Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-qpj69 Total loading time: 0.236 Render date: 2021-03-05T05:05:06.576Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Antimicrobial Activity of Glucoprotamin: A Clinical Study of a New Disinfectant for Instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Andreas F. Widmer
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University of Basel Hospitals & Clinics, Basel, Switzerland
Reno Frei
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Laboratory, University of Basel Hospitals & Clinics, Basel, Switzerland

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the in vitro efficacy of glucoprotamin for the disinfection of instruments.

Design:

Prospective observational study.

Setting:

University women's hospital.

Methods:

Instruments were immersed in saline solution after use, and glucoprotamin was added to a concentration of 1.5% before soaking for 60 minutes. Biocidal activity was determined by the difference in colony-forming units (CFU) on instruments before and after disinfection.

Results:

One hundred thirty-seven instruments were collected during 10 days and exposed to a 1.5% dilution of glucoprotamin without prior washing. Bioburden before disinfection ranged from 2 × 105 to 7.1 × 107 CFU per instrument. Average bacterial killing was 5.98 log10 CFU ± 0.48 under aerobic conditions and 6.75 log10 CFU ± 0.54 under anaerobic conditions, despite the presence of large amounts of proteins on instruments that were frequently bloody. No vegetative bacteria were isolated in any sample after disinfection.

Conclusion:

This clinical study confirmed excellent in vitro efficacy of glucoprotamin without prior removal of proteins and debris.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.Widmer, AF, Frei, R. Decontamination, disinfection, and sterilization. In: Murray, PR, Baron, EJ, Pfaller, M, Jorgensen, JH, Yolken, R, eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 8th ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology Press; 2003:77108.Google Scholar
2.Rutala, WA, Cole, EC. Ineffectiveness of hospital disinfectants against bacteria: a collaborative study. Infect Control 1987;8:501506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Sagripanti, JL, Bonifacino A Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to liquid disinfectants on contaminated surfaces before formation of biofilms. J AOAC Int 2000;83:14151422.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Terleckyj, B, Axler, DA. Quantitative neutralization assay of fungicidal activity of disinfectants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987;31:794798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Disch, K. Glucoprotamine: a new antimicrobial substance. Zentralbl Hyg Unweltmed 1994;196:357365.Google Scholar
6.Meyer, B, Kluin, C. Efficacy of glucoprotamin containing disinfectants against different species of atypical mycobacteria. J Hosp Infect 1999;42:151154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Van Klingeren, B, Pullen, W. Glutaraldehyde resistant mycobacteria from endoscope washers. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:147149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Griffiths, PA, Babb, JR, Bradley, CR, Fraise, AP. Glutaraldehyde-resistant Mycobacterium chelonae from endoscope washer disinfectors. J Appl Microbiol 1997;82:519526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Spaulding, EH. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Block, S, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1968:517531.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 11 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Antimicrobial Activity of Glucoprotamin: A Clinical Study of a New Disinfectant for Instruments
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Antimicrobial Activity of Glucoprotamin: A Clinical Study of a New Disinfectant for Instruments
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Antimicrobial Activity of Glucoprotamin: A Clinical Study of a New Disinfectant for Instruments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *