On 20 Jul 1999 12:33:16 -0700, "K.E.Cooksey"
<umbkc at gemini.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>I don't want to sound as though I am older than I am, but why do we need
>another definition of a biofilm? Let's not re-invent the wheel!
>We developed ... a shorter version that defines a biofilm as "the
>accumulation of microbial cells , their products and inorganic particles at
>a wetted surface ".[ to take into the account that natural biofilms
>accumulate lots of silt].
I'm mainly interested (see the "Biofilm treatment with polymers"
thread) in the definition of a biofilm as a means to an end, namely
the definition of _membership_ of a biofilm. Does your definition help
with this one? Don't think so:
- Are grazing protozoa members of a biofilm? Not by your definition -
but a case could be made.
- What about Tim Charlton's example of a motile bacterium which can
move from one colony to another? Does it belong? Do any other
microorganisms which are "facultative planktonic", to coin a phrase?
Not by your definition (at least, not as far as I can see) - but
membership seems very plausible in this case.
- What about adventitious microbes? Your definition would say yes -
but it seems a bit unjust to exclude the ones that got there my
design, and include the ones that got there by accident.
It's a nice concise definition and it probably captures most of what
most people understand by the term biofilm, but it seems to me that
the last word has certainly not been said thereby. What do others
think?
Andy Spragg
Speculate to accumulate; catabolize to anabolize; reculer pour mieux sauter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to the group as well as to the originator, make sure that
the address biofilms at net.bio.net is included in the "To:" field.
See the BIOFILMS homepage at http://www.im.dtu.dk/biofilms for info
on how to (un)subscribe and post to the Biofilms newsgroup.
