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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campos, Matias D., Zucchi, Paola C., Phung, Ann, Leonard, Steven N., Hirsch, Elizabeth B.
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