ArticlePeerJ2022
The efficacy of commercial decontamination agents differs between standardised test settings and research laboratory usage for a variety of bacterial species.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel method of simulated-use surface disinfection efficacy testing as Phase 3 Step 1 approach.Infection prevention in practice · 2026Article
- Airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis inactivated by advanced photohydrolysis technology.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2026Article
- Toward more sustainable research: reducing the environmental impact when working with Drosophila.Genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decontamination of surfaces and items plays an important role in reducing the spread of infectious microorganisms in many settings including hospitals and research institutes. Regardless of the location, appropriate decontamination procedures are required for maintaining biosafety and biosecurity. For example, effective decontamination of microbial cultures is essential to ensure proper biocontainment and safety within microbiological laboratories. To this end, many commercial decontamination agents are available which have been tested to a prescribed standard to substantiate their efficacy. However, these standardised tests are unlikely to accurately reflect many conditions encountered in medical and biomedical research. Despite this, laboratory workers and other users of decontamination agents may assume that all decontamination agents will work in all situations. We tested commonly used commercial decontamination agents against a range of bacterial species to determine their efficacy under real-world research laboratory conditions. As each decontamination agent has a different recommended dilution for use, to compare their efficacy we calculated their 'effective ratio' which reflects the difference between the manufacturer-recommended dilution and the dilution needed to achieve decontamination under real-world research laboratory conditions. Effective ratios above one indicate that the agent was effective at a dilution more dilute than recommended whereas effective ratios lower than one indicate that the agent required a higher concentration than recommended. Our results show that the quaternary ammonium agents TriGene Advance and Chemgene HLD4L were the most effective out of the agents tested, with biocidal activity measured at up to 64 times the recommended dilution. In contrast, hypochlorite (bleach) and Prevail™ (stabilised hydrogen peroxide) had the lowest effective ratios amongst the tested agents. In conclusion, our data suggests that not all decontamination agents will work at the recommended dilutions under real-world research laboratory conditions. We recommend that the protocols for the use of decontamination agents are verified under the specific conditions required to ensure they are fit for purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.