Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: The current study was designed to evaluate the activity of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants against Clostridium difficile using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists' (AOAC) sporicidal test. This study was undertaken because gastrointestinal endoscopes that may be contaminated with C difficile spores are most commonly disinfected between patients using glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants. DESIGN: Using the AOAC test, the following disinfectants were tested: 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde, 2% acid glutaraldehyde, a 1:16 dilution of a 2% glutaraldehyde-7.05% phenol-1.20% sodium phenate, and a 1:20 dilution of a 10% glutaraldehyde-0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol. RESULTS: Test results of the four disinfectants against C difficile spores at exposure times of 10, 20, and 60 minutes were as follows (number of positive penicylinders per 30 replicates): 0, 0, and 0 for 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde; 6, 3, and 0 for 2% acid glutaraldehyde; 30, 29, and 30 for a 1:16 dilution of glutaraldehyde-7.05% phenol-1.20% sodium phenate; and 30, 30, and 30 for a 1:20 dilution of glutaraldehyde-0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol. CONCLUSIONS: C difficile spores are more susceptible to inactivation by glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants than the spore-forming organisms recommended in the AOAC sporicidal test (i.e., Bacillus subtilis and Clostridium sporogenes). Diluting glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants below 2% led to the inability to inactivate spores of C difficile using exposure times commonly employed to disinfect semicritical items such as gastrointestinal endoscopes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rutala et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: