Interlaboratory reproducibility of a test method following 4-field test methodology to evaluate the susceptibility of Clostridium difficile spores.
J Hosp Infect 2019;
103:78-84. [PMID:
31199936 DOI:
10.1016/j.jhin.2019.04.011]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2019] [Accepted: 04/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse