Characteristics of an IdealSurface Damage Testing ProtocolBy: Peter Teska, MBA (Diversey, Inc.), John Howarter, PhD, (Purdue University),Haley Oliver, PhD, (Purdue University), Jim Gauthier, CIC, (Diversey Inc), Kay Bixler, (Diversey, Inc.), Xiaobao Li, PhD, (Diversey, Inc.)*

The importance of a hygienic patient environment of care has been demonstrated repeatedly in the literature (Weber, 2010) (Han, 2015). Studies of commonly touched environmental surfaces and patient care equipment (i.e. high touch surfaces) have detected pathogenic microorganisms at epidemiologically significant levels (Weber, 2010) (Weber, 2013) (Han, 2015). Studies of patient room occupancy and infection rates have found higher infection rates from environmentally transmissible pathogens based on the infection status of the prior patient in the room (Ajao, 2013) (Huang, 2006) (Drees, 2008) (Nseir, 2011) (Shaughnessy, 2011); thus routine cleaning and disinfection is an important part of infection prevention for healthcare facilities.

The CDC recommends that high touch surfaces be cleaned and disinfected on a routine basis (Sehulster, 2004), ranging from daily to several times per week depending on the perceived risk and level of soiling that occurs on the surface. Portable equipment transferred between patient rooms requires disinfection among rooms up to several times per hour, to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission.

While the materials selected for environmental surfaces and patient care equipment should be capable of being disinfected without loss of functionality (Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, 2013), there is no standardized method for a manufacturer to make this determination, nor agreement on the material functionality parameters that should be measured to determine whether surface damage has occurred. Furthermore, it is important to note that types of surface damage can occur to a material without necessarily inducing a ‘loss of functionality’. A simple example would be a monitor where the housing became scratched or changed color over time, but the scratches and color change did not affect the ability to use the monitor and it still ‘functions’ as intended. Such disconnection among surface damage, disinfection practice, and equipment functionality poses a previously uncharacterized risk for infection prevention.

The chemistries used for cleaning and disinfection products in healthcare can have a negative effect on the integrity of the surfaces and equipment, but there is no standard methodology to measure this impact. Similarly, the mechanical action introduced by the wiping cloth may also have a detrimental effect on surfaces, but a standard methodology or evaluation criteria to measure such impact is still lacking. A new ASTM method, E2967-15 (ASTM Internation, 2015) standardizes the pressure and contact of a disinfectant wipe, using brushed stainless steel discs, but this method is validated only for prewetted disinfectant wipes, and not for cotton or microfiber wiping cloths.

Introduction

Surface Damage

All manufacturers of healthcare patient care equipment should provide instructions for use (IFU) that list compatible disinfectants for cleaning equipment. However the compatibility testing is not standardized across the industry, does not use validated methods, does not generally include newer disinfectant technologies, often is only qualitative, and may only list active ingredients which does not take into account the other ingredients in a disinfectant that may cause surface damage. This makes it challenging to compare surface damage information among disinfectant manufacturers and equipment manufacturers. In some cases, equipment manufacturers list ingredients not compatible with their equipment in the Instructions For Use (IFU), yet recommend disinfectants including the same ingredients resulting in confusion for healthcare facilities to evaluate and choose disinfectant products.

It is difficult to predict the clinical impact of surface damage because there is no clear definition of what constitutes surface damage. In theory, surface damage can cause equipment to fail to operate correctly and can shelter microorganisms, thus preventing proper disinfection. Both types of surface damage can create safety risks for patients and staff in healthcare facilities.

To facilitate the discussion below, surface damage is defined as a quantifiable physical or chemical change from the original manufactured state of an object (surface or device). Surface damage that results in aesthetic changes, such as color loss or change in color, may not affect the performance of the equipment and thus may not be of any clinical significance. However, to some users, color variation would be evidence of surface damage and thus may indicate that an object may need to be replaced. In some cases, residual from the disinfectant may leave a visible residue on surfaces. This creates an aesthetic worsening of the surface appearance, but often this residual is removable and does not indicate permanent damage to the surface. For purposes of this discussion, color change that is only aesthetic in nature and removable residual from the disinfectant are not considered forms of surface damage.

We recommend using surface roughness as an appropriate parameter to determine surface damage. Changes in surface roughness can indicate a loss of material from the surface, an increase in the number of cracks or fissures, or irreversible changes in the chemical bonding in organic surface materials, which can change the performance of the surface. The link between surface roughness and microbial risks has been explored by previous studies. Verran and Boyd (2001) reviewed data showing that surface roughness can create defects in the surface that provide protection

from shear forces, such as from cleaning, and may provide more secure adhesion points for bacteria. Aykent (2010) from the field of dental finishing showed that the amount of bacteria on a surface was positively correlated with the surface roughness. Gonzalez (2017) showed that rougher surfaces were harder to clean of blood soil, but did not quantify the degree of surface roughness necessary to see this difference. Notably, the size scale of the change in surface roughness is often below the detection limit of humans via sight or touch.

