Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-09T23:37:52.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inactivation of Clostridium Difficile Spores by Disinfectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

William A. Rutala ,
Maria F. Gergen  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Maria F. Gergen
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
Div. of Infectious Diseases, CB #7030, 547 Burnett-Womack Bldg., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The current study was designed to evaluate the activity of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants against Clostridium difficile using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists' (AOAC) sporicidal test. This study was undertaken because gastrointestinal endoscopes that may be contaminated with C difficile spores are most commonly disinfected between patients using glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants.

Design:

Using the AOAC test, the following disinfectants were tested: 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde, 2% acid glutaraldehyde, a 1: 16 dilution of a 2% glutaraldehyde-7.05% phenol- 1.20% sodium phenate, and a 1:20 dilution of a 10% glutaraldehyde-0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol.

Results:

Test results of the four disinfectants against C difficile spores at exposure times of 10, 20, and 60 minutes were as follows (number of positive penicylinders per 30 replicates): 0, 0, and 0 for 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde; 6, 3, and 0 for 2% acid glutaraldehyde; 30, 29, and 30 for a 1:16 dilution of glutaraldehyde- 7.05% phenol-1.20% sodium phenate; and 30, 30, and 30 for a 1:20 dilution of glutaraldehyde- 0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol.

Conclusions:

C difficile spores are more susceptible to inactivation by glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants than the spore-forming organisms recommended in the AOAC sporicidal test (i.e., Bacillus subtilis and Clostridium sporogenes). Diluting glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants below 2% led to the inability to inactivate spores of C difficle using exposure times commonly employed to disinfect semicritical items such as gastrointestinal endoscopes.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 36 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1993 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA, Li, E. Public health for medical staff. In: Yamada, T: ed. Textbook of Gastroenterology. Vol 1. Philadelphia, Pa: J.B. Lippincott Co.; 1991;1042–1064.Google Scholar
2. Fekety, R. Antibiotic-associated colitis. In: Mandell, GL, Douglas, RG, Bennett, JE, eds. Principles and Practices of Infectious Diseases. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1990;863–869.Google Scholar
3. Heard, SR, O'Farrell, S, Holland, D, Crook, S, Barnett, MJ, Tabaqchali, S. The epidemiology of Clostridium difficile with use of a typing scheme: nosocomial acquisition and cross-infection among imunocompromised patients. J Infect Dis. 1986;153:154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. McFarland, LV, Mulligan, ME, Kwok, RW, Stamm, WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium dificile infection. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:204–210.10.1056/NEJM198901263200402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Garner, JS, Favero, MS. Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Am J Infect Control. 1986;14:110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Rutala, WA. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18:99–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Rutala, WA, Clontz, EP, Weber, DJ, Hoffmann, KK. Disinfection practices for endoscopes and other semicritical items. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:282–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Sporicidal activity of disinfectants. In: Williams, S. ed. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC. 14th ed. Arlington, Va: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1984:77–73.Google Scholar
9. Lyerly, DM, Krivan, HC, Wilkins, TD. Clostridium difficile: its disease and toxins. Clin Microbial Rev. 1988;1:1–18.10.1128/CMR.1.1.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gerding, DN. Disease associated with Clostridium dificile infection. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Fekety, R, Kim, K, Brown, D, Batts, DH, Cudmore, M, Silva, J. Epidemiology of antibiotic-associated colitis: isolation of Clostridium dfficile from the hospital environment. Am J Med. 1981;70:906–908.10.1016/0002-9343(81)90553-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Johnson, S, Gerding, DN, Olson, MM, Weiler, MD, Hughes, RA, Clabots, CR, Peterson, LR. Prospective, controlled study of vinyl glove use to interrupt Clostridium dificile nosocomial transmission. Am J Med. 1990;88:137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Centers for Disease Control. Federal regulatory action against Sporicidin cold sterilizing solution. MMWR. 1991;40:800–881.Google Scholar
14. Metrix Research Corp. Letter to APIC [Association for Practitioners in Infection Control] members, June 18, 1991.Google Scholar
15. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA takes stop sale action and requests recall of Metricide and Coldspor sterilant pesticides for lack of efficacy (letter). May 15, 1992.Google Scholar
16. Hughes, CE, Gebhard, RL, Peterson, LR, Gerding, DN. Efficacy of routine fiberoptic endoscope cleaning and disinfection for killing Clostridium dificile . Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1986;32:7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Dyas, A, Das, BC. The activity of glutaraldehyde against Clostridium dificile . J Hosp Infect. 1985;6:41–45.10.1016/S0195-6701(85)80016-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Beloian, A. Working Group II, Bacterial spores. In: Chemical Germicides in the Health Care Field: Current Status and Evaluation of Eficacy and Research Needs. Arlington, Va: American Society for Microbiology; 1987:132–136.Google Scholar