The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.

Contaminated hospital surfaces are an important source of nosocomial infections. A major obstacle in marketing antimicrobial surfaces is a lack of efficacy data based on standardized testing protocols.We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several "antimicrobial" fi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matias D Campos, Paola C Zucchi, Ann Phung, Steven N Leonard, Elizabeth B Hirsch
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4975443?pdf=render
_version_ 1819053232957161472
author Matias D Campos
Paola C Zucchi
Ann Phung
Steven N Leonard
Elizabeth B Hirsch
author_facet Matias D Campos
Paola C Zucchi
Ann Phung
Steven N Leonard
Elizabeth B Hirsch
author_sort Matias D Campos
collection DOAJ
description Contaminated hospital surfaces are an important source of nosocomial infections. A major obstacle in marketing antimicrobial surfaces is a lack of efficacy data based on standardized testing protocols.We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several "antimicrobial" film surfaces.Four clinical isolates were used: one Escherichia coli, one Klebsiella pneumoniae, and two Staphylococcus aureus strains. Two industry methods (modified ISO 22196 and ASTM E2149), a "dried droplet", and a "transfer" method were tested against two commercially available antimicrobial films, one film in development, an untreated control, and a positive (silver) control film. At 2 (only ISO) and 24 hours following inoculation, bacteria were collected from film surfaces and enumerated.Compared to untreated films in all protocols, there were no significant differences in recovery on either commercial brand at 2 or 24 hours after inoculation. The silver surface demonstrated significant microbicidal activity (mean loss 4.9 Log10 CFU/ml) in all methods and time points with the exception of 2 hours in the ISO protocol and the transfer method. Using our novel droplet method, no differences between placebo and active surfaces were detected. The surface in development demonstrated variable activity depending on method, organism, and time point. The ISO demonstrated minimal activity at 2 hours but significant activity at 24 hours (mean 4.5 Log10 CFU/ml difference versus placebo). The ASTEM protocol exhibited significant differences in recovery of staphylococci (mean 5 Log10 CFU/ml) but not Gram-negative isolates (10 fold decrease). Minimal activity was observed with this film in the transfer method.Varying results between protocols suggested that efficacy of antimicrobial surfaces cannot be easily and reproducibly compared. Clinical use should be considered and further development of representative methods is needed.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T12:32:28Z
format Article
id doaj.art-7742e3e217f1432eb41081ab36ec9f9a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-21T12:32:28Z
publishDate 2016-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-7742e3e217f1432eb41081ab36ec9f9a2022-12-21T19:04:00ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01118e016072810.1371/journal.pone.0160728The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.Matias D CamposPaola C ZucchiAnn PhungSteven N LeonardElizabeth B HirschContaminated hospital surfaces are an important source of nosocomial infections. A major obstacle in marketing antimicrobial surfaces is a lack of efficacy data based on standardized testing protocols.We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several "antimicrobial" film surfaces.Four clinical isolates were used: one Escherichia coli, one Klebsiella pneumoniae, and two Staphylococcus aureus strains. Two industry methods (modified ISO 22196 and ASTM E2149), a "dried droplet", and a "transfer" method were tested against two commercially available antimicrobial films, one film in development, an untreated control, and a positive (silver) control film. At 2 (only ISO) and 24 hours following inoculation, bacteria were collected from film surfaces and enumerated.Compared to untreated films in all protocols, there were no significant differences in recovery on either commercial brand at 2 or 24 hours after inoculation. The silver surface demonstrated significant microbicidal activity (mean loss 4.9 Log10 CFU/ml) in all methods and time points with the exception of 2 hours in the ISO protocol and the transfer method. Using our novel droplet method, no differences between placebo and active surfaces were detected. The surface in development demonstrated variable activity depending on method, organism, and time point. The ISO demonstrated minimal activity at 2 hours but significant activity at 24 hours (mean 4.5 Log10 CFU/ml difference versus placebo). The ASTEM protocol exhibited significant differences in recovery of staphylococci (mean 5 Log10 CFU/ml) but not Gram-negative isolates (10 fold decrease). Minimal activity was observed with this film in the transfer method.Varying results between protocols suggested that efficacy of antimicrobial surfaces cannot be easily and reproducibly compared. Clinical use should be considered and further development of representative methods is needed.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4975443?pdf=render
spellingShingle Matias D Campos
Paola C Zucchi
Ann Phung
Steven N Leonard
Elizabeth B Hirsch
The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
PLoS ONE
title The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
title_full The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
title_fullStr The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
title_full_unstemmed The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
title_short The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized.
title_sort activity of antimicrobial surfaces varies by testing protocol utilized
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4975443?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT matiasdcampos theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT paolaczucchi theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT annphung theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT stevennleonard theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT elizabethbhirsch theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT matiasdcampos activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT paolaczucchi activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT annphung activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT stevennleonard activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized
AT elizabethbhirsch activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized