R Wesgate1, A Robertson1, M Barrell1, P Teska2, J-Y Maillard3. 1. Cardiff School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 2. Diversey Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA. 3. Cardiff School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. Electronic address: maillardj@cardiff.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of effective cleaning/disinfectant products is important to control pathogens on healthcare surfaces. With the increasing number of wipe products available, there is a concern that combination of a formulation with the wrong material will decrease the efficacy of the product. This study aimed to use a range of efficacy test protocols to determine the efficacy of four formulations before and after binding to three commonly used wiping materials. METHODS: Two quaternary ammonium (QAC)-based products, one hydrogen-peroxide-based product and one neutral cleaner were combined with microfibre, cotton or non-woven materials and tested for efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus with two surface tests (ASTM E2197-17 and EN13697-15) and two 'product' tests (ASTM E2967-15 and EN16615-15). FINDINGS: Overall, the impact of using different materials on formulation efficacy was limited, except for an alkyl(C12-16)dimethylbenzylammonium chloride-based product used at 0.5% v/v. The hydrogen peroxide product was the most efficacious regardless of the material used. The results from wipe test ASTM E2967-15 were consistent with those from the surface tests, but not with EN16615-15 which was far less stringent. CONCLUSIONS: The use of different wiping cloth materials may not impact severely on the efficacy of potent disinfectants, despite the absorption of different volumes of formulation by the materials. QAC-based formulations may be at higher risk when a low concentration is used. There were large differences in efficacy depending on the standard test performed, highlighting the need for more stringency in choosing the test to make a product claim on label.
BACKGROUND: The use of effective cleaning/disinfectant products is important to control pathogens on healthcare surfaces. With the increasing number of wipe products available, there is a concern that combination of a formulation with the wrong material will decrease the efficacy of the product. This study aimed to use a range of efficacy test protocols to determine the efficacy of four formulations before and after binding to three commonly used wiping materials. METHODS: Two quaternary ammonium (QAC)-based products, one hydrogen-peroxide-based product and one neutral cleaner were combined with microfibre, cotton or non-woven materials and tested for efficacy against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus with two surface tests (ASTM E2197-17 and EN13697-15) and two 'product' tests (ASTM E2967-15 and EN16615-15). FINDINGS: Overall, the impact of using different materials on formulation efficacy was limited, except for an alkyl(C12-16)dimethylbenzylammonium chloride-based product used at 0.5% v/v. The hydrogen peroxide product was the most efficacious regardless of the material used. The results from wipe test ASTM E2967-15 were consistent with those from the surface tests, but not with EN16615-15 which was far less stringent. CONCLUSIONS: The use of different wiping cloth materials may not impact severely on the efficacy of potent disinfectants, despite the absorption of different volumes of formulation by the materials. QAC-based formulations may be at higher risk when a low concentration is used. There were large differences in efficacy depending on the standard test performed, highlighting the need for more stringency in choosing the test to make a product claim on label.
Authors: Patryk Tarka; Agnieszka Chojecka; Olga Paduch; Aneta Nitsch-Osuch; Krzysztof Kanecki; Anna Kierzkowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gurpreet K Chaggar; Carine A Nkemngong; Xiaobao Li; Peter J Teska; Haley F Oliver Journal: Microbiology (Reading) Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 2.956