Skip to main content

Bacterial survival on inanimate surfaces: a field study

Abstract

Objective

Environmental surfaces may serve as potential reservoirs for nosocomial pathogens and facilitate transmissions via contact depending on its tenacity. This study provides data on survival kinetics of the most important nosocomial bacteria on a panel of commonly used surfaces. Type strains of S. aureus, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, S. marcescens, E. faecium, E. coli, and E. cloacae were suspended in 0.9% NaCl solution at a McFarland of 1 and got then plated via cotton swabs either on glass, polyvinyl chloride, stainless steel, or aluminum. Surfaces were stored at regular ambient temperature and humidity to simulate routine daycare conditions. Sampling was performed by contact plates for a time period of four weeks.

Results

The longest survival was observed for A. baumannii and E. faecium on all materials (at least four weeks). S. aureus remained viable for at least one week. Gram negative species other than A. baumannii were usually inactivated in less than two days. Nosocomial transmission of the above mentioned bacteria may easily occur if no appropriate infection control measures are applied on a regular daily basis. This might be of particular importance when dealing with outbreaks of A. baumannii and E. faecium.

Introduction

Frequently touched environmental surfaces are described as a major factor of nosocomial transmission [1, 2] and the probability of nosocomial spread in those events may be influenced by the tenacity of the particular type of microorganism. Bacteria may highly differ in their potential to survive on such surfaces, but up to now there are only few data available on this topic.

There are some reports on estimations of survival times, but those vary extensively with respect to the inoculum, ambient conditions, and the mode of sampling [3]. So for a better understanding of the true risk of nosocomial transmission, there is a need to better characterize bacteria with respect to environmental survival in a more standardized matter.

The Worldwide Outbreak Database [4] is the largest collection of nosocomial outbreaks and contains currently (August 2020) 3,632 nosocomial outbreak reports. According to this database, the following bacteria play the major roles in outbreak events: S. aureus (431 outbreaks; 11.9%), K. pneumoniae (288; 7.9%), P. aeruginosa (259; 7.1%), A. baumannii (253, 7.0%), S. marcescens (168, 4.6%), E. faecium (131, 3.6%), E. coli (86; 2.4%), and E. cloacae (82; 2.3%).

This study was carried out to determine the capability of those most relevant nosocomial bacteria to persist over a prolonged period of time on various surface materials.

Main text

Bacteria

Test organisms were obtained either form the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) or from the Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen (German Collection of Microorganisms; DSM). The following type strains were used in the study at hand: S. aureus ATCC25932, K. pneumoniae ATCC700603, P. aeruginosa ATCC27853, A. baumannii DSM30011, S. marcescens DSM12485, E. faecium ATCC19434, E. coli ATCC25922, and E. cloacae ATCC13047.

Bacterial suspensions were prepared for each of those eight test organisms from fresh overnight cultures at 37 °C under standard conditions on Columbia 5% sheep blood agar (Becton Dickinson GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). Colonies from the agar were transferred to the liquid suspension until a McFarland turbidity of 1.0 was reached. Bacteria were suspended in 0.9% NaCl solution in order to avoid potential toxic components that may lead to an accidental primary inactivation. In pre-experiments this amount of microorganisms proved sufficient for growing as a bacterial lawn on contact plates used immediately after plating the suspension.

Surfaces

Survival of the bacteria was tested on glass, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), stainless steel, and aluminum as these materials are frequently used as surfaces in the hospital setting. PVC and other plastic materials are commonly found in form of light switches, shelf spaces for patients, cupboards in bathrooms, bed rails and alarm buttons at the patient´s site. Aluminum may be use for manufacturing hand rails or buttons of elevators. Stainless steel surfaces are very common in doorknobs and levers or in surfaces for the preparation of intravenous infusions or disposal of excretions. Glass surfaces are found on tablet PCs, mobile phones and other touch screens.

Surfaces were thoroughly decontaminated using 70 Vol-% ethanol directly prior usage. For artificial surface contamination, a volume of 25 µL of the bacterial suspensions circulated by pre-soaked cotton swabs was used per spot to ensure that the entire volume remained on the surface. Ten spots per species and surface were prepared for multiple sampling options at different time points (Fig. 1). Surfaces were stored uncovered on the top of wall cupboards at room temperature (21 °C) at a relative humidity of 31 to 35% in order to maintain conditions as given in the routine daycare of patients on a hospital ward.

Fig. 1
figure1

Arrangement of the sampling spots on the various test surfaces. Every bacterial species was sampled at ten different time point on each type of surface (SAU = S. aureus; KPN = K. pneumoniae; PAE = P. aeruginosa; ABA = A. baumannii; SMA = S. marcescens; EFA = E. faecium; ECO = E. coli; ECL = E. cloacae)

Sampling

Replicate Organism Dectection And Counting (RODAC; Oxoid Deutschland GmbH, Wesel, Germany) contact plates with a contact surface of 25 cm2 each were used for sampling over a total period of four weeks. Sampling was primary performed immediately after plating and complete drying of the suspension (day 0) and thereafter on day 1, day 1.5, day 2, day 2.5, day 3, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28. Contact plates were then incubated overnight at 37 °C.

Evaluation

The number of recovered colony-forming units (CFU) was determined visually on each plate. If necessary, subcultures of colonies were prepared on an additional Columbia 5% sheep blood agar in order to differentiate between relevant species and environmental contaminants. The experiment was independently carried out thrice (overall 960 samples) and the mean number of CFU from each sampling spot was calculated. For a conservative calculation of the survival time, a value of only 250 was used for further calculation whenever observing a bacterial lawn (uncountable number of CFU).

Results

Figure 2 shows the survival kinetics of the test organisms on the four different types of surfaces. Note that A. baumannii and E. faecium showed the highest survival capability regardless of the material of the surface. Viable bacteria of those two species remained detectable even at the end of the entire observation time period of one month. In contrast, survival of all other species was limited to a few days only.

Fig. 2
figure2

Survival of different bacterial species on a glass, b stainless steel, c polyvinyl chloride, and d aluminum

However, there were also differences within this rather short surviving panel of species. Gram negative bacteria other than A. baumannii presented with shortest survival times, e.g. P. aeruginosa was completely inactivated in less than two days, while S. aureus remained viable for at least a week on all surface materials tested.

Discussion

Obviously, the length of bacterial survival in the environment impacts the risk of spread. The corresponding time frame depends on multiple factors among them the bacterial species [5] and overall bioburden [6, 7], the source of isolation [5], the type of surface material [8, 9], the ambient temperature [8, 10,11,12,13], the extent of UV radiation [14], the local pH [13], the relative air humidity [8, 11], the availability of water and nutrients [8], the presence of chemical noxa [15], the company by additional (concurrent) bacterial species [11] and other factors like pigmentation [16], and biofilm formation [17].

Table 1 provides a summary of studies on survival times of bacteria in vitro under various conditions. However, most of the results from such previous experiments rely on a rather artificial environment setting, while the study at hand determined the tenacity of nosocomially highly relevant species under conditions as existent in routine daycare of patients. Doing so, we could show that especially A. baumannii and E. faecium are prone for environmental spread in the hospital. This is of importance as antibiotic resistant strains of those two particular species were recently classified as high priority (E. faecium) of even critical priority (A. baumannii) for health-care settings by the WHO [18]. Long-term transmission via environmental contamination in the endemic setting and several outbreaks caused by A. baumannii [19,20,21,22] and E. faecium [23,24,25] are extensively described in the medical literature. Furthermore, D'Sousa et al. identified that A. baumannii and E. faecium even establish synergistic biofilms in vitro when co-cultured [26], which increases the likelihood of prolonged persistence and will facilitate further spread. Thus, our findings confirm the importance of proper infection control measures with emphasis on surface disinfection and/or decontamination procedures.

