Search

Introduction: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the virucidal effectiveness of chlorine dioxid against adenovirus and murine norovirus can be improved by combining it with carboxylic acids and surfactants.Method: The virucidal efficacy against polio-, adeno- and murine norovirus has been tested in presence of interfering substances in the quantitative suspension test according to EN 14476, the carrier test without mechanical action according to EN 16777, and in the four-field test according to EN 16615.Three chlorine-dioxide-based surface disinfectants were tested: a two-component cleaning disinfectant concentrate for large surfaces, a ready-to-use (RTU) foam, and an RTU gel. Results: Cleaning and disinfecting preparations based on chlorine dioxide, applied at various concentrations, in combination with acetic acid or citric acid and surfactants, are virucidally active against polio-, and norovirus after an exposure time of 5 minutes in presence of interfering substances.

Background: Wiping is an effective and established method for decontaminating surfaces, it involves applying liquid while simultaneously removing soils. Chlorine dioxide is a high-level disinfectant that can be applied to surfaces, including those of medical devices, with the aid of mechanical action or wiping. The European Standard (EN) 16615 evaluates the microbiocidal efficacy of a chemical disinfectant when it is applied with mechanical action, i.e., when applied by wiping. It has been suggested that manual methods employing human intervention can lead to variations in a validated process. One such assumption is that variable wiping force that exists between users may influence the effectiveness of the process. Method: The average wiping force of individuals with varying physical characteristics was investigated. A bespoke testing apparatus was employed in a series of EN 16615 four-field tests, with the aim to investigate if variable wiping force between individuals impacts the microbiocidal efficacy of a chlorine dioxide-based wipe disinfectant if tested as applied as in practice. Results: Individuals applied variable forces when wiping. Physical attributes such as hand dominance and body build were shown to influence the force applied. The average wiping force calculated from this pool of participants was found to be lower than the stated range given by the EN 16615. The pre-impregnated chlorine dioxide-based wipe achieved biocidal efficacy in the series of EN 16615 tests. No trend relating to the efficacy of the product and the different forces applied could be drawn. Conclusion: The data demonstrates that individuals apply different forces to a surface when wiping. However, the variability expressed when wiping has no impact on the microbiocidal efficacy of a manually applied chlorine dioxide-based disinfectant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the first appearance of Candida auris in 2009, this yeast has become a relevant pathogen in the clinical field. C. auris has been detected on various surfaces in health facilities, and is therefore a target for appropriate disinfection procedures. Preventive measures have to be implemented based on disinfectants with proven efficacy against C. auris.Aim: The chemical tolerance of C. auris was compared with the surrogate test organism Candida albicans as established in the European standards (EN). In this way, conclusions will be drawn as to whether the disinfectants tested according to EN 13624 and EN 16615 are at least equally effective against C. auris.Methods: The chemical susceptibility of C. auris and C. albicans was investigated using standardized EN test protocols. EN 13624 and EN 16615 were used in this study to examine two commercially available surface disinfectants based on alcohol and quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), respectively. In addition, the survival rates of the two yeast species were studied on a defined test surface simulating practical conditions.Findings: In comparison with C. albicans, C. auris was found to be significantly more susceptible to the alcohol- and QAC-based disinfectants used in this study. C. albicans was found to be more tolerant to drying on the test surface in EN 16615, yielding higher recovery rates.Conclusion: C. albicans is a suitable surrogate test organism when targeting yeasticidal efficacy, which, based on EN 13624 and EN 16615, includes efficacy against the human pathogen C. auris. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of ready-to-use disinfectant wipes was previously assessed in standardized suspension tests, which were inadequate because they ignored that the wipes are rubbed against a surface. Thus, we assessed the effectiveness of commercially available disinfectant wipes impregnated with an alcoholic solution according to the 16615 standard, which includes a test with mechanical action., Methods: According to the EN 16615 standard, under clean conditions, four squares (5cm x 5 cm), placed next to one another, were marked on a test surface. Enterococcus hirae , Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus were inoculated on the leftmost square, and a wipe impregnated with an alcoholic solution was placed to the left of that square. Then, the wipe was pressed with a 2.5 kg weight and moved to the right and back to the left. After contact times of 1, 5, 10, or 15 minutes, we measured the reduction in bacterial load., Results: Alcohol-based ready-to-use commercial wipes did not show sufficient bactericidal activity at the contact times of 1, 5, 10 and 15 minutes. Wipes containing propan-1-ol and a mixture of propan-1-ol and propan-2-ol were active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa at the contact times of 1 minute and 15 minutes. None of the examined wipes were active against Enterococcus hirae or Staphylococcus aureus ., Conclusion: Bactericidal parameters of ready-to-use disinfectant wipes should be determined in surface tests, in addition to suspension tests, because suspension tests do not simulate the conditions under which disinfectant wipes are used in practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.