Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T07:17:57.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mycobactericidal Efficacy of Ortho-Phthalaldehyde and the Comparative Resistances of Mycobacterium bovis, Mycobacterium terrae, and Mycobacterium chelonae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Adam W. Gregory ,
G. Bruce Schaalje ,
Jonathan D. Smart  and
Richard A. Robison
Adam W. Gregory
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
G. Bruce Schaalje
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
Jonathan D. Smart
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
Richard A. Robison*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
*
791 WIDB, Department of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602-5133
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To assess the mycobactericidal efficacy of an agent relatively new to disinfection, ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) and to compare the resistances of three Mycobacterium species. Mycobacterium bovis (strain BCG) was compared with Mycobacterium chelonae and Mycobacterium terrae to investigate the feasibility of using either of the latter two species in tuberculocidal testing. M chelonae (a rapid grower) and M terrae (an intermediate grower) both grow faster and are less virulent than M bovis (a slow grower).

Design:

The quantitative suspension protocol specified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Tuberculocidal Activity Test Method (EPA test), was used throughout this study. Standard suspensions of all three species were prepared in a similar manner. Two suspensions of M bovis, created in different laboratories, were used. These were tested against two concentrations of alkaline glutaraldehyde to provide reference data. Two concentrations of OPA were evaluated against all mycobacterial test suspensions. Four replicates of each organism-disinfectant combination were performed.

Results:

Results were assessed by analysis of variance. M terrae was significantly more resistant to 0.05% OPA than either M bovis or M chelonae. At 0.21% OPA, M terrae was slightly more susceptible than one test suspension of M bovis, but not significantly different from the other. M chelonae was significantly less resistant than the other species at both OPA concentrations. At their respective minimum effective concentration, OPA achieved a 6-log10 reduction of M bovis in nearly one sixth the time required by glutaraldehyde (5.5 minutes vs 32 minutes).

Conclusions:

These data, along with other recent studies, lend support to the idea that M terrae may be a suitable test organism for use in the tuberculocidal efficacy testing of disinfectants. They also confirm the relatively rapid tuberculocidal activity of OPA.

Type
Orginal Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , May 1999 , pp. 324 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1999

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. Alvarado, CJ, Stolz, SM, Maki, DG. Nosocomial infection and pseudoinfection from contaminated endoscopes and bronchoscopes. MMWR 1991;40:675–678 (including editorial note).Google Scholar
2. Nelson, KE, Larson, PA, Schraufnagel, DE, Jackson, J. Transmission of tuberculosis by flexible fiberbronchoscopes. Am Rev Respir Dis 1983;127:97–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Spach, DH, Silverstein, FE, Stamm, WE. Transmission of infections by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:117–128.Google Scholar
4. Wheeler, PW, Lancaster, D, Kaiser, AB. Bronchopulmonary cross-colonization and infection related to mycobacterial contamination of suction valves of bronchoscopes. J Infect Dis 1989;159:954–958.Google Scholar
5. Ascenzi, JM, Ezzell, RJ, Wendt, TM. A more accurate method for measurement of tuberculocidal activity of disinfectants. Appi Environ Microbiol 1987;53:2189–2192.Google Scholar
6. Isenberg, HD, Giugliano, ER, France, K, Alperstein, P Evaluation of three disinfectants after in-use stress . J Hosp Infect 1988;11:278–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Robison, RA Osguthorpe, RJ, Carroll, SJ, Leavitt, RW, Schaalje, GB, Ascenzi, JM. Culture variability associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency Tuberculocidal Activity Test Method. Appi Environ Microbiol 1996;62:2681–2686.Google Scholar
8. Newman, KA Tenney, JH, Oken, HA Moody, MR, Wharton, R, Schimpff, SC. Persistent isolation of an unusual Pseudomonas species from a phenolic disinfectant system. Infect Control 1984;5:219–222.Google Scholar
9. Sautter, RL, Mattman, LH, Legaspe, RC. Serratia marcescens meningitis associated with contaminated benzalkonium chloride solution. Infect Control 1984;5:223–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. vanKlingeren, B, Pullen, W. Glutaraldehyde resistant mycobacteria from endoscope washers. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:147–149.Google Scholar
11. Russell, AD, Hammond, SA, Morgan, JR Bacterial resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants. J Hosp Infect 1986;7:213–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. US Environmental Protection Agency. Tuberculocidal activity test method. In: Campt, DD, ed. Data Call-In Notice for Tuberculocidal Effectiveness Data for All Antimicrobial Pesticides With Tuberculocidal Claims. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1988:1–8.Google Scholar
13. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Tuberculocidal activity of disinfectants. In: Williams, S, ed. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC. 14th ed. Arlington, VA: AOAC; 1984:73–74.Google Scholar
14. Rutala, WA, Cole, EC, Wannamaker, NS, Weber, DJ. Inactivation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium bovis by 14 hospital disinfectants. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):267S–270S.Google Scholar
15. Collins, FM, Montalbine, V. Mycobactericidal activity of glutaraldehyde solutions. J Clin Microbiol 1976;4:408–412.Google Scholar
16. Cole, EC, Rutala, WA Nessen, L, Wannamaker, NS, Weber, DJ. Effect of methodology, dilution, and exposure time on the tuberculocidal activity of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants. Appi Environ Microbiol 1990;56:1813–1817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Urayama, S, Kozarek, RA Sumida, S, Raltz, S, Merriam, L, Pethigal, P. Mycobacteria and glutaraldehyde: is high-level disinfection of endoscopes possible? Gastrointest Endose 1996;43:451–456.Google Scholar
18. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Tuberculocidal activity of disinfectants. In: Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC. 13th ed. Arlington, VA AOAC; 1980:65–66.Google Scholar
19. Association Francaise de Normalisation (AFNOR). Recueil de normes francaises des antiseptiques et desinfectants. In: Antiseptics and Disinfectants. Edition bilingue. Paris, France: AFNOR; 1981.Google Scholar
20. Best, M, Sattar, SA, Springthorpe, VS, Kennedy, ME. Comparative mycobactericidal efficacy of chemical disinfectants in suspension and carrier tests. Appi Environ Microbiol 1988;54:2856–2858.Google Scholar
21. Best, M, Sattar, SA, Springthorpe, VS, Kennedy, ME. Efficacies of selected disinfectants against Mycobacterium tuberculosis . J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:2234–2239.Google Scholar
22. Sonntag, HG. Desinfektions verfahren bei Tuberculose. Hygiene und Medizin 1978;3:322–325.Google Scholar
23. Sonntag, HG, Hingst, V. Comparative studies on the effects of disinfectants on M. tuberculosis and M. terrae . Zentrablatt Bakteriologie C: Hygiene 1985;181 (Serie B):31. Abstract.Google Scholar
24. vanKlingeren, B, Pullen, W. Comparative testing of disinfectants against Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium terrae in a quantitative suspension test. J Hosp Infect 1987;10:292–298.Google Scholar
25. Griffiths, PA Babb, JR, Fraise, AP. Mycobacterium terrae: a potential surrogate for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a standard disinfectant test. J Hosp Infect 1998;38:183–192.Google Scholar
26. Hingst, V, Wurster, C, Sonntag, HG. A quantitative test method for the examination of antimycobacterial disinfection procedures. Zentrablatt fur Hygiene und Umweltmedizin 1990;190:127–140.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Jette, LP, Ringuette, L, Ishak, M, Miller, M, Saint-Antoine, P. Evaluation of three glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants used in endoscopy. J Hosp Infect 1995;30:295–303.Google Scholar
28. Alfa, MJ, Sitter, DL. Inhospital evaluation of orthophthalaldehyde as a high level disinfectant for flexible endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 1994;26:15–26.Google Scholar
29. Robison, RA, Robinson, DF, Ploeger, BJ, Christensen, RP. Clinical and laboratory efficacy tests of a new disinfectant. J Dent Res 1991;70:438. Abstract.Google Scholar