Cargando…
The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized
BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several “antimicro...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27494336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160728 |
_version_ | 1782446726938886144 |
---|---|
author | Campos, Matias D. Zucchi, Paola C. Phung, Ann Leonard, Steven N. Hirsch, Elizabeth B. |
author_facet | Campos, Matias D. Zucchi, Paola C. Phung, Ann Leonard, Steven N. Hirsch, Elizabeth B. |
author_sort | Campos, Matias D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several “antimicrobial” film surfaces. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 Log(10) 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 Log(10) CFU/ml difference versus placebo). The ASTEM protocol exhibited significant differences in recovery of staphylococci (mean 5 Log(10) CFU/ml) but not Gram-negative isolates (10 fold decrease). Minimal activity was observed with this film in the transfer method. CONCLUSIONS: 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4975443 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49754432016-08-25 The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized Campos, Matias D. Zucchi, Paola C. Phung, Ann Leonard, Steven N. Hirsch, Elizabeth B. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: We compared the efficacy of multiple testing protocols against several “antimicrobial” film surfaces. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 Log(10) 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 Log(10) CFU/ml difference versus placebo). The ASTEM protocol exhibited significant differences in recovery of staphylococci (mean 5 Log(10) CFU/ml) but not Gram-negative isolates (10 fold decrease). Minimal activity was observed with this film in the transfer method. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Public Library of Science 2016-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4975443/ /pubmed/27494336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160728 Text en © 2016 Campos et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Campos, Matias D. Zucchi, Paola C. Phung, Ann Leonard, Steven N. Hirsch, Elizabeth B. The Activity of Antimicrobial Surfaces Varies by Testing Protocol Utilized |
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 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27494336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160728 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT camposmatiasd theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT zucchipaolac theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT phungann theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT leonardstevenn theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT hirschelizabethb theactivityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT camposmatiasd activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT zucchipaolac activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT phungann activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT leonardstevenn activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized AT hirschelizabethb activityofantimicrobialsurfacesvariesbytestingprotocolutilized |