol and carvacrol combined with chelators and organic acids against Salmonella TyphimuriumJ Food Prot 70: 1704-1709.
    [64] Miller AJ, Call JE, Whiting RC (1993) Comparison of organic acid salts for Clostridium botulinum control in an uncured turkey product. J Food Prot 56: 958-962.
    [65] Arias-Moliz MT, Ferrer-Luque CM, Espigares-Rodríguez E, et al. (2008) Bactericidal activity of phosphoric acid, citric acid, and EDTA solutions against Enterococcus faecalisOral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106: e84-e89.
    [66] Sofos N, Pierson MD, Blocher JC, et al. (1986) Mode of action of sorbic acid on bacterial cells and spores. Int J Food Microbiol 3: 1-17.
    [67] Garza S, Canela R, Vinas I, et al. (1993) Effects of potassium sorbate on growth and penicillic acid production by Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillium aurantiogriseumZentralbl Mikrobiol 148: 343-350.
    [68] Finol ML, Marth EH, Lindsay RC (1982) Depletion of sorbate from different media during growth of Penicillium species. J Food Prot 45: 398-404.
    [69] Bae YM, Lee SY (2017) Effect of salt addition on acid resistance response of Escherichia coli O157: H7 against acetic acid. Food Microbiol 65: 74-82.
    [70] Würgler FE, Schlatter J, Maier P (1992) The genotoxicity status of sorbic acid, potassium sorbate and sodium sorbate. Mutat Res 283: 107-111.
    [71] Mohammadzadeh-Aghdash H, Sohrabi Y, Mohammadi A, et al. (2018) Safety assessment of sodium acetate, sodium diacetate and potassium sorbate food additives. Food Chem 257: 211-215.
    [72] Zhang J, Zhang C, Zhu Y, et al. (2018) Biodegradation of seven phthalate esters by Bacillus mojavensis B1811. Int Biodet Biodegrad 132: 200-207.
    [73] Hayakawa C, Fujii K, Funakawa S, et al. (2018) Effects of sorption on biodegradation of low-molecular-weight organic acids in highly-weathered tropical soils. Geoderma 324: 109-118.
    [74] Papageorgiou S, Varvaresou A, Tsirivas E, et al. (2010) New alternatives to cosmetics preservation. J Cosmet Sci 61: 107-123.
    [75] Kočevar Glavač N, Lunder M (2018) Preservative efficacy of selected antimicrobials of natural origin in a cosmetic emulsion. Int J Cosmet Sci 40: 276-284.
    [76] Chen D, Zhao T, Doyle MP (2015) Single- and mixed-species biofilm formation by Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, and their sensitivity to levulinic acid plus sodium dodecyl sulfate. Food Control 57: 48-53.
    [77] Elramady MG, Aly SS, Rossitto PV, et al. (2013) Synergistic effects of lactic acid and sodium dodecyl sulfate to decontaminate Escherichia coli O157:H7 on cattle hide sections. Foodborne Pathog Dis 10: 661-663.
    [78] Winter M, Bock R, Herrmann C, et al. (2012) Technological evaluation of a novel glycerol-based biocide-free metalworking fluid. J Clean Prod 35: 176-182.
    [79] Wichmann H, Stache H, Schmidt C, et al. (2013) Ecological and economic evaluation of a novel glycerol-based biocide-free metalworking fluid. J Clean Prod 43: 12-19.
