Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:39:20.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ineffectiveness of Hospital Disinfectants Against Bacteria: A Collaborative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William A. Rutala  and
Eugene C. Cole
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill Department of Hospital Epidemiology, North Carolina Memorial Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Eugene C. Cole
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, UNC School of Medicine, 547 Clinical Sciences Bldg. 229H, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A collaborative study was undertaken to assess the degree of variability in disinfectant efficacy test results among laboratories that routinely perform the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Use-Dilution Method. Eighteen laboratories tested identical samples of six EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectants (three phenolics and three quaternaries) at the manufacturers' recommended use-dilution using only those modifications of the method approved by the AOAC Use-Dilution Task Force. Each laboratory processed 60 penicylinders for each of the 6 randomly selected disinfectants and 3 test organisms. The current EPA pass criterion for a disinfectant requires a test result of ≤1 positive penicyIinder/60 replicates tested. When compared with the 1 positive/60 replicate criterion, the test results of the 6 disinfectants were: 86 trials (80%) passed and 22 trials (20%) failed against Salmonella choleraesuis ATCC 10708; 71 (66%) passed and 37 (34%) failed against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; and 41 (38%) passed while 67 (62%) failed against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442. Four laboratories unknowingly tested their own product, and three of the four failed their product against one or more of the test organisms. These results show the inability to reproduce the manufacturers' bactericidal label claims for 6 disinfectants against the 3 AOAC test bacteria. In addition, extreme variability of test results among laboratories testing identical products questions the use of the AOAC Use-Dilution Method for enforcement action.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 1987 , pp. 501 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

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.Youden, WJ, Steiner, EH: Statistical manual of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1975, p 84.Google Scholar
2.William, S (ed): Official Methods of Analysis, ed. 14. Arlington, VA, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1984, pp 65–68.Google Scholar
3.Rutala, WA, Stiegel, MM, Sarubbi, FA: Ineffectiveness of disinfectants against hospital strains of bacteria. Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, 1982, Q138, p 233.Google Scholar
4.Bavley, A: Tests: Not all germ killers adequate. Miami Herald, December 26, 1982.Google Scholar
5.Rhodes, ME: Hearing to examine cutback in hospital disinfectant testing. Statement before the Joint Economic Committee's Subcommittee on Investment, Jobs and Prices. United States Senate, Washington, DC, August 1986.Google Scholar
6.Rutala, WA: Hearing to examine cutback in hospital disinfectant testing. Statement before the Joint Economic Committee's Subcommittee on Investment, Jobs and Prices. United States Senate, Washington, DC, August 1986.Google Scholar
7.Czerkowicz, TJ: Review of performance of germicidal product official samples. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. September 1, 1983.Google Scholar
8.Cole, EC, Rutala, WA, Carson, JL: Evaluation of penicylinders used in disinfectant testing: Bacterial attachment and surface texture. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 1987; 70:903–906.Google Scholar
9.Cole, EC, Rutala, WA, Alfano, EM: Comparison of stainless steel penicylinders used in disinfectant testing. J Assoc Off Anal Chem, in press.Google Scholar
10.Spaulding, EH: Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials, in Lawrence, CA, Block, SS (eds): Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1968, pp 517–531.Google Scholar
11.Favero, MS: Sterilization, disinfection and antisepsis in the hospital, in Lennette, EH, Balows, A, Hausler, WJ Jr, et al: Manual of Clinical Microbiology, ed 4. Washington, DC, American Society for Microbiology, 1985, pp 129–137.Google Scholar
12.Rutala, WA: Disinfection, sterilization and waste disposal, in Wenzel, RP (ed): Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1987, pp 257–282.Google Scholar
13.Shickman, MD, Guze, LB, Pearce, ML: Bactermia following cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1959; 260:1164–1166.Google Scholar
14.Greene, WH, Moody, M, Hartley, R, et al: Esophagoscopy as a source of Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis in patients with acute leukemia: The need for sterilization of endoscopes. Gastroenterology 1974; 67:912–919.Google Scholar
15.Webb, SF, Vall-Spinosa, A: Outbreak of Serratia marcescens associated with the flexible fiberbronchoscope. Chest 1975; 68:703–708.Google Scholar
16.Dixon, RE, Kaslow, RA, Mackel, DC, et al: Aqueous quaternary ammonium antiseptics and disinfectants—Use and misuse. JAMA 1976; 236:2415–2417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Tuffnell, PG: Salmonella infections transmitted by a gastroscope. Can J Public Health 1976; 67:141–142.Google Scholar
18.Hussain, SA: Fiberoptic bronchoscope-related outbreak of infection with pseudomonas. Chest 1978; 74:483.Google Scholar
19.Leers, W-D: Disinfecting endoscopes: How not to transmit Mycobacterium tuberculosis by bronchoscopy. Can Med Assoc J 1980; 123:275–280.Google Scholar
20.Holmberg, SD, Osterholm, MT, Senger, KA, et al: Drug-resistant salmonella from animals fed antimicrobials. N Engl J Med 1984; 311:617–622.Google Scholar
21.Ehrenkranz, NJ, Bolyard, EA, Wiener, M, et al: Antibiotic-sensitive Serratia marcescens infections complicating cardiopulmonary operations: Contaminated disinfectant as a reservoir. Lancet 1980; 2:1289–1292.Google Scholar
22.Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ: Environmental issues and nosocomial infections, in Farber, BF (ed): Infection Control in Intensive Care. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1987, pp 131–171.Google Scholar
23.Maki, DG, Alvarado, CJ, Hassemer, CA, et al: Relation of the inanimate hospital environment to endemic nosocomial infection. N Engl J Med 1982; 307:1562–1566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Ascenzi, JM, Wendt, TM, McDowell, JW: Important information concerning the reuse of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants and their tuberculocidal activity. Surgikos Research Division. October 1984.Google Scholar