Surface damage can make it more difficult to disinfect a surface or create some other definable safety risks (such as surface damage exposing wiring or cracking tubing), both of which have clinical significance. When surface damage is minor, it may be detectable, but not have achieved any clinical significance. However, if the surface damage continues, it may reach a point of clinical significance at some later time. Even minor surface damage should be considered important because of the potential for surface damage to reach the threshold point. Therefore, surface roughness, which is related to the ability to disinfect the surface, is an appropriate parameter to address the question of proper disinfection to avoid surface damage, although what constitutes significant damage remains undetermined at this point (Sattar, 2013.)

Surface Damage Measurement

Ideally a detector should be placed on a surface in question and by pressing a button, quantitative data would be generated that would compare the original condition of the surface to the changes in the surface over time. Using a database of information tested using this method, it would be possible to quantify the amount of additional risk associated with the degree of damage. However, no such device or database exists today.

The field of Materials Science has worked extensively on methods to characterize surfaces. What makes this characterization valuable is the ability to tie the characterization method to a specific parameter (or parameters) that allow for differentiation among surfaces in a meaningful manner. It is unlikely that a single test would allow for a relevant determination of surface damage. It would either be too sensitive, identifying surfaces as damaged that do not have clinically relevant damage, or conversely it would only identify surface damage when it was so extreme that the surface could no longer be used.

It is important to address this concern, as it relates to healthcare surfaces and the disinfectants and wiping cloths used on them. In this article, we identified relevant criteria that would allow for the selection of an appropriate testing methodology to identify surface damage.

Proposed Sample Preparation Method

Based on the evaluation criteria discussed above, we believe that applying the disinfectant through wiping and allowing the surface to air dry is an appropriate methodology. A four pass wiping method (left, right, left, right) would provide adequate contact between the surface and the disinfectant chemical and factor in the wiping cloth impact as well and is consistent with the current EPA wipes test method. The surface should be allowed to air dry for a defined period of time, such as 10 min, before reapplication of the product. This process should be repeated 200 times to simulate the damage that could occur by disinfecting the surface daily for six months. Other numbers of repetition may be just as predictive of surface damage, but 200 cycles should be representative of any likely damage due to normal use.

Surfaces roughly two inches wide by 12 inches long would be appropriate during this sample preparation. The sample after disinfection wiping can be cut into appropriate pieces for testing. All testing should be run in triplicate.

It may be desirable to additionally test samples immersed in disinfectant chemicals for a period of time but this would only be done as part of overtesting and would not replace the standard wiping method of application. Immersion, while not reflective of the type of exposure for surfaces from normal use of disinfectants, can provide an indicator of what surface damage a worst case exposure might be expected to cause.

If standard wiping and immersion both do not show any significant surface damage, then this provides strong evidence that the disinfectant/surface combination are not likely to cause surface damage under normal use or under extreme exposure conditions.

Proposed Testing Criteria

To be an appropriate method to characterize surface damage for healthcare surfaces, the testing should address these criteria:

1. The sample preparation and testing should simulatehow a product is used. Some manufacturers immersecoupons of material in disinfectant. This type ofexposure is likely to be much more extreme than howdisinfectants are used in practice and can introduceadditional variables, such as the impact on the cutedges of the material, which would not be present inthe surface as used.

2. The testing should not introduce additional exposurevariables that are not customarily present. The use ofheat or wrapping a wipe on a sample of the surfaceboth introduce additional variables not presentunder normal use. If testing under conditions thatintroduce additional variables also demonstrates thatthere is no additional impact, it may be possible tointroduce factors such as these as part of the testingmethodology, but a substantial dataset would beneeded to ensure that these factors did not introduceadditional variables not present under normal use.

3. While some of the surface damage characterizationmethods may be qualitative, an appropriate test mustinclude a strong quantitative component, which allowsfor determining the degree of damage.

4. The testing should differentiate different degreesof surface damage in a meaningful way. It shoulddetermine the degree of surface damage usingquantitative measures and allow for differentiationbetween damaged and undamaged surfaces,consistent with how surfaces perform by measuringcharacteristics that are critical to real worldperformance of the surface.

5. The field of Materials Science groups testingmethodologies into macroscopic, microscopic, andspectroscopic methods. The proposed panel oftesting should include at least one test method fromeach category for a comprehensive assessment. Thetesting should not solely rely on macroscopic testingof bulk samples of the material, such as “dog bone”stress testing. While changes in material strengthare evidence of surface damage, microscopic andspectroscopic methods are much more likely toshow surface damage before it is detectable at themacroscopic level.

6. The methods should be reproducible with an easyreplicate testing methodology so that results indifferent labs would be consistent.