    [80] Gelinski S, Winter M, Wichmann H, et al. (2016) Development and testing of a novel glycerol/chitosan-based biocide-free hydraulic fluid. J Clean Prod 112: 3589-3596.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Nataliya Loiko, Oleg Kanunnikov, Ksenia Tereshkina, Timofei Pankratov, Svetlana Belova, Ekaterina Botchkova, Anastasia Vishnyakova, Yuriy Litti, Biocides with Controlled Degradation for Environmentally Friendly and Cost-Effective Fecal Sludge Management, 2022, 12, 2079-7737, 45, 10.3390/biology12010045
    2. Sara Dzik, Tomasz Mituniewicz, Ariphzan Beisenov, Efficacy of a Biocidal Paint in Controlling Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Improving the Quality of Air and Litter in Poultry Houses, 2022, 12, 2076-2615, 1264, 10.3390/ani12101264
    3. Rahul Katna, Mohd Suhaib, Narayan Agrawal, Performance of non-edible oils as cutting fluids for green manufacturing, 2022, 1042-6914, 1, 10.1080/10426914.2022.2136388
    4. Sergey N. Elansky, Elena M. Chudinova, Alexander S. Elansky, Masamba O. Kah, Delgir A. Sandzhieva, Bayana A. Mukabenova, Alexey G. Dedov, Microorganisms in spent water-miscible metalworking fluids as a resource of strains for their disposal, 2022, 350, 09596526, 131438, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131438
    5. Tuba Unsal, Di Wang, Pruch Kijkla, Sith Kumseranee, Suchada Punpruk, Magdy E. Mohamed, Mazen A. Saleh, Tingyue Gu, Food-grade D-limonene enhanced a green biocide in the mitigation of carbon steel biocorrosion by a mixed-culture biofilm consortium, 2022, 45, 1615-7591, 669, 10.1007/s00449-021-02685-6
    6. L Voskuhl, D Brusilova, V S Brauer, R U Meckenstock, Inhibition of sulfate-reducing bacteria with formate, 2022, 98, 1574-6941, 10.1093/femsec/fiac003
    7. Patrick Di Martino, Antimicrobial agents and microbial ecology, 2022, 8, 2471-1888, 1, 10.3934/microbiol.2022001
    8. Wenbin Zhang, Mengyao Sun, Daowen Wu, Weiming Zhang, Bingcai Pan, Efficient Metal Cutting Fluid Wastewater Separation of Polyacrylonitrile Ultrafiltration Membranes Enabled by Metal Ion Cross-Linking, 2022, 2, 2690-0637, 1143, 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00146
    9. Lizhi Tang, Yanbin Zhang, Changhe Li, Zongming Zhou, Xiaolin Nie, Yun Chen, Huajun Cao, Bo Liu, Naiqing Zhang, Zafar Said, Sujan Debnath, Muhammad Jamil, Hafiz Muhammad Ali, Shubham Sharma, Biological Stability of Water-Based Cutting Fluids: Progress and Application, 2022, 35, 1000-9345, 10.1186/s10033-021-00667-z
    10. Célia Ruiz, Giulia von Känel, Stefan Burkard, Peter Küenzi, Fusarium spp. in Metalworking Fluid Systems: Companions Forever, 2024, 13, 2076-0817, 990, 10.3390/pathogens13110990
    11. Toka Hassan, Eman M. Kandeel, M. S. Taher, Entsar E. Badr, A. S. El-Tabei, Sustainable utilization of the vegetable oil manufacturing waste product in the formulation of eco-friendly emulsifiable cutting fluids, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-46768-8
    12. Ahmed Al-Amiery, Wan Nor Roslam Wan Isahak, Waleed Khalid Al-Azzawi, Sustainable corrosion Inhibitors: A key step towards environmentally responsible corrosion control, 2024, 15, 20904479, 102672, 10.1016/j.asej.2024.102672
    13. Lingjun Xu, Pruch Kijkla, Sith Kumseranee, Suchada Punpruk, Tingyue Gu, Electrochemical Assessment of Mitigation of Desulfovibrio ferrophilus IS5 Corrosion against N80 Carbon Steel and 26Cr3Mo Steel Using a Green Biocide Enhanced by a Nature-Mimicking Biofilm-Dispersing Peptide, 2023, 12, 2079-6382, 1194, 10.3390/antibiotics12071194
    14. Sindhuprava Rana, Vibhor Joshi, Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, Maneesh Kumar, Krishna Pandey, 2024, Chapter 2, 978-981-97-5271-3, 25, 10.1007/978-981-97-5272-0_2
    15. Sudha P. Pandalai, David A. Dankovic, A Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment for Inhalation Exposure to Glutaraldehyde, 2025, 0260-437X, 10.1002/jat.4761
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6133) PDF downloads(473) Cited by(14)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog