being transferred to other surfaces when touched, potentially allowing the bacteria to grow and spread again (Chowdhury et al., 2018). This unintended consequence further complicates the identification and mitigation of dry surface biofilms. The resilience and transmissibility of dry surface biofilms might help explain the persis- tence of healthcare-acquired infections, even when stringent disinfection protocols are in place within clinical settings. Furthermore, outbreaks in low-moisture food manufacturing settings—such as the notable contamination of infant formula in the U.S. in 2022 caused by Cronobacter sakazakii (Food and Drug Admin- istration, 2022), a bacterium that is capable of forming dry surface biofilms (Fajardo et al., 2024)—highlight the critical significance of these biofilms in real-world scenarios. The risks associated with dry surface bio- films have garnered increasing attention, as evidenced by a surge in scientific peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals. A search for “biofilm” generates >135,000 arti- cles spanning from 1975 to 2024. In contrast, a search for the keyword “dry surface biofilm” in Scopus, one of the top scientific databases globally, yields a mere 40 articles, all published from 2015 to 2024. This disparity underscores the emerging nature of dry surface biofilms as a research topic. Is There a Viable Solution for E ectively Managing Dry Surface Biofilms in the Short-Term? Recent studies on dry surface biofilms of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi have pro- vided insight into the challenges of disinfect- ing dry surface biofilms. Although complete disinfection was not achievable, cleaning to a level that reduces the risk of cross-contami- nation after touching the cleaned surface was shown to be possible, albeit dicult (Duggan
et al., 2024). Several factors, however, need to be considered for this strategy to be eective. • Products : It is crucial to use properly designed products with superior cleaning capabilities. Many products that are labeled as “one-step cleaning and disinfectant” have varying cleaning eectiveness. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not require specific cleaning performance criteria for cleaners or disinfectants. Duggan et al. (2024) found that not all commonly used disinfectant formulations achieved the desired level of dry surface biofilm kill. The study found, however, that a couple of products tested had superior cleaning prop- erties and thus were successful in removing the dry surface biofilm, as well as reducing cross-contamination risk, when used in con- junction with a wiping step. • Tools and Implements : It is recommended to discard the cleaning substrates (e.g., cloths, wipes, towels) after encountering or even suspecting the presence of dry surface biofilms. This caution is because bacteria that have been removed from the biofilm can remain viable on the cleaning substrate, thus posing a risk of cross-contamination to previously sterile surfaces. For this rea- son, in healthcare settings it is a common practice to use new substrates for wiping small surface areas to prevent cross-con- tamination. Therefore, the use of single-use disposable towels or wipes is encouraged. In retail food service establishments, though, the use of reusable towels with cleaning and sanitizing solutions is still permitted, despite suggestive evidence of cross-con- tamination potential (Goulter et al., 2020). Although this practice is allowed in food service establishments, it is important to recognize and address the associated risks. •Hygiene Culture : Fostering a robust employer–employee relationship is crucial
to eectively address the hazards posed by dry surface biofilms, particularly in retail food establishments that lack the support of highly skilled infection con- trol sta, such as employees who work in healthcare settings. Given the complexity of the underlying hazards and the fact that sta members are dealing with an invis- ible adversary, providing continuous train- ing, reinforcement, and collaboration with health ocials and industry participants can be highly advantageous actions in com- bating biofilms. Additionally, maintaining eective communication channels and best practices are vital for disseminating relevant information throughout the organization. And as a last action, employees should be actively engaged in food safety practices and encouraged to take ownership of their roles in preventing foodborne illnesses. Conclusion Understanding that dry surface biofilms are resistant to traditional disinfection strate- gies highlights the need to reassess infection control protocols and consider alternative approaches, particularly in food service and healthcare settings. To address this issue, enhanced cleaning practices and proper dis- posal of cleaning materials are both crucial— and a reachable next step. Implementation can only be successful, however, if public health practitioners and sanitarians act by encouraging the implementation of the strat- egies outlined here to eectively manage the underlying hazard of dry surface biofilms, which have the potential to spread infections and negatively aect public health. Corresponding Author: Juan Goncalves, Procter & Gamble, 5289 Spring Grove Ave- nue, Saint Bernard, OH 45217. Email: goncalves.jj@pg.com
References
Almatroudi, A., Hu, H., Deva, A.K., Gosbell, I.B., Jacombs, A., Jen- sen, S.O., Whiteley, G., Glasbey, T., & Vickery, K. (2015). A new dry-surface biofilm model: An essential tool for ecacy test- ing of hospital surface decontamination procedures. Journal of Microbiological Methods , 117 , 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mimet.2015.08.003
Alonso V.P.P., Gonçalves, M.P.M.B.B., de Brito, F.A.E., Barboza, G.R., Rocha, L.d.O., & Silva, N.C.C. (2023). Dry surface biofilms in the food processing industry: An overview on surface characteristics, adhesion and biofilm formation, detection of biofilms, and dry san-
continued on page 22
21
December 2024 • 9>;8+6 90 8?3;987/8=+6 /+6=2
Powered by FlippingBook