Inside Disinfectant R&D: What Infection Preventionists Need to Know About Efficacy, Safety, and Real-World Performance

Infection preventionists (IP) rely on disinfectants and prevention technologies every day, but few have visibility into the rigorous research and development process that determines whether those products perform safely and reliably in real clinical environments. Behind every label claim lies a series of regulatory-aligned tests, formulation decisions, toxicological reviews, and performance benchmarks designed to balance efficacy with safety, usability, and workflow realities.

In this Q&A with Infection Control Today^® (ICT^®), Candice Taylor, MA, vice president of research & development at PDI, offers a behind-the-scenes look at how disinfectants are designed, validated, and monitored before and after they reach health care settings. From pathogen-specific lab testing and formulation science to antimicrobial resistance surveillance and emerging artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled innovation, Taylor explains how research and development (R&D) builds the foundation of trust that infection preventionists depend on every day.

This conversation highlights why understanding what happens before market release is not just academic curiosity. It is central to product confidence, regulatory transparency, and long-term infection prevention strategy.

ICT: Why should IPs care about what happens in R&D before a disinfectant or prevention technology reaches the market?

Candice Taylor, MA: In fast‑paced clinical environments, IPs depend on products they can trust to perform reliably without adding risk or complexity to care delivery. What happens in R&D before a product reaches the market directly determines whether that trust is earned.

R&D ensures products are not only efficacious but also safe for repeated clinical use and designed to perform consistently within real healthcare workflows. Disinfectants must strike a careful balance—powerful enough to inactivate clinically relevant organisms, yet appropriate for frequent use around patients, healthcare workers, and sensitive equipment.

Equally important, R&D is where claims are proven, not promised. Through rigorous testing and regulatory-aligned validation, products are clearly positioned for their intended use, giving IPs confidence in both performance and transparency.

ICT: When a product claims efficacy against specific pathogens, what does that testing actually look like in the lab?

CT: Pathogen‑specific claims are supported by standardized laboratory testing conducted under strict regulatory oversight. Products are challenged against defined organisms using validated methods that specify surface type, contact time, soil load, and performance benchmarks.

Critically, products are tested as they are sold and used—not as idealized formulations. Systems such as ready-to-use wipes are evaluated as complete products, including formulation, substrate, and packaging. If required benchmarks are not met, claims are not made.

This process ensures that label claims reflect validated, regulator‑reviewed performance rather than assumptions.

ICT: Lab conditions are controlled, but hospitals are not. How do you account for the gap between laboratory efficacy and real‑world performance?

CT: That gap is real, and it’s one R&D intentionally plans for. Required laboratory testing is designed to be conservative and demanding, often stressing products under conditions more extreme than typical use.

Beyond required testing, R&D evaluates real-world factors such as workflow pressure, shortened contact times, repeated use, and ease of application. Human factors matter because even highly efficacious chemistry can fall short if it cannot be used correctly and consistently.

The goal is confidence, designing products that perform reliably outside the lab, where conditions are anything but controlled.

ICT: Can you walk us through formulation science?

CT: Formulation science is where the product development process becomes deliberate. Researchers begin by defining the intended use—what pathogens need to be addressed, where the product will be used, and how often.

Active ingredients are selected not just for antimicrobial strength, but for appropriateness in health care settings. Formulations are stabilized through careful evaluation of ingredient interactions, packaging, and delivery systems, and products are tested as complete systems to ensure consistent performance over time.

Throughout development, efficacy is continuously balanced with safety and usability, resulting in formulations designed to work in the lab and in real-world clinical practice.

ICT: With increasing concern about antimicrobial resistance and disinfectant tolerance, how do R&D teams monitor for reduced susceptibility over time?

CT: R&D teams anchor products to rigorous performance benchmarks and monitor them closely for deviation over time. Products are validated under conservative conditions to establish a clear baseline for expected performance.

Red flags include unexpected reductions in efficacy, narrowing margins at the lower certified limit, or repeat patterns suggesting reduced susceptibility rather than normal variability. Any signal prompts a deeper investigation.

This monitoring is paired with toxicological screening conducted in line with regulatory guidelines to ensure that maintaining efficacy does not introduce new risk. Together, this approach helps ensure products remain effective, safe, and appropriate for repeated use.

ICT: How do you balance efficacy with human factors like surface compatibility, respiratory safety, dwell time practicality, and workflow realities?

CT: That balance is built into the development process from the start. R&D does not evaluate efficacy in isolation; success is defined as chemistry that works under regulatory testing and can be used correctly and consistently in real clinical environments.

Antimicrobial performance is evaluated alongside surface compatibility, exposure considerations, and practical dwell times. Products are assessed as complete systems with attention to how they fit into daily workflows.

Human factors matter because real‑world effectiveness depends on use, not just chemistry. The result is a disciplined trade‑off: validated efficacy paired with safety, practicality, and usability.

ICT: Looking ahead, what innovations in infection prevention are you most excited about, and how is R&D evolving to meet emerging threats?

CT: What’s most exciting is how infection prevention is advancing alongside technology while remaining grounded in strong scientific fundamentals. R&D is increasingly using digital tools, data, and emerging AI-enabled capabilities to better anticipate risk, understand performance margins, and design solutions that remain reliable as conditions evolve.

At the same time, innovation is not just about efficacy. R&D is placing greater emphasis on product safety, sustainability, and environmental responsibility, ensuring formulations are appropriate for repeated use and considerate of their broader impact.

Rather than reacting to individual threats, R&D is focused on building resilient, adaptable solutions. By combining advancing technology with safety, stewardship, and real-world design, R&D helps ensure infection prevention solutions are effective today and prepared for what comes next.