A repeatable biofilm removal assay and its application in the assessment of commercial cleaning formulations for medical devices

Timothy S. Charlton

doi:10.1071/HI08030

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Previous Next Contents Vol 13(4)

A repeatable biofilm removal assay and its application in the assessment of commercial cleaning formulations for medical devices

Timothy S. Charlton

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

UNSW Analytical Centre, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: tcharlton@aquafirma.com.au

Healthcare Infection 13(4) 131-135 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI08030
Published: 5 December 2008

Abstract

Bacterial biofilms are an important target of cleaning protocols for reusable medical devices. One approach to assess the efficacy of chemical cleaning formulations against this challenging type of soil is to grow biofilm of a specific strain on test coupons and measure the amount of biofilm removed after coupons have been immersed in a cleaning solution or control solution. This study reports on a comparison of four commercial formulations and two defined solutions in a biofilm removal assay. Biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 25619) were grown on polytetrafluoroethylene coupons in a stirred reactor. A crystal violet assay was used to measure percent reduction of biofilm from test coupons by four commercial formulations and two defined solutions (sodium hydroxide and Tween 20). There was a significant pair-wise difference between all treatments (P < 0.05), other than one of the commercial formulations (3M RMEC 70505) and sodium hydroxide. A high level of repeatability was achieved with coefficients of variation from 1 to 19% for the different treatments. The repeatability of this method may allow an objective assessment of biofilm removal efficacy of commercial formulations used for cleaning medical devices.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank M. Kritzler (Novapharm Research Australia Pty Ltd) for laboratory support and Dr Mick O’Neill (Statistical Advisory and Training Service Pty Ltd) for statistical analysis.

References

[1] Alfa MJ, Nemes R. Inadequacy of manual cleaning for reprocessing single-use, triple-lumen sphinctertomes: simulated-use testing comparing manual with automated cleaning methods. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31 193–207.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[2] Alfa MJ, Olson N, Buelow-Smith L. Simulated-use testing of bedpan and urinal washer disinfectors: evaluation of Clostrium difficile spore survival and cleaning efficacy. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36 5–11.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[3] Lipscomb IP, Sihota A, Botham M, Harris KL, Keevil CW. Rapid method for the sensitive detection of protein contamination on surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect 2006; 62 141–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[4] Nelson DB, Muscarella LF. Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12 3953–64.
| PubMed |

[5] Dettenkofer M, Block C. Hospital disinfection: efficacy and safety issues. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2005; 18 320–5.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[6] Pajkos A, Vickery K, Cossart Y. Is biofilm accumulation on endoscope tubing a contributor to the failure of cleaning and decontamination? J Hosp Infect 2004; 58 224–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[7] International Standardization Organization. Washer-disinfectors – Part 5: test soils and methods for demonstrating cleaning efficacy. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2005.

[8] Goeres DM, Loetterle LR, Hamilton MA, Murga R, Kirby DW, Donlan RM. Statistical assessment of a laboratory method for growing biofilms. Microbiology 2005; 151 57–62.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[9] Clesceri LS , Greenberg AE , Eaton AD , editors. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th edition. Washington DC: American Public Health Association; 1998.

[10] Murray RGE , Doetsch RN , Robinow DF . Determinative and cytological light microscopy. In: Gerhardt P, Murray RGE, Wood DW, Krieg NR, editors. Methods for general and molecular bacteriology. Washington D.C.: ASM Press; 1994. pp. 21–41.

[11] Pitts B, Hamilton MA, Zelver N, Stewart PS. A microtiter-plate screening method for biofilm disinfection and removal. J Microbiol Methods 2003; 54 269–76.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | CAS | PubMed |

[12] Tilt N, Hamilton MA. Repeatability and reproducibility of germicide tests: a literature review. J AOAC Int 1999; 82 384–9.
| CAS | PubMed |

[13] Kjelleberg S , Givskov M , editors. The biofilm mode of life: mechanisms and adaptations. Wymondham: Horizon Bioscience; 2007.

[14] Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R. Endoscopy-related infection: relic of the past? Curr Opin Infect Dis 2008; 21 362–6.
| PubMed |

[15] Vonberg RP, Wolter A, Chaberny IF, Kola A, Ziesing S, Suerbaum S, et al. Epidemiology of multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: data from an university hospital over a 36-month period. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2008; 211 251–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[16] Walberg M, Froslie KF, Roislien J. Local hospital perspective on a nationwide outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in Norway. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29 635–41.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[17] Boots RJ, Lipman J, Bellomo R, Stephens D, Heller RE. Disease risk and mortality prediction in intensive care patients with pneumonia. Australian and New Zealand practice in intensive care (ANZPIC II). Anaesth Intensive Care 2005; 33 101–11.
| CAS | PubMed |