|Articles|May 3, 2006

Two out of Four Disinfectants for Cleaning Eye Exam Equipment are Ineffective, Study Reveals

Two of four disinfectants recommended for cleaning eye exam equipment are ineffective, a new study concludes.

Many people who have had eye exams are familiar with the applanation tonometer, a medical instrument pen that is used to check the pressure in your eyes. After the patient is given numbing eyedrops, an applanation tonometer is applied gently to the front surface of the eye and provides a pressure reading to check for glaucoma. Healthcare workers are required to disinfect the applanation tonometer after each use.

However, a new study conducted by the University of North Carolina Health Care System has found that two of four disinfectants recommended for this purpose by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are ineffective at inactivating adenovirus type 8, which is a common cause of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis outbreaks in eye clinics.

Fortunately, two disinfectants recommended by the CDC and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) -- 70 percent ethyl alcohol and 5,000 parts per million chlorine -- were found to be effective in removing a test virus after 1 minute of contact.

"While adenovirus type 8 is relatively resistant to disinfectants, it is fortunate that these two disinfectants work well," said Dr. William A. Rutala, UNC Health Care's director of hospital epidemiology and a professor in the UNC School of Medicine. "The two disinfectants that did not inactivate adenovirus type 8 -- 3 percent hydrogen peroxide and 70 percent isopropyl alcohol -- should no longer be used for disinfecting applanation tonometers."

These results were published in the April issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Large outbreaks of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis have been documented in eye clinics and hospitals. In such settings it is typically transmitted by the hands of medical caregivers or contaminated eye exam equipment, such as tonometers and slit lamps, or contaminated ophthalmic solutions. However, only one prior study examined the effectiveness of a single germicide in removing adenovirus type 8, which can survive on plastic and metal surfaces for more than 30 days.

Against this backdrop, Rutala and colleagues set out to determine the effectiveness of 21 germicides against adenovirus type 8 under various test conditions. They contaminated metal disks with the virus and tested each germicide under five separate conditions: with the germicide mixed with hard water and contact times of 1 minute and 5 minutes, with the germicide mixed with hard water plus 5 percent fetal calf serum and contact times of 1 minute and 5 minutes, and with the germicide mixed with sterile water for a contact time of 1 minute.

Based on their results, the researchers recommended that eye exam equipment be disinfected with 70 percent ethyl alcohol or 5,000 parts per million chlorine. In addition, healthcare workers who handle the equipment should wash their hands with antimicrobial soap and water instead of alcohol-based hand rubs. Previous research conducted at UNC Health Care found that alcohol-based hand rubs are not as effective as soap and water against viruses such as adenovirus type 8.

Rutala was lead author of the study. His co-authors were Jeffrey E. Peacock, a second-year medical student at Wake Forest University; Maria F. Gergen, a medical technologist at UNC Hospitals; Mark D. Sobsey, professor of environmental sciences and engineering in the UNC School of Public Health; and Dr. David J. Weber, medical director of Hospital Epidemiology for the UNC Health Care System. Weber is also a professor in the UNC Schools of Medicine and Public Health.

Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine

 

 

 

 


Related to this article

Infection preventionists in full PPE with children in DRC.  (Image credit: author with AI)
Nearly 4 months into the DRC's Bundibugyo virus disease outbreak, some indicators suggest transmission may be slowing. But shifting hotspots, treatment-center capacity problems, community deaths, and incomplete surveillance data show why national case totals alone cannot determine whether containment has been achieved.
Health care workers from the US speaking with other health care workers in DRC.  (Image credit: author with AI)
Is the Ebola outbreak in the DRC getting better? The answer depends on which numbers you examine. Several important indicators are moving in the right direction, including slower case growth and a declining Rₜ. But major gaps remain in contact tracing, testing, community deaths, safe burial coverage, and treatment capacity in some of the hardest-hit areas. ICT takes a deeper look at the latest outbreak data and why the numbers suggest cautious optimism, not victory.
Dyan Troxell, MSN, RN, director of clinical education at HandCraft Linen Services; J.J. Odom, MBA, CHESP, CMIP, T-CHEST, university director of buildings and grounds for UConn Health and chair-elect of the AHE Board; and Jenna Rivers, MPH, CPH, CIC, manager of infection prevention and control at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida.
At AHE Exchange 2026, ICT spoke with experts representing commercial laundry services, EVS, and infection prevention about the systems behind a successful reusable linen program. They discuss linen quality, reject rates, unnecessary waste, frontline education, data, PAR levels, infection prevention oversight, and why strong relationships between health care facilities and their laundry providers matter.
A group of students raising their hands in class during a lecture  (Adobe Stock 292282454 by Mediteraneo
How do you celebrate an infection that never happened? That's one of the unusual challenges infection preventionists share with teachers. Both can spend their careers changing outcomes they may never see. Both educate people who don't always want to listen. Both are second-guessed. Both face burnout. And both must somehow keep remembering why they started.