Editorial

The year so far has been a slow start for many businesses, but at least we have not seen the collapse of as many businesses that we were seeing around two years ago. We are, however, still well and truly in the midst of a global recession. Interest rates are still at an all time low, UK house prices seem to be showing little signs of increase (except in London where everyone still seems to want to live!) and for the ardent shopper there are bargains to be had everywhere. It seems strange that prices on the high street do not seem to have increased in over ten years. Mobile phones, DVD players even furniture seems to be cheaper than they used to be. Whist much of this is down to cheaper manufacturing and the rest could probably be explained by competition within the market place. Does this mean that quality suffered too? Now that we live in a world when if a television is not working it is thrown away and replaced. There was a time when you would take it to some odd looking man that your father would know who could fix it for you. (I remember our local television fix-it man, with his thick rimmed bifocal spectacles and a poor comb-over; he had cardboard boxes full of resistors and electrical wires on the floor of his front room that smelt of soldering irons!) Is this consumerism at an extreme or has this move to disposability made us a better society? Before you think these are just ramblings there is a point to this. According to latest global figures of contact lens sales the vast majority of contact lenses fitted around the world are daily, fortnightly or monthly disposable hydrogel lenses. Certainly in the UK over 90% of lenses are disposable (with daily disposables being the most popular, having a market share of over 50%). This begs the question – is this a good thing? Maybe more importantly, do our patients benefit? I think it is worth reminding ourselves why we went down the disposability route with contact lenses in the first place, and unlike electrical goods it was not just so we did not have to take them for repair! There are the obvious advantages of overcoming problems of breakage and tearing of lenses and the lens deterioration with age. The lenses are less likely to be contaminated and the disinfection is either easier or not required at all (in the case of daily disposable lenses). Probably the landmark paper in the field was the work more commonly known as the ‘Gothenburg Study’. The paper, entitled ‘Strategies for minimizing the Ocular Effects of Extended Contact Lens Wear’ published in the American Journal of Optometry in 1987 (volume 64, pages 781-789) by Holden, B.A., Swarbrick, H.A., Sweeney, D.F., Ho, A., Efron, N., Vannas, A., Nilsson, K.T. They suggested that contact lens induced ocular effects were minimised by: •More frequently removed contact lenses •More regularly replaced contact lenses •A lens that was more mobile on the eye (to allow better removal of debris) •Better flow of oxygen through the lens All of these issues seem to be solved with disposability, except the oxygen issue which has been solved with the advent of silicone hydrogel materials. Newer issues have arisen and most can be solved in practice by the eye care practitioner. The emphasis now seems to be on making lenses more comfortable. The problems of contact lens related dry eyes symptoms seem to be ever present and maybe this would explain why in the UK we have a pretty constant contact lens wearing population of just over three million but every year we have over a million dropouts! That means we must be attracting a million new wearers every year (well done to the marketing departments!) but we are also losing a million wearers every year. We certainly are not losing them all to the refractive surgery clinics. We know that almost anyone can now wear a contact lens and we know that some lenses will solve problems of sharper vision, some will aid comfort, and some will be useful for patients with dry eyes. So if we still have so many dropouts then we must be doing something wrong! I think the take home message has to be ‘must try harder’! I must end with an apology for two errors in my editorial of issue 1 earlier this year. Firstly there was a typo in the first sentence; I meant to state that it was 40 years not 30 years since the first commercial soft lens was available in the UK. The second error was one that I was unaware of until colleagues Geoff Wilson (Birmingham, UK) and Tim Bowden (London, UK) wrote to me to explain that soft lenses were actually available in the UK before 1971 (please see their ‘Letters to the Editor’ in this issue). I am grateful to both of them for correcting the mistake.

Exploring the biological basis for Salmonella persistence in food manufacturing environments

The persistence of Salmonella spp. in low moisture foods is a challenge for the food industry as despite control strategies already in place, notable outbreaks still occur. The aim of this study was to characterise isolates of Salmonella, known to be persistent in the food manufacturing environment, by comparing their microbiological characteristics with a panel of matched clinical and veterinary isolates. The gross morphology of the challenge panel was phenotypically characterised in terms of cellular size, shape and motility. In all the parameters measured, the factory isolates were indistinguishable from the human, clinical and veterinary strains. Further detailed metabolic profiling was undertaken using the biolog Microbial ID system. Multivariate analysis of the metabolic microarray revealed differences in metabolism of the factory isolate of S.Montevideo, based on its upregulated ability to utilise glucose and the sugar alcohol groups. The remainder of the serotype-matched isolates were metabolically indistinguishable. Temperature and humidity are known to influence bacterial survival and through environmental monitoring experimental parameters were defined. The results revealed Salmonella survival on stainless steel was affected by environmental temperatures that may be experienced in a food processing environment; with higher survival rates (D25=35.4) at temperatures at 25°C and lower humidity levels of 15% RH, however a rapid decline in cell count (D10=3.4) with lower temperatures of 10°C and higher humidity of 70% RH. Several resident factories strains survived in higher numbers on stainless steel (D25=29.69) compared to serotype matched clinical and veterinary isolates (D25=22.98). Factory isolates of Salmonella did not show an enhanced growth rate in comparison to serotype matched solates grown in Luria broth, Nutrient broth and M9 minimal media indicating that as an independent factor, growth was unlikely to be a major factor driving Salmonella persistence. Using a live / dead stain coupled with fluorescence microscopy revealed that when no longer culturable, isolates of S.Schwarzengrund entered into a viable nonculturable state. The biofilm forming capacity of the panel was characterised and revealed that all were able to form biofilms. None of the factory isolates showed an enhanced capability to form biofilms in comparison to serotype-matched isolates. In disinfection studies, planktonic cells were more susceptible to disinfectants than cells in biofilm and all the disinfectants tested were successful in reducing bacterial load. Contact time was one of the most important factors for reducing bacterial populations in a biofilm. The genomes of eight strains were sequenced. At the nucleotide and amino acid level the food factory isolates were similar to those of isolates from other environments; no major genomic rearrangements were observed, supporting the conclusions of the phenotypic and metabolic analysis. In conclusion, having investigated a variety of morphological, biochemical and genomic factors, it is unlikely that the persistence of Salmonella in the food manufacturing environment is attributable to a single phenotypic, metabolic or genomic factor. Whilst a combination of microbiological factors may be involved it is also possible that strain persistence in the factory environment is a consequence of failure to apply established hygiene management principles.