4.2 Article

Synthetic Microbial Surrogates Consisting of Lipid Nanoparticles Encapsulating DNA for the Validation of Surface Disinfection Procedures

期刊

ACS APPLIED BIO MATERIALS
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 1252-1259

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsabm.3c00004

关键词

LNP; nanoparticles; tracing; DNA; hygiene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective cleaning and disinfection procedures are crucial for maintaining hygiene standards in health-care facilities. This study established a method using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) encapsulating DNA to validate surface cleaning and disinfection procedures. The study showed that LNPs can distinguish between physical cleaning effects and chemical cleaning effects during the procedure. LNPs exhibited significant reductions in log10 values after treatment with ethanol and SDS solution, similar to reductions observed in common bacteria. LNPs offer advantages over existing tools for cleaning validation and enable separate detection of dilution and chemical disinfectant actions.
Effective cleaning and disinfection procedures are an integral part of good manufacturing practice and in maintaining hygiene standards in health-care facilities. In this study, a method to validate such cleaning and disinfection procedures of surfaces was established employing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) encapsulating DNA. It was possible to determine and distinguish between the physical cleaning effect (dilution) and the chemical cleaning effect (disintegration) on the LNPs during the cleaning and disinfection procedure (wiping). After treatment with 70 v % ethanol as a disinfectant and SDS solution as a cleaning agent, LNPs showed log10 reductions of 4.5 and 4.0, respectively. These values are similar to the log10 reductions exhibited by common bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Serratia marcescens. Therefore, LNPs pose as useful tools for cleaning validation with advantages over the already existing tools and enable a separate detection of dilution and chemical disinfectant action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据