Table 1 Comparison of the findings of other studies on the survival of bacteria on various inanimate surfaces under different environmental conditions

In recent years there were innovative attempts to reduce the bacterial burden on frequently touched surfaces in hospitals, for example by coating them with layers containing direct bactericide substances or chemicals that diminish biofilm formation [27,28,29]. Another rather novel sanitation strategy is the use of (non-pathogenic) probiotic bacteria that are capable of reducing in a stable way the surface load of pathogens [30] or the use of UV-C light for surface decontamination [14]. However, all of those approaches are still far from comprehensive use in hospitals worldwide so the significance of traditional cleaning and surface disinfection measures will most likely continue for decades.

Conclusion

Nosocomial transmission of A. baumannii and E. faecium via contaminated surfaces may easily continue for several weeks if no appropriate infection control measures are applied. However, we could show that all nosocomially relevant pathogens may survive for a few days and thus represent a relevant risk for transmission within the hospital. So, in an outbreak infection control personnel should thoroughly search for so far unidentified areas or for breaches in standard decontamination procedures if pathogen spread continues despite high efforts in cleaning and disinfection.

Limitations

Generalization of results

Obviously, there are some limitations to our study that need to be addressed. First of all we only tested one single strain of each species. Therefore generalization of our findings should be done with caution. However, Jawad et al. compared the survival times for a total of 39 A. baumannii isolates (22 strains from nosocomial outbreaks and 17 sporadic strains). Their results in terms of survival time were comparable to our findings, but they failed to observe statistically significant inter-lineage differences with respect to bacterial tenacity (26.5 vs. 27.2 days) [31]. On the other hand, there is some newer data suggesting that hydrophilic clonal lineages of A. baumannii possess thicker cell walls and, thus exhibited higher resistance to desiccation compared to hydrophobic strains. This could provide an advantage in environmental survival [32]. Drying resistance of A. baumannii may also depend on mutations and expression of the two-component response regulator gene bfmR, which is important for its virulence and also for the expression of stress-related proteins during a stationary phase [33]. This topic needs to be examined for A. baumannii and the other species alike in more detail in future studies.

Biofilm formation

Secondly, we did not check for the degree of biofilm formation although this may also influence the ability to survive on an inanimate surface [34]. For example, A. baumannii may form strong biofilms on stainless steel surfaces and bacteria within this biofilm are significantly more resistant to environmental noxa than are their planktonic counterparts [35]. E. faecium may also develop biofilms regardless of a concomitant drug resistance but more often in the presence of the esp gene [36,37,38,39]. Ghaziasgar et al. observed this ability even significantly more often in nosocomial isolates while it was less common in wild type strains outside the hospital (100% vs 75.6%; p < 0.05) [40].

Adaptation and virulence of pathogens

Finally, we only measured the number of recovered bacteria via contact plates. Thus, we do not know whether or not changes in the virulence of a pathogen occurred. Although such a phenomenon would not directly affect the transmissibility, it would still be of clinical relevance. Chapartegui-Gonzalez et al. tested five clinical isolates of A. baumannii in long-time survival experiments under simulated hospital conditions. All strains were able to rapidly adapt to both the temperature shift and nutrients availability and maintained their virulence factors despite starvation and desiccation [41]. Once again, similar circumstances apply for enterococci, too [42]. We therefore assume that there was no significant reduction of virulence in the strains used in our study.

Reduction of bioburden by regular decontamination of surfaces

If performed properly, a thorough cleaning and disinfection will significantly reduce the risk of pathogen spread regardless of its tenacity. Unfortunately, breaks in the correct cleaning process are commonly observed due to various reasons. Furthermore small damages to surfaces may cause tiny notches that are then difficult to decontaminate. That is why there are several outbreaks caused by insufficient surface decontamination available in the medical literature. Therefore, this study once again stresses the importance of thorough and regular decontamination of frequently touches surfaces in the hospital for the sake of the safety of patients.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

ABA:

Acinetobacter baumannii

BHI:

Brain heart infusion

BPS:

Buffered peptone saline

CFU:

Colony forming units

CLED:

Cysteine lactose electrolyte deficient

d:

Day

ECO:

Escherichia coli

ECL:

Enterobacter cloacae

EFA:

Enterococcus faecium

h:

Hour

KPN:

Klebsiella pneumoniae

m:

Month

MRSA:

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus

MSSA:

Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus

NB:

Nutrition broth

n.m.:

Not mentioned

PAE:

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

PBS:

Phosphate-buffered saline

PVC:

Polyvinyl chloride

RH:

Relative humidity

RT:

Room temperature

SAU:

Staphylococcus aureus

SMA:

Serratia marcescens

TSB:

Trypticase soy broth

VRE:

Vancomycin resistant enterococcus

VSE:

Vancomycin susceptible enterococcus

w/o:

With and without

References

  1. 1.

    Suleyman G, Alangaden G, Bardossy AC. The role of environmental contamination in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens and healthcare-associated infections. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(6):12.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Otter JA, Yezli S, French GL. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(7):687–99.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:130.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Vonberg R-P, Weitzel-Kage D, Behnke M, Gastmeier P. Worldwide Outbreak Database: the largest collection of nosocomial outbreaks. Infection. 2011;39(1):29–34.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wendt C, Dietze B, Dietz E, Rüden H. Survival of acinetobacter baumannii on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(6):1394–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Neely AN. A survey of gram-negative bacteria survival on hospital fabrics and plastics. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000;21(6):523–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Neely AN, Maley MP. Survival of Enterococci and Staphylococci on hospital fabrics and plastic. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(2):724–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hanczvikkel A, Tóth Á. Quantitative study about the role of environmental conditions in the survival capability of multidrug-resistant bacteria. J Infect Public Health. 2018;11(6):801–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Zhang X, Ou-Yang S, Wang J, Liao L, Wu R, Wei J. Construction of antibacterial surface via layer-by-layer method. Curr Pharm Des. 2018;24(8):926–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nagata N, Tohya M, Takeuchi F, Suda W, Nishijima S, Ohsugi M, et al. Effects of storage temperature, storage time, and Cary-Blair transport medium on the stability of the gut microbiota. Drug Discov Ther. 2019;13(5):256–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Shimoda T, Okubo T, Enoeda Y, Yano R, Nakamura S, Thapa J, et al. Effect of thermal control of dry fomites on regulating the survival of human pathogenic bacteria responsible for nosocomial infections. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0226952.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bravo Z, Orruno M, Navascues T, Ogayar E, Ramos-Vivas J, Kaberdin VR, et al. Analysis of Acinetobacter baumannii survival in liquid media and on solid matrices as well as effect of disinfectants. J Hosp Infect. 2019;103(1):e42–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dekic S, Hrenovic J, Ivankovic T, van Wilpe E. Survival of ESKAPE pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii in water of different temperatures and pH. Water Sci Technol. 2018;78(5–6):1370–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Petersson LP, Albrecht UV, Sedlacek L, Gemein S, Gebel J, Vonberg RP. Portable UV light as an alternative for decontamination. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(12):1334–6.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Apata IW, Hanfelt J, Bailey JL, Niyyar VD. Chlorhexidine-impregnated transparent dressings decrease catheter-related infections in hemodialysis patients: a quality improvement project. J Vasc Access. 2017;18(2):103–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Beard-Pegler MA, Stubbs E, Vickery AM. Observations on the resistance to drying of staphylococcal strains. J Med Microbiol. 1988;26(4):251–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Verran J, Whitehead K. Factors affecting microbial adhesion to stainless steel and other materials used in medical devices. Int J Artif Organs. 2005;28(11):1138–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M, Monnet DL, et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):318–27.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Valencia-Martín R, Gonzalez-Galan V, Alvarez-Marín R, Cazalla-Foncueva AM, Aldabó T, Gil-Navarro MV, et al. A multimodal intervention program to control a long-term Acinetobacter baumannii endemic in a tertiary care hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:199.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Thom KA, Johnson JK, Lee MS, Harris AD. Environmental contamination because of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii surrounding colonized or infected patients. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(9):711–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Warde E, Davies E, Ward A. Control of a multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii outbreak. British Journal of Nursing. 2019;28(4):242–8.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Denton M, Wilcox MH, Parnell P, Green D, Keer V, Hawkey PM, et al. Role of environmental cleaning in controlling an outbreak of Acinetobacter baumannii on a neurosurgical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56(2):106–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    de Regt MJA, van der Wagen LE, Top J, Blok HEM, Hopmans TEM, Dekker AW, et al. High acquisition and environmental contamination rates of CC17 ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a Dutch hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(6):1401–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zárate MS, Gales A, Jordá-Vargas L, Yahni D, Relloso S, Bonvehi P, et al. Environmental contamination during a vancomycin-resistant Enterococci outbreak at a hospital in Argentina. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. 2007;25(8):508–12.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bressan R, Knezevich A, Monticelli J, Campanile F, Busetti M, Santagati M, et al. Spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus faecium isolates despite validated infection control measures in an Italian hospital: antibiotic resistance and genotypic characterization of the endemic strain. Microbial Drug Resist. 2018;24(8):1148–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    D’Souza AW, Potter RF, Wallace M, Shupe A, Patel S, Sun X, et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of multidrug resistant bacteria on intensive care unit surfaces. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4569.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Truong VI, Kumar SR, Pang J, Liu YK, Chen DW, Lue SJ. Synergistic antibacterial activity of silver-loaded graphene oxide towards Staphylococcus Aureus and Escherichia Coli. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(2):366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sehmi SK, Lourenco C, Alkhuder K, Pike SD, Noimark S, Williams CK, et al. Antibacterial surfaces with activity against antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens and endospores. ACS Infect Dis. 2020;6(5):939–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dauvergne E, Lacquemant C, Adjidé C, Mullié C. Validation of a worst-case scenario method adapted to the healthcare environment for testing the antibacterial effect of brass surfaces and implementation on hospital antibiotic-resistant strains. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(5):245.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Caselli E, D’Accolti M, Soffritti I, Lanzoni L, Bisi M, Volta A, et al. An innovative strategy for the effective reduction of MDR pathogens from the nosocomial environment. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1214:79–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jawad A, Seifert H, Snelling AM, Heritage J, Hawkey PM. Survival of Acinetobacter baumannii on dry surfaces: comparison of outbreak and sporadic isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(7):1938–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Skerniškytė J, Krasauskas R, Péchoux C, Kulakauskas S, Armalytė J, Sužiedėlienė E. Surface-related features and virulence among Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates belonging to international clones I and II. Front Microbiol. 2019;9:3116.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Farrow JM, Wells G, Pesci EC. Desiccation tolerance in Acinetobacter baumannii is mediated by the two-component response regulator BfmR. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0205638.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chatterjee S, Samal B, Singh P, Pradhan BB, Verma RK. Transition of a solitary to a biofilm community life style in bacteria: a survival strategy with division of labour. Int J Dev Biol. 2020;64(4):269–75.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Orsinger-Jacobsen SJ, Patel SS, Vellozzi EM, Gialanella P, Nimrichter L, Miranda K, et al. Use of a stainless steel washer platform to study Acinetobacter baumannii adhesion and biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. Microbiology (Reading, Engl ). 2013;159(Pt 12):2594–604.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Gök ŞM, Dağı HT, Kara F, Arslan U, Fındık D. Investigation of antibiotic resistance and virulence factors of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis strains isolated from clinical samples. Mikrobiyoloji bulteni. 2020;54(1):26–39.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Shridhar S, Dhanashree B. Antibiotic susceptibility pattern and biofilm formation in clinical isolates of Enterococcus spp. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2019;2019:7854968.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Soltani S, Arshadi M, Getso MI, Aminharati F, Mahmoudi M, Pourmand MR. Prevalence of virulence genes and their association with biofilm formation in VRE faecium isolates from Ahvaz. Iran J Infect Dev Ctries. 2018;12(11):970–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Weng PL, Ramli R, Hamat RA. Antibiotic susceptibility patterns, biofilm formation and esp gene among clinical Enterococci: is there any association? