CO2 incubators provide an optimal environment for cell growth that can also promote the growth of contaminants. Because contamination manifests in different ways, modern CO2 incubators feature a range of specialized solutions for its prevention. This article highlights some of the contamination prevention strategies and technologies to consider when searching for a CO2 incubator.

Main sources of contamination

Contamination can come from direct sources such as contaminated reagents, media, or seed cultures, and from indirect sources like work surfaces, equipment, and personnel. Types of contaminants include bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and mycoplasma, as well as cross-contamination with other eukaryotic cells, all of which vary in terms of how they manifest and how easily they are detected.

Entry and spread of contaminants within a CO2 incubator

Contaminants can come from the incubator if poor aseptic technique leads to unnoticed splashes from cell culture vessels. Once a contaminant has entered the CO2 incubator, the warm, humid environment promotes its spread.

Contamination control strategies in CO2 incubators

Modern CO2 incubators are equipped with various design solutions and functional measures to prevent contamination. These include the following:

  • HEPA filtration

HEPA filters serve to remove particulate matter from the air. However, while they offer protection against contaminants that are larger than 0.2 µm, they are ineffective against mycoplasma due to the small size of these microorganisms. A further limitation of HEPA filters is that they require fan-assisted air circulation in the incubator chamber. This necessitates a more complex interior chamber design, with a duct, seams, and corners in which contaminants can grow, and makes cleaning and disinfection more difficult. Additionally, HEPA filters only trap contaminants. They don’t kill them and can become an important source of contamination if they are not replaced regularly.

  • UV lamps

Direct exposure to UV light kills air- and water-borne contaminants within the incubator chamber. The UV lamp is usually focused on the directional airflow, which is established using a fan, and on the water in the humidity pan. Drawbacks of UV disinfection are related to fan-assisted air circulation, as previously described, and the fact that the UV light cannot reach every part of the chamber. Also, the impact of UV treatment is reduced when the relative humidity is above 70%, and UV lamps must be replaced periodically to function effectively.

  • Hydrogen  peroxide (H2O2) nebulization

H2O2 nebulization is a form of automated self-disinfection that involves introducing a dilute solution of H2O2 into the incubator chamber, where it creates a vapor. An advantage of H2O2 nebulization is that it is relatively quick (~3 hours, excluding preparation time). However, it requires handling of a toxic reagent and has a high associated risk of recontamination due to manual repositioning of the chamber components and the need to wipe down water vapor once the disinfection process is complete.

  • High-temperature disinfection

High-temperature disinfection is another type of automated self-disinfection. It can use moist-heat, which necessitates a long and tedious procedure and leaves condensed water in the chamber at the end of the cycle, increasing the risk of recontamination. Alternatively, 140–180oC dry-heat disinfection can be run overnight, requires only minimal preparation time, and has the lowest chance of recontamination as the chamber can be used directly afterward.

Pros and cons of various contamination control solutions

MethodProsCons
HEPA filtration

Active filtering of particles from the air reduces airborne spread of contaminants that are bigger than 0.2 µm

Chamber design is complex with duct, seams, possible welding joints, and concealed corners:

  • Splashes may go undetected
  • Contaminants may spread undetected
  • Time-consuming preparation for cleaning
  • Regular investment in new filters

Fan-assisted air circulation:

  • In-chamber fan may create turbulences
  • May increase chance of germ entry
UV lamps

Direct exposure kills air- and water-borne contaminants

Penetration limited to direct exposure

Influence of humidity on effectiveness

UV lamps must be replaced periodically

H2O2 nebulization

Quick (~3 hours, excluding preparation time)

 

Handling of toxic reagent

Regular cost of reagent

Tedious preparation before and after the procedure

High chance of recontamination due to manual repositioning of interior

High-temperature disinfection (moist-heat)

 

Tedious preparation time

High chance of recontamination due to condensed water

Slow (overnight)

High-temperature disinfection (dry-heat)

Short preparation time

Lowest chance of recontamination as chamber can be used right away after cycle

Long time to complete the disinfection cycle

Other general tips to prevent contamination in CO2 incubators

Besides using proper aseptic technique, implementing a regular cleaning and disinfection schedule will help to prevent contamination. Other best practice recommendations include placing the CO2 incubator on a base with castors to stop dust and dirt entering from the floor, minimizing the frequency and duration of door openings, and using CO2 and N2 gases of “high-grade” quality.

Reasons to consider the Eppendorf CellXpert® CO2 Incubator

The Eppendorf CellXpert CO2 Incubator is designed to minimize the risk of contamination. It has a seamless chamber with round corners, meaning there are no hidden places to harbor contamination, and is fitted with racking and shelves that are easily removed for cleaning. Other key features include high-temperature (dry-heat) disinfection and fanless air circulation, as well as modern temperature control and CO2 sensing technologies to ensure optimal growth of precious cultures.

To learn more about the Eppendorf CellXpert CO2 Incubator, visit eppendorf.com/CellXpert

About the Author

Emma Mason is the founder and director of Cambridge Technical Content Ltd, based in the U.K. Since graduating with a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Kent at Canterbury in 2000, she has gained extensive experience developing and running immunoassays within companies including Millennium Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca and Cellzome. She now produces a wide range of scientific content, including regular features for Biocompare.