Cargando…

Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615

Aim: Two test methods for surface disinfection (phase 2, step 2) – the Wiperator method (ASTM standard E2967-15) and the 4-field test (EN 16615) – were compared using a disinfectant solution based on quaternary ammonium compounds and a ready-to-use alcohol-based wipe. As test organisms, Staphylococc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jacobshagen, Anja, Gemein, Stefanie, Exner, Martin, Gebel, Jürgen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273320/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32547904
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000339
_version_ 1783542378793009152
author Jacobshagen, Anja
Gemein, Stefanie
Exner, Martin
Gebel, Jürgen
author_facet Jacobshagen, Anja
Gemein, Stefanie
Exner, Martin
Gebel, Jürgen
author_sort Jacobshagen, Anja
collection PubMed
description Aim: Two test methods for surface disinfection (phase 2, step 2) – the Wiperator method (ASTM standard E2967-15) and the 4-field test (EN 16615) – were compared using a disinfectant solution based on quaternary ammonium compounds and a ready-to-use alcohol-based wipe. As test organisms, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were used. Results: While the 4-field test is a manual method and better reflects the process in practice, with the Wiperator, the wiping process is better controlled because it is an automated procedure. A comparison of the effects of both methods on the target log(10)-reduction of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa indicates a statistically significant difference between the two test methods (Mann-Whitney U-Test. S. aureus: 0 (U(min))<4 (U(crit)); n(1)=8, n(2)=8, p=0.001; 2-sided. P. aeruginosa: 24 (U(min))<26 (U(crit)); n(1)=11, n(2)=10, p=0.025, 2-sided). In addition, the results indicate that the wipe used has a major influence on the success of the disinfection process. Discussion: Both methods are suitable for efficacy studies of surface disinfectants, yet they differ in some aspects. Additionally our data indicate a statistically significant difference between the two test methods. Conclusion: Efficiency testing of surface disinfection is a complex process that depends on many different parameters. Since the 4-field test better reflects the practice, it makes sense to stick to this test procedure, taking into account that the EN 16615 was approved by CEN TC 216 in 2015 after method validation ring trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7273320
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72733202020-06-15 Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615 Jacobshagen, Anja Gemein, Stefanie Exner, Martin Gebel, Jürgen GMS Hyg Infect Control Article Aim: Two test methods for surface disinfection (phase 2, step 2) – the Wiperator method (ASTM standard E2967-15) and the 4-field test (EN 16615) – were compared using a disinfectant solution based on quaternary ammonium compounds and a ready-to-use alcohol-based wipe. As test organisms, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were used. Results: While the 4-field test is a manual method and better reflects the process in practice, with the Wiperator, the wiping process is better controlled because it is an automated procedure. A comparison of the effects of both methods on the target log(10)-reduction of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa indicates a statistically significant difference between the two test methods (Mann-Whitney U-Test. S. aureus: 0 (U(min))<4 (U(crit)); n(1)=8, n(2)=8, p=0.001; 2-sided. P. aeruginosa: 24 (U(min))<26 (U(crit)); n(1)=11, n(2)=10, p=0.025, 2-sided). In addition, the results indicate that the wipe used has a major influence on the success of the disinfection process. Discussion: Both methods are suitable for efficacy studies of surface disinfectants, yet they differ in some aspects. Additionally our data indicate a statistically significant difference between the two test methods. Conclusion: Efficiency testing of surface disinfection is a complex process that depends on many different parameters. Since the 4-field test better reflects the practice, it makes sense to stick to this test procedure, taking into account that the EN 16615 was approved by CEN TC 216 in 2015 after method validation ring trials. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2020-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7273320/ /pubmed/32547904 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000339 Text en Copyright © 2020 Jacobshagen et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Jacobshagen, Anja
Gemein, Stefanie
Exner, Martin
Gebel, Jürgen
Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title_full Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title_fullStr Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title_full_unstemmed Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title_short Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615
title_sort test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the wiperator astm standard e2967-15 and the 4-field test en 16615
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273320/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32547904
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000339
work_keys_str_mv AT jacobshagenanja testmethodsforsurfacedisinfectioncomparisonofthewiperatorastmstandarde296715andthe4fieldtesten16615
AT gemeinstefanie testmethodsforsurfacedisinfectioncomparisonofthewiperatorastmstandarde296715andthe4fieldtesten16615
AT exnermartin testmethodsforsurfacedisinfectioncomparisonofthewiperatorastmstandarde296715andthe4fieldtesten16615
AT gebeljurgen testmethodsforsurfacedisinfectioncomparisonofthewiperatorastmstandarde296715andthe4fieldtesten16615