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3439.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ghaziasgar FS, Poursina F, Hassanzadeh A. Virulence factors, biofilm formation and antibiotic resistance pattern in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolated from clinical and commensal human samples in Isfahan. Iran Ann Ig. 2019;31(2):154–64.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chapartegui-González I, Lázaro-Díez M, Bravo Z, Navas J, Icardo JM, Ramos-Vivas J. Acinetobacter baumannii maintains its virulence after long-time starvation. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0201961.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gaca AO, Lemos JA. Adaptation to adversity: the intermingling of stress tolerance and pathogenesis in Enterococci. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2019;83(3):e00008-19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Bale MJ, Bennett PM, Benninger JE, Hinton M. The survival of bacteria exposed to desiccation on surfaces associated with farm buildings. J Appl Bacteriol. 1993;75(6):519–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Dickgiesser N. Behaviour of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria in dry and moist atmosphere. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene, I Abt Orig. 1978;167(1–2):48–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gundermann KO. Life-span of bacterial strains in dust as influenced by various degrees of air humidity. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene. 1972;156(4):422–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Jawad A, Heritage J, Snelling AM, GascoyneBinzi DM, Hawkey PM. Influence of relative humidity and suspending menstrua on survival of Acinetobacter spp. on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34(12):2881–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Kampf G, Dietze B, Große-Siestrup C, Wendt C, Martiny H. Microbicidal Activity of a New Silver-Containing Polymer SPI-ARGENT II. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1998;42(9):2440–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Noskin GA, Stosor V, Cooper I, Peterson LR. Recovery of vancomycin-resistant enterococci on fingertips and environmental surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16(10):577–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Panagea S, Winstanley C, Walshaw MJ, Ledson MJ, Hart CA. Environmental contamination with an epidemic strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Liverpool cystic fibrosis centre, and study of its survival on dry surfaces. J Hosp Infect. 2005;59(2):102–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Scott E, Bloomfield SF. The survival and transfer of microbial contamination via cloths, hands and utensils. J Appl Bacteriol. 1990;68(3):271–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Wagenvoort JH, Sluijsman W, Penders RJ. Better environmental survival of outbreak vs sporadic MRSA isolates. J Hosp Infect. 2000;45(3):231–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Wagenvoort JHT, Penders RJR. Long-term in-vitro survival of an epidemic MRSA phage-group III-29 strain. J Hosp Infect. 1997;35(4):322–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Webster C, Towner KJ, Humphreys H. Survival of Acinetobacter on three clinically related inanimate surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21(4):246.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wendt C, Wiestenthal B, Dietz E, Rüden H. Survival of vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible Enterococci on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(12):3734–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Weterings V, Veenemans J, Kleefman A, den Bergh MK, Mulder P, Verhulst C, et al. Evaluation of an in vitro model with a novel statistical approach to measure differences in bacterial survival of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli on an inanimate surface. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:106.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Wilks SA, Michels H, Keevil CW. The survival of Escherichia coli O157 on a range of metal surfaces. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005;105(3):445–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There are no further acknowledgements.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RHK: performing the experiments. Critical appraisal of results. Writing the manuscript. AR: Advise on methodology. Critical appraisal of results. RPV: conception of the study. Critical appraisal of results. Writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf-Peter Vonberg.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. There were no human participants involved in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. There were no human participants involved in this study.

Competing interests

All authors declare that there is no financial or any other type of conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Katzenberger, R.H., Rösel, A. & Vonberg, RP. Bacterial survival on inanimate surfaces: a field study. BMC Res Notes 14, 97 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05492-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nosocomial transmission
  • Bacterial survival
  • Environment
  • Inanimate surface