» Articles » PMID: 30391488

Effect of Disinfectant Formulation and Organic Soil on the Efficacy of Oxidizing Disinfectants Against Biofilms

Overview
Journal J Hosp Infect
Date 2018 Nov 5
PMID 30391488
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Biofilms that develop on dry surfaces in the healthcare environment have increased tolerance to disinfectants. This study compared the activity of formulated oxidizing disinfectants with products containing active ingredients against Staphylococcus aureus dry-surface biofilm (DSB) alone.

Methods: DSB was grown in the CDC bioreactor with alternating cycles of hydration and dehydration. Disinfectant efficacy was tested before and after treatment with neutral detergent for 30 s, and in the presence or absence of standardized soil. Biofilms were treated for 5 min with peracetic acid (Surfex and Proxitane), hydrogen peroxide (Oxivir and 6% HO solution) and chlorine (Chlorclean and sodium dichloroisocyanurate tablets). Residual biofilm viability and mass were determined by plate culture and protein assay, respectively.

Findings: Biofilm viability was reduced by 2.8 log for the chlorine-based products and by 2 log for Proxitane, but these products failed to kill any biofilm in the presence of soil. In contrast, Surfex completely inactivated biofilm (6.3 log reduction in titre) in the presence of soil. HO products had little effect against DSB. Biofilm mass removed in the presence and absence of soil was <30% by chlorine and approximately 65% by Surfex. Detergent treatment prior to disinfection had no effect.

Conclusion: The additives in fully formulated disinfectants can act synergistically with active ingredients, and thus increase biofilm killing whilst decreasing the adverse effect of soil. It is suggested that purchasing officers should seek efficacy testing results, and consider whether efficacy testing has been conducted in the presence of biological soil and/or biofilm.

Citing Articles

Recent advances in examining the factors influencing the efficacy of biocides against Listeria monocytogenes biofilms in the food industry: A systematic review.

Arthur M, Afari E, Alexa E, Zhu M, Gaffney M, Celayeta J Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2024; 24(1):e70083.

PMID: 39736097 PMC: 11684510. DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.70083.


Antibiofilm Agents for the Treatment and Prevention of Bacterial Vaginosis: A Systematic Narrative Review.

Gao M, Manos J, Whiteley G, Zablotska-Manos I J Infect Dis. 2024; 230(3):e508-e517.

PMID: 38680027 PMC: 11420799. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiae134.


Efficiency and novelty of using environmental swabs for dry-surface biofilm recovery.

Watson F, Wilks S, Chewins J, Keevil B Access Microbiol. 2024; 6(2).

PMID: 38482344 PMC: 10928391. DOI: 10.1099/acmi.0.000664.v4.


How biofilm changes our understanding of cleaning and disinfection.

Maillard J, Centeleghe I Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023; 12(1):95.

PMID: 37679831 PMC: 10483709. DOI: 10.1186/s13756-023-01290-4.


Cell Wall Phenotypic Changes Associated with Biofilm Maturation and Water Availability: A Key Contributing Factor for Chlorine Resistance.

Parvin F, Rahman M, Deva A, Vickery K, Hu H Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(5).

PMID: 36902413 PMC: 10003762. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054983.