医院消毒剂对细菌的有效性:一项合作研究。

W A Rutala, E C Cole
{"title":"医院消毒剂对细菌的有效性:一项合作研究。","authors":"W A Rutala,&nbsp;E C Cole","doi":"10.1017/s0195941700067564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A collaborative study was undertaken to assess the degree of variability in disinfectant efficacy test results among laboratories that routinely perform the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Use-Dilution Method. Eighteen laboratories tested identical samples of six EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectants (three phenolics and three quaternaries) at the manufacturers' recommended use-dilution using only those modifications of the method approved by the AOAC Use-Dilution Task Force. Each laboratory processed 60 penicylinders for each of the 6 randomly selected disinfectants and 3 test organisms. The current EPA pass criterion for a disinfectant requires a test result of less than or equal to 1 positive penicylinder/60 replicates tested When compared with the 1 positive/60 replicate criterion, the test results of the 6 disinfectants were: 86 trials (80%) passed and 22 trials (20%) failed against Salmonella choleraesuis ATCC 10708; 71 (66%) passed and 37 (34%) failed against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; and 41 (38%) passed while 67 (62%) failed against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442. Four laboratories unknowingly tested their own product, and three of the four failed their product against one or more of the test organisms. These results show the inability to reproduce the manufacturers' bactericidal label claims for 6 disinfectants against the 3 AOAC test bacteria. In addition, extreme variability of test results among laboratories testing identical products questions the use of the AOAC Use-Dilution Method for enforcement action.</p>","PeriodicalId":77726,"journal":{"name":"Infection control : IC","volume":"8 12","pages":"501-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0195941700067564","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ineffectiveness of hospital disinfectants against bacteria: a collaborative study.\",\"authors\":\"W A Rutala,&nbsp;E C Cole\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0195941700067564\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A collaborative study was undertaken to assess the degree of variability in disinfectant efficacy test results among laboratories that routinely perform the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Use-Dilution Method. Eighteen laboratories tested identical samples of six EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectants (three phenolics and three quaternaries) at the manufacturers' recommended use-dilution using only those modifications of the method approved by the AOAC Use-Dilution Task Force. Each laboratory processed 60 penicylinders for each of the 6 randomly selected disinfectants and 3 test organisms. The current EPA pass criterion for a disinfectant requires a test result of less than or equal to 1 positive penicylinder/60 replicates tested When compared with the 1 positive/60 replicate criterion, the test results of the 6 disinfectants were: 86 trials (80%) passed and 22 trials (20%) failed against Salmonella choleraesuis ATCC 10708; 71 (66%) passed and 37 (34%) failed against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; and 41 (38%) passed while 67 (62%) failed against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442. Four laboratories unknowingly tested their own product, and three of the four failed their product against one or more of the test organisms. These results show the inability to reproduce the manufacturers' bactericidal label claims for 6 disinfectants against the 3 AOAC test bacteria. In addition, extreme variability of test results among laboratories testing identical products questions the use of the AOAC Use-Dilution Method for enforcement action.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection control : IC\",\"volume\":\"8 12\",\"pages\":\"501-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0195941700067564\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection control : IC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0195941700067564\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection control : IC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0195941700067564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

开展了一项合作研究,以评估常规执行官方分析化学家协会(AOAC)使用稀释法的实验室之间消毒剂功效测试结果的差异程度。18个实验室测试了6种在epa注册的医院级消毒剂(三种酚类和三种季铵盐)的相同样品,这些样品按照制造商推荐的稀释使用方法,仅使用AOAC稀释使用工作组批准的方法修改。每个实验室为随机选择的6种消毒剂和3种试验生物各处理了60个青霉素瓶。现行EPA对消毒剂的合格标准要求检测结果小于或等于1个阳性青霉素瓶/60个重复测试。与1个阳性/60个重复测试标准相比,6种消毒剂对霍乱沙门氏菌ATCC 10708的检测结果为:86次(80%)通过,22次(20%)不合格;对金黄色葡萄球菌ATCC 6538的检测,71例(66%)合格,37例(34%)不合格;对铜绿假单胞菌ATCC 15442的检测合格率为38%,不合格率为62%。四家实验室在不知情的情况下测试了自己的产品,其中三家实验室的产品在一种或多种测试生物体上失败。这些结果表明,无法复制制造商对3种AOAC测试细菌的6种消毒剂的杀菌标签声明。此外,在测试相同产品的实验室之间,测试结果的极端差异对使用AOAC使用稀释法进行执法行动提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ineffectiveness of hospital disinfectants against bacteria: a collaborative study.

A collaborative study was undertaken to assess the degree of variability in disinfectant efficacy test results among laboratories that routinely perform the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Use-Dilution Method. Eighteen laboratories tested identical samples of six EPA-registered, hospital-grade disinfectants (three phenolics and three quaternaries) at the manufacturers' recommended use-dilution using only those modifications of the method approved by the AOAC Use-Dilution Task Force. Each laboratory processed 60 penicylinders for each of the 6 randomly selected disinfectants and 3 test organisms. The current EPA pass criterion for a disinfectant requires a test result of less than or equal to 1 positive penicylinder/60 replicates tested When compared with the 1 positive/60 replicate criterion, the test results of the 6 disinfectants were: 86 trials (80%) passed and 22 trials (20%) failed against Salmonella choleraesuis ATCC 10708; 71 (66%) passed and 37 (34%) failed against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538; and 41 (38%) passed while 67 (62%) failed against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442. Four laboratories unknowingly tested their own product, and three of the four failed their product against one or more of the test organisms. These results show the inability to reproduce the manufacturers' bactericidal label claims for 6 disinfectants against the 3 AOAC test bacteria. In addition, extreme variability of test results among laboratories testing identical products questions the use of the AOAC Use-Dilution Method for enforcement action.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信