Original Article

Comparative evaluation of hydrogen peroxide sporicidal efficacy by different standard test methods

Abstract

Background and Objectives: There are different sporicidal standard tests with various specifications to deal with products that are claimed for sporicidal activity. The aim of this study was to compare the 7% H2O2 sporicidal efficacy against Bacillus subtilis spores using different standard test methods.
Materials and Methods: The 7% H2O2 sporicidal efficacy against Bacillus subtilis spores was determined according to the AOAC MB-15-04 standard of carrier test and two standard suspension tests (BS EN 13704, AFNOR NF 72-230) in both clean and dirty conditions and by using different interfering substances including bovine serum albumin, yeast extract and skimmed milk.
Results: The results of suspension tests with 3 × 105 and 2 × 107 CFU/ml of B. subtilis spore concentration demonstrated that the higher spore counts lead to lower efficacy of 7% H2O2. Also, the sporicidal activity of 7% H2O2 was reduced in the presence of interfering substances. Bovine serum albumin, yeast, and skimmed milk showed similar interfering effects in suspension test with 3 × 105 CFU/ml. While, in suspension tests with higher initial spore count (2 × 107 CFU/ml) severity of interfering effects were intensified and distinct. Our results indicated that the carrier sporicidal test in comparison with suspension tests required more contact time to kill B. subtilis spores.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that it is reasonable to use interfering substances and inoculated carriers in accordance with actual conditions of product usage in a sporicidal test. Interfering substances may reduce the contact surface between H2O2 and test spores; therefore, the sporicidal efficacy of H2O2 was diminished. So applying suspension test in clean condition to verify the claim of sporicidal activity is strongly discouraged.

1. Clontz L. Microbial limit and bioburden tests: validation approaches and global requirements. (NY): CRC Press 2008; 2nd ed.
2. US EPA (2006). What are Antimicrobial Pesticides? US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs. (2000).
3. US EPA (2008). DIS/TSS-9 Efficacy Data Requirements. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs.
4. Sachan A, Hendrich S (2017). Safety Evaluation of Chemistries Used in the Food and Beverage Processing and Packaging Industries, In Food Toxicology. Apple Academic Press. pp. 87-112.
5. Ge D. Combined treatment of organic material in oilfield fracturing wastewater by coagulation and UV/H2O2/ferrioxalate complexes process. Water Sci Technol 2018;77:909-919.
6. Reybrouck G. The testing of disinfectants. Int Biodeter Biodegr 1998; 41: 269-272.
7. Roberts T. (Symposium on Bacterial Spores: Paper VII). Recovering Spores Damaged by Heat, Ionizing Radiations or Ethylene Oxide. J Appl Bacteriol 1970; 33: 74-94.
8. BSI. BS EN 14347. Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics - Basic sporicidal activity - Test method and requirements (phase 1, step 1). British Standards Institute, London, UK 2005.
9. BSI (2002). BS EN 13704. Chemical Disinfectants-Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of sporicidal activity of chemical disinfectants used in food, industrial, domestic and institutional areas-Test method and requirements (phase 2, step 1). British Standards Institute, London, UK.
10. AFNOR (1989). NF T72-190 Water-miscible contact disinfectant used in liquid state. Germ-carrier method determining bactericidal, fungicidal and sporicidal action. AFNOR, Paris, France.
11. Humphreys P. Testing standards for sporicides. J Hosp Infect 2011; 77: 193-198.
12. AFNOR (1988). NF T72-230 Water-miscible, neutralizable antiseptics and disinfectants used in liquid form. Determination of sporicidal activity. Dilution-neutralization method.
13. US Environmental Protection Agency (2018). AOAC MB 15-04 Standard operating procedure for the AOAC sporicidal activity of disinfectants test (Bacillus × porcelaine component only).
14. USP (2017) 40-NF 35, - Titrimetry/ Bracket 541of General chapters. pp. 416.
15. Standard Operating Procedure for OECD Quantitative Method for Evaluating Bactericidal and Mycobactericidal Activity of Microbicides Used on Hard, Non-Porous Surfaces. 2017 (MB-25-04).
16. CEN (2012) - EN 13727, Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics - Quantitative suspension test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity in the medical area - Test method and requirements (phase 2, step 1).
17. Charney J, Fisher W, Hegarty C. Manganese as an essential element for sporulation in the genus Bacillus. J Bacteriol 1951; 62: 145-148
18. USP (2017) 40- NF 35, Validation of microbial recovery from pharmacopeial articles/ Bracket 1227 of General chapters. pp. 1787.
19. Langsrud S, Sundheim G. Factors influencing a suspension test method for antimicrobial activity of disinfectants. J Appl Microbiol 1998; 85: 1006-1012.
20. Sagripanti JL, Carrera M, Insalaco J, Ziemski M, Rogers J, Zandomeni R. Virulent spores of Bacillus anthracis and other Bacillus species deposited on solid surfaces have similar sensitivity to chemical decontaminants. J Appl Microbiol 2007; 102: 11-21.
21. Melly E, Cowan A, Setlow P. Studies on the mechanism of killing of Bacillus subtilis spores by hydrogen peroxide. J Appl Microbiol 2002; 93: 316-325.
22. Wesgate R, Rauwel G, Criquelion J, Maillard J-Y. Impact of standard test protocols on sporicidal efficacy. J Hosp Infect 2016; 93: 256-262.
Files
IssueVol 12 No 2 (2020) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v12i2.2616
Keywords
Hydrogen peroxide; Sporicidal test; Suspension test; Carrier test; Bacillus subtilis spore
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Sadeghi S, Abdollahi S, Tarighi P, Samadi N. Comparative evaluation of hydrogen peroxide sporicidal efficacy by different standard test methods. Iran J Microbiol. 2020;12(2):113-120.