Practical considerations for infection prevention of near-patient surfaces: validation of an alternative polyvinyl chloride carrier in the 4-field test EN 16615:2015

Use of the European standardization framework established by CEN/TC 216 for effective disinfection strategies in human medicine, veterinary medicine, food hygiene, industry, and domestic and institutional use - a review

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic illustrates the necessity of effective preventive measures for existing and newly emerging pathogens. When confronted with pathogens or spoilage agents, especially if they are not yet well studied, effective hygiene protocols are needed immediately. In the medical field, effective preventive measures are key to prevent vulnerable patients from infections. In production areas, effective hygiene measures are needed to protect goods from spoilage or microbial contamination. The European standardization framework established by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) ensures that effective hygiene measures are available and can be immediately implemented when needed. Based on a broad portfolio of standards/laboratory tests, activity claims specifically addressing the special features of applications of antimicrobial formulations are substantiated. In this review, the concept of using standardized surrogate test organisms is explained, and the European standardized test approach to claim microbicidal and virucidal efficacy, the specificity of claims and their relevance for infection prevention measures is illustrated. Furthermore, relevance of the European Norm test methods is elucidated in the light of legal requirements. Finally, the review explains the systematics of the standardized methodological portfolio of CEN, Technical Committee 216, which is very useful when effective strategies for fighting or preventing microbial and viral induced infections, contaminations or spoilage are needed on an immediate basis.

Application of EN 16615 (4-Field Test) for the Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of the Selected Commercial and Self-Made Disinfectant Wipes

The purpose of disinfectants is to reduce microorganisms on a contaminated surface and to prevent the spread of microorganisms. The relatively new EN 16615 simulates disinfection by wiping and allows for assessing the recovery of microorganisms from the surface and, importantly, the degree of spread of microorganisms when the surface is disinfected by wiping. For the first time, using this standard, the tested products in the form of commercial disinfectant wipes were compared with self-made wipes soaked in respective disinfectant liquids. The disinfected surfaces were simulated by homogeneous polyvinyl chloride plates. The studies were carried out not only with the standard, but also with clinical multidrug-resistant microbial strains. Based on the research, it can be concluded that the most effective products in the disinfection process (log₁₀ reduction of ≥5) with the shortest contact time (1 min) were products containing ethanol, propanol, and quaternary ammonium compounds (self-made wipes) and propanol (commercial wipes). The least effective products (log₁₀ reduction of <5) in terms of the contact time declared by the manufacturer were products containing ethanol and sodium hypochlorite (commercial wipes). Much better antimicrobial activity of self-made wipes was observed in comparison to the activity of the commercial wipes.

Investigation of the susceptibility of Candida auris and Candida albicans to chemical disinfectants using European Standards EN 13624 and EN 16615

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.

Test methods for surface disinfection: comparison of the Wiperator ASTM standard E2967-15 and the 4-field test EN 16615

Aim: Two test methods for surface disinfection (phase 2, step 2) – the Wiperator method (ASTM standard E2967-15) and the 4-field test (EN 16615) – were compared using a disinfectant solution based on quaternary ammonium compounds and a ready-to-use alcohol-based wipe. As test organisms, Staphylococcusaureus and Pseudomonasaeruginosa were used.

Results: While the 4-field test is a manual method and better reflects the process in practice, with the Wiperator, the wiping process is better controlled because it is an automated procedure. A comparison of the effects of both methods on the target log₁₀-reduction of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa indicates a statistically significant difference between the two test methods (Mann-Whitney U-Test. S. aureus: 0 (U_min)<4 (U_crit); n₁=8, n₂=8, p=0.001; 2-sided. P. aeruginosa: 24 (U_min)<26 (U_crit); n₁=11, n₂=10, p=0.025, 2-sided). In addition, the results indicate that the wipe used has a major influence on the success of the disinfection process.

Discussion: Both methods are suitable for efficacy studies of surface disinfectants, yet they differ in some aspects. Additionally our data indicate a statistically significant difference between the two test methods.

Conclusion: Efficiency testing of surface disinfection is a complex process that depends on many different parameters. Since the 4-field test better reflects the practice, it makes sense to stick to this test procedure, taking into account that the EN 16615 was approved by CEN TC 216 in 2015 after method validation ring trials.

Interlaboratory reproducibility of a test method following 4-field test methodology to evaluate the susceptibility of Clostridium difficile spores

BACKGROUND

Sporicidal surface disinfection is recommended to control transmission of Clostridium difficile in healthcare facilities. EN 17126 provides a method to determine the sporicidal activity in suspension and has been approved as a European standard. In addition, a sporicidal surface test has been proposed.

AIM

To determine the interlaboratory reproducibility of a test method for evaluating the susceptibility of a C. difficile spore preparation to a biocidal formulation following the 4-field test (EN 16615 methodology).

METHODS

Nine laboratories participated. C. difficile NCTC 13366 spores were used. Glutaraldehyde (1% and 6%; 15 min) and peracetic acid (PAA; 0.01% and 0.04%; 15 min) were used to determine the spores' susceptibility in suspension in triplicate.

FINDINGS

One-percent glutaraldehyde revealed a mean decimal log₁₀ reduction of 1.03 with variable results in the nine laboratories (0.37-1.49) and a reproducibility of 0.38. The effect of 6% glutaraldehyde was stronger (mean: 2.05; range: 0.96-4.29; reproducibility: 0.86). PAA revealed similar results. An exemplary biocidal formulation based on 5% PAA was used at 0.5% (non-effective concentration) and 4% (effective concentration) to determine the sporicidal efficacy (4-field test) under clean conditions in triplicate with a contact time of 15 min. When used at 0.5% it demonstrated an overall log₁₀ reduction of 2.68 (range: 2.35-3.57) and at 4% of 4.61 (range: 3.82-5.71). The residual contamination on the three primarily uncontaminated test fields was <50 cfu/25 cm² in one out of nine laboratories (0.5%) and in seven out of nine laboratories (4%).

CONCLUSION

The interlaboratory reproducibility seems to be robust.