Progress on the biocidal products directive

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Dag Kappes ◽  
Kirsten Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Ledwoch ◽  
Maddalena Magoga ◽  
Dulcie Williams ◽  
Stefania Fabbri ◽  
James Walsh ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: The abundance and prevalence of dry-surface biofilms (DSBs) in hospitals constitute an emerging problem, yet studies rarely report the cleaning and disinfection efficacy against DSBs. Here, the combined impact of treatments on viability, transferability, and recovery of bacteria from DSBs has been investigated for the first time. Methods: Staphylococcus aureus DSBs were produced in alternating 48-hour wet–dry cycles for 12 days on AISI 430 stainless steel discs. The efficacy of 11 commercially available disinfectants, 4 detergents, and 2 contactless interventions were tested using a modified standardized product test. Reduction in viability, direct transferability, cross transmission (via glove intermediate), and DSB recovery after treatment were measured. Results: Of 11 disinfectants, 9 were effective in killing and removing bacteria from S. aureus DSBs with >4 log10 reduction. Only 2 disinfectants, sodium dichloroisocyanurate 1,000 ppm and peracetic acid 3,500 ppm, were able to lower both direct and cross transmission of bacteria (<2 compression contacts positive for bacterial growth). Of 11 disinfectants, 8 could not prevent DSB recovery for >2 days. Treatments not involving mechanical action (vaporized hydrogen peroxide and cold atmospheric plasma) were ineffective, producing <1 log10 reduction in viability, DSB regrowth within 1 day, and 100% transferability of DSB after treatment. Conclusions: Reduction in bacterial viability alone does not determine product performance against biofilm and might give a false sense of security to consumers, manufacturers and regulators. The ability to prevent bacterial transfer and biofilm recovery after treatment requires a better understanding of the effectiveness of biocidal products.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Engy Elekhnawy ◽  
Fatma Sonbol ◽  
Ahmed Abdelaziz ◽  
Tarek Elbanna

Abstract Background Antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacterial isolates has increased worldwide leading to treatment failures. Main body Many concerns are being raised about the usage of biocidal products (including disinfectants, antiseptics, and preservatives) as a vital factor that contributes to the risk of development of antimicrobial resistance which has many environmental and economic impacts. Conclusion Consequently, it is important to recognize the different types of currently used biocides, their mechanisms of action, and their potential impact to develop cross-resistance and co-resistance to various antibiotics. The use of biocides in medical or industrial purposes should be monitored and regulated. In addition, new agents with biocidal activity should be investigated from new sources like phytochemicals in order to decrease the emergence of resistance among bacterial isolates.


Author(s):  
Aslı ŞAHİNER ◽  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR

A biocidal product is a substance or mixture prepared to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a harmful microorganism, plants and animals. The active substance in a biocidal product can be a natural oil or extract, a chemical substance or a microorganism, virus or fungus. Biocides consist of four main groups: disinfectants, preservatives (wood, paint, etc.), pest control and other type of biocidal products. A biocidal substance can also be added to a product to make the product itself into a biocidal product. These products range from disinfectants, hand sanitizers, preservatives, insect repellents, to rodenticides and insecticides and are used to protect humans, animals, materials and articles by controlling the intended target organism by a chemical or biological action. To make sure the use of biocidal products do not have unacceptable risks for people, animals and the environment, they are regulated to control their marketing, sale and use. In the current study biocidal products have been overviewed in the scope of current European Union regulations, product types and conformity tests. Peer Review History: UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Name: Dr. Barkat Ali Khan Affiliation: Kampala International University , Uganda E-mail: [email protected]   Name: Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby Affiliation: Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Comments of reviewer(s):


Author(s):  
Francesca Cappitelli ◽  
Federica Villa

AbstractSubaerial biofilm (SAB) formation on cultural heritage objects is often considered an undesirable process in which microorganisms and their by-products, e.g., enzymes and pigments, cause damage or alteration to a surface. Since biofilms are widespread phenomena, there has been a high demand for preventive and control strategies that resist their formation or reduce their negative effects once formed. Up to date, the main strategy to control biofilms has been the use of biocides. Because of their intrinsic properties, biocidal products can pose risks to humans, animals, and the environment. In this chapter, the authors call “green” only those alternative strategies to biocides able to prevent/control biofilms but that do not kill microorganisms, i.e., irrespective of the use of natural compounds. Here, we describe some of the methods that are most commonly used to test the effectiveness of antibiofilm compounds with multiple-species biofilm model systems. A unified terminology and well described protocols and guidelines are still required to compare and test the effectiveness of traditional or novel compounds against biofilms retrieved on heritage surfaces.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 3797
Author(s):  
Yin Jia ◽  
Liuyu Yin ◽  
Fengyu Zhang ◽  
Mei Wang ◽  
Mingliang Sun ◽  
...  

To avoid the lacquerware of the Nanhai No. 1 shipwreck from being corroded by microorganisms and to improve the knowledge on microbial ecology of the wood lacquers, we conducted a series of tests on the two water samples storing the lacquerware and colonies on the surface of the lacquerware. The high-throughput sequencing detected dominant fungal communities. After that, the fungal strains were isolated and then identified by amplification of ITS- 18S rRNA. Then the activity of ligninolytic and cellulolytic enzymes was detected on potato dextrose agar (PDA) plates with 0.04% (v/v) guaiacol and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) agar plates. Finally, we tested the biocide susceptibility of these fungi. Penicillium chrysogenum (NK-NH3) and Fusarium solani (NK- NH1) were the dominant fungi in the sample collected in April 2016 and June 2017. What is more, both showed activity of ligninolytic and cellulolytic enzymes. Four biocidal products (Preventol® D7, P91, BIT 20N, and Euxyl® K100) inhibited the growth of the fungal species in vitro effectively. In further research, the microbial community and environmental parameters in the museum should be monitored to assess the changes in the community and to detect potential microbial outbreaks.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Andrew Edwards
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1195-1205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aiga Mackevica ◽  
Pau Revilla ◽  
Anna Brinch ◽  
Steffen Foss Hansen

Nanomaterials (NMs) are currently being used for a wide variety of products, and a number of them are utilized as biocides due to their antimicrobial or antifungal properties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document