7. The characterization should measure more than oneparameter of surface damage. If the surface changesin size, weight, or roughness, all of these attributeswould be important considerations and methods ofcharacterization on these attributes should be applied.

8. The sample damage should simulate a definedamount of time in real world application, such as6 months. If the sample damage was continued tosimulate a longer period of time, such as 1 year, theone year damage may be twice the 6 month damage,but it remains to be shown that the damage is linearover longer periods of time.

9. The method might allow for a measurement thatsimulates worst case condition not likely to occur inthe real world to show how extreme surface damagemight occur under certain rare conditions.

10. Because residual from the disinfectant may impactthe characterization, samples of the materialshould be tested after disinfectant application (seebelow) and then repeated after thorough rinsingof the surface, which allows for a more accuratecharacterization of the underlying surface and allowsfor characterizing the impact of the disinfectant residual.

Proposed Testing Methods

Based on the proposed criteria above, we believe the following panel illustrates a set of appropriate methods for characterization of surface damage. The testing areas are in the order of increasing complexity.

1. Weight change. This quantitative macroscopic testmethod determines whether a detectable amount ofmaterial from the sample is removed.

2. Optical microscopy. This qualitative imaging methodidentifies the extreme cases of changes in physicalsurface morphology (i.e. scratches) and can be donequickly and inexpensively.

3. Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR).This qualitative spectroscopic method determineschemical interaction between the residual from thedisinfectant and the surface.

4. Contact Angle. This quantitative microscopic methoddetermines surface roughness by measuring the angleformed by a drop of water placed on the surface.Contact angle is an indicator of both surface energyand surface roughness. Smooth surfaces have alow contact angle while rough surfaces have a highcontact angle. By comparing the roughness beforeand after exposure to disinfectant, the change of thesurface roughness can be characterized.

5. Atomic Force Microscopy. This quantitativemicroscopic method allows for various measurementsof surface roughness. By comparing the roughnessbefore and after exposure to disinfectant, the degree ofchange of the surface roughness can be characterized.

6. Mechanical Stress Test (optional). This quantitativemeasurement uses a standard force to applystress to a sample of the material. Changes in theforce needed to stress the sample indicate surfacedamage has occurred and has impacted one of thestrength measurements of the material. Additionally,by inducing the surface to crack, the test gives ameasurement of fracture toughness in addition tomechanical resilience.

Testing Results Interpretation

Until more robust databases of testing results are available, the results from the testing should be interpreted in relation to the untreated samples of material. Using quantitative approaches, changes in roughness, weight or contact angle can be presented as a percent change from the original state.

Summary

This document reviewed the importance of standardizing testmethods for surface damage by disinfectants and proposedtesting criteria, a sample preparation methodology, specifictesting methods, and an approach for interpreting the results.

References

• Ajao AO, Johnson K, Harris AD, et al. Risk of acquiringextended spectrum b-lactamase-producing Klebsiellaspecies and Escherichia coli from prior room occupantsin the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2013;34:453e458.

• ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Assessingthe Ability of Pre-wetted Towelettes to Remove andTransfer Bacterial Contamination on Hard, Non-PorousEnvironmental Surfaces Using the Wiperator. Method E2967-15. 2015, ASTM International, W. Conshohocken, PA, USA.

• Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC,Ozkan S, “Effect of different finishing techniques forrestorative materials on surface roughness and bacterialadhesion”, J of Prosthet Dent, 2010; 103: 221-227.

• Drees M, Snydman DR, Schmid CH, et al. Priorenvironmental contamination increases the risk ofacquisition of vancomycinresistant enterococci. Clin InfectDis 2008;46:678e685.

• Gonzalez EA, Nandy P, Lucas AD, Hitchins VM, “Designingfor cleanability: The effects of material, surface roughness,and the presence of blood test soil and bacteria ondevices”, Am J of Infect Control, 2017; 45: 194-196.

• Han JH, Sullivan N, Leas BF, Pegues DA, KaczmarekJL, Umscheid CA. Cleaning hospital room surfaces toprevent health care-associated infections. Ann Intern Med2015;163(8):598-607.

• Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiringantibioticresistant bacteria from prior room occupants.Arch Intern Med. 2006 Oct 9;166(18):1945-51. DOI:10.1001/ archinte.166.18.1945

• Nseir S, Blazejewski C, Lubret R, Wallet F, CourcolR, Durocher A. Risk of acquiring multidrug-resistantGramnegative bacilli from prior room occupantsin the intensive care unit. Clin Microbiol Infect2011;17:1201e1208.

• Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion(Public Health Ontario). Provincial Infectious DiseasesAdvisory Committee. Best practices for cleaning,disinfection and sterilization of medical equipment/devices.3rd ed. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; May 2013

• Sattar SA, Maillard JY, “The crucial role of wiping indecontamination of high-touch environmental surfaces:Review of current status and directions for the future”,Am J Infect Cont, 2013; 41: S97-S104.

• Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, Carpenter J,Donlan R, Ashford D, Besser R, Fields B, McNeil MM,Whitney C, Wong S, Juranek D, Cleveland J. Guidelines forenvironmental infection control in health-care facilities.Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare InfectionControl Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). ChicagoIL; American Society for Healthcarve Engineering/AmericanHospital Association; 2004.

• Shaughnessy MK, Micielli RL, DePestel DD, Arndt J,Strachan CL, Welch KB, Chenoweth CE. Evaluation ofhospital room assignment and acquisition of Clostridiumdifficile infection. Infect Cont and Hosp Epidemiol. 2011Mar;32(3):201-6. DOI: 10.1086/658669

• Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Miller MB, Huslage K, Sivckbert-Bennett E. Role of hospital surfaces in the transmission ofemerging health care associated pathogens: Norovirus,Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter species. Am J InfectCont 2010;38,S25-33.

• Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Understanding and preventingtransmission of healthcare-associated pathogens due tothe contaminated hospital environment. Infect Cont andHosp Epidemiol, 2013; 35 (5): 449-452.

• Verran J, Boyd RD, “The relationship between substratumsurface roughness and microbiological and organic soiling:A review”, Biofouling, 2001; 17 (1): 59-71.

*Study Rev 26 Sept 2017

Diversey’s purpose is to protect and care for people every day. Diversey has been, and always will be, a pioneer and facilitator for life. We constantly deliver revolutionary cleaning and hygiene technologies that provide total confidence to our customers across all of our global sectors, including: cleaning products, systems and services that efficiently integrate chemicals, machines and sustainability programs. This makes us unique among leading global hygiene and cleaning companies. Everything we do has our customers’ needs at its heart and is based on the belief that cleaning and hygiene are life essentials. With over 95 years of expertise, we safeguard our customers’ businesses, contributing to productivity improvements, lower total operating costs and brand protection.

Diversey is headquartered in Fort Mill, SC, USA. For more information, visit www.diversey.com or follow us on social media.

® Diversey 2020 All rights reserved. AHP® and Design and Oxivir® are trademarks of Diversey, Inc.

Kills SARS-CoV-2

(COVID-19 virus)

AUST R 338592

Disinfect Medical Devices*

Class llb Medical D

evic

e

Bactericidal - Virucidal

Oxivir® TbCleaning and disinfectant wipe for non-critical medical devices and surfaces(Class llb Medical Device)

Medical Device Compatibility List• Stethoscopes• Blood pressure cuffs and monitors• Crash or medication carts, cabinets• Exterior of dialysis machine• X-ray equipment• Infant incubators• Wheelchairs• Exam tables• Gurneys and stretchers• Instrument & phlebotomy trays• Patient bedrails, side rails, headboards• Traction bars, devices and patient slings• IV stands / poles and exterior surfaces of pumps

Oxivir® TbCleaning and disinfectant wipe for non-critical medical devices and surfaces(Class llb Medical Device)

Surface Compatibility Compatible with a wide range of surfaces and equipment. Oxivir Tb has been evaluated and approved by leading medical device manufacturers to disinfect medical devices such as ultrasound systems, transducers and monitors.

Bactericidal - Virucidal

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 virus)

Kills SARS-CoV-2

(COVID-19 virus)

Kills Bacteria

Kills Viruses

EFFICACY Kills

29 micro- organisms

Disinfect Medical Devices*

Class llb Medical D

evic

e

Diversey has been, and always will be, a pioneer and facilitator for life.We constantly deliver revolutionary cleaning and hygiene technologies thatprovide total confidence to our customers across all of our global sectors.

29 Chifley St, Smithfield NSW 2164 AUSTRALIA - 1800 647 779Check out our complete range at diverseyvericlean.com

READY TO USE PRE-WETTED CLEANING AND DISINFECTING WIPE

PRODUCT Oxivir Tb Standard Wipes 12 x 160 wipes (15.5 x 17.3cm sheet size)

CANISTER CODE5283530

PRODUCT Oxivir Tb Large Wipes 4 x 160 wipes(28 x 30cm sheet size)

TUB CODE100959102

REFILL CODE100959104

Close Lid

MEDICAL DEVICE - CLEANING/DISINFECTING WIPE

AUST R 338592 - Oxivir Tb Wipes

DISCLAIMER: Please check local regulations and guidelines for any references provided. These materials are provided for general information purposes only and do not replace each user’s responsibility to assess the operational, legal and other requirements applicable to each facility. Confidential information, may not be copied or distributed without prior written permission of Diversey. *Non-critical medical devices ® Diversey 2020 All rights reserved. AHP® and Design and Oxivir® are trademarks of Diversey, Inc.