Skip to content
1887

Microbiology Society logo Microbiology

Volume 172, Issue 4

Identifying markers of biofilm formation on medical-grade stainless steel as a representative medical device material Open Access

Abstract

Reusable medical devices are reprocessed between uses, including cleaning and, as necessary, disinfection or sterilization. Healthcare-associated infections have been attributed to reusable medical devices and linked to inadequate reprocessing, which can result in residual soil on the device, insufficient disinfection, microbial resistance to used disinfectants and biofilm-related contamination. These factors can lead to microbial proliferation on and biofouling of reusable medical devices, increasing the risk of patient infection. While there are FDA-recognized standards for cleaning validation (including artificial test soils), there is a lack of standards or guidance documents available to advise on determining whether biofilm has been adequately cleaned off reusable devices after reprocessing. Additionally, relatively few studies report reproducible models of biofilm formation on medical devices or device materials; such models are necessary to begin the identification of the microbial biofilm burden present before and after reprocessing. Moreover, appropriate analytes to quantify that biofilm burden, and the endpoints of those analytes after reprocessing, need to be determined. The study described herein utilized a drip flow reactor (DFR) to develop single-species biofilms of two Gram-negative ( and ) and two Gram-positive ( and ) bacterial species that are prone to contaminate medical devices as biofilms. Biofilm was extracted at early and late biofilm stages and then tested for several analytes, including protein, ATP, endotoxin, peptidoglycan and total organic carbon. The levels of these analytes were compared to c.f.u. and metabolic activity to qualitatively compare analyte levels with biofilm burden. The results presented demonstrate that the DFR can be used to model biofilm formation of several medically relevant micro-organisms on stainless steel. Furthermore, the analytical data obtained with this study indicate that the analytes used can be a good starting point for informing the selection of endpoints in future studies that evaluate the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection within the context of biofilm reduction.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): biofilm , medical device and reprocessing
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
    • Principal Award Recipient: RuchiPandey
© 2026 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001684
2026-04-01
2026-04-14

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/172/4/mic001684.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001684&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Spaulding E, Lawrence CBS. Chemical Disinfection of Medical and Surgical Materials. In Lawrence CBS. eds Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1968 pp 517–531
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Kremer T, Rowan NJ, McDonnell G. A proposed cleaning classification system for reusable medical devices to complement the Spaulding classification. J Hosp Infect 2024; 145:88–98 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ANSI/AAMI ST91:2021 Flexible and Semi-Rigid Endoscope Processing in Health Care Facilities. Arlington, VA: AAMI;
  4. FDA Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. US Food & Drug Administration;
  5. ISO 17664-2:2021 Processing of Health Care Products - Information to Be Provided by the Medical Device Manufacturer for the Processing of Medical Devices - Part 2: Non-Critical Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization;
  6. ISO 17664-1:2021 Processing of Health Care Products - Information to Be Provided by the Medical Device Manufacturer for the Processing of Medical Devices - Part 1: Critical and Semi-Critical Medical Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization;
  7. ANSI/AAMI ST98:2022 Cleaning Validation of Health Care Products--Requirements for Development and Validation of a Cleaning Process for Medical Devices. Arlington, VA: AAMI; 2022
  8. ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 1: Evaluation and Testing within a Risk Management Process. Arlington, VA: AAMI;
  9. Houri H, Aghdaei HA, Firuzabadi S, Khorsand B, Soltanpoor F et al. High prevalence rate of microbial contamination in patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes in Tehran, Iran: an alarming sign for the occurrence of severe outbreaks. Microbiol Spectr 2022; 10:e0189722 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FDA Use duodenoscopes with innovative designs to enhance safety: FDA safety communication. n.d https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/use-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication2022
  11. Mishra A, Aggarwal A, Khan F. Medical device-associated infections caused by biofilm-forming microbial pathogens and controlling strategies. Antibiotics (Basel) 2024; 13:623 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bouhrour N, Nibbering PH, Bendali F. Medical device-associated biofilm infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens. Pathogens 2024; 13:393 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Caldara M, Belgiovine C, Secchi E, Rusconi R. Environmental, microbiological, and immunological features of bacterial biofilms associated with implanted medical devices. Clin Microbiol Rev 2022; 35:e0022120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Donlan RM. Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:277–281 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jamal M, Ahmad W, Andleeb S, Jalil F, Imran M et al. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections. J Chin Med Assoc 2018; 81:7–11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Karvouniaris M, Brotis A, Tsiakos K, Palli E, Koulenti D. Current perspectives on the diagnosis and management of healthcare-associated ventriculitis and meningitis. Infect Drug Resist 2022; 15:697–721 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mehta AC, Muscarella LF. Bronchoscope-related “Superbug” infections. Chest 2020; 157:454–469 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, Franz C, Song P et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173:2039–2046 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Scott RD II, Culler SD, Baggs J, Reddy SC, Slifka KJ et al. Measuring the direct medical costs of hospital-onset infections using an analogy costing framework. PharmacoEconomics 2024; 42:1127–1144 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Anderson DJ, Sickbert-Bennett EE. Biofilms on medical instruments and surfaces: Do they interfere with instrument reprocessing and surface disinfection. Am J Infect Control 2023; 51:A114–A119 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Azeredo J, Azevedo NF, Briandet R, Cerca N, Coenye T et al. Critical review on biofilm methods. Biofouling 2017; 43:313–351 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sharma S, Mohler J, Mahajan SD, Schwartz SA, Bruggemann L et al. Microbial biofilm: a review on formation, infection, antibiotic resistance, control measures, and innovative treatment. Microorganisms 2023; 11:1614 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Alfa MJ, Howie R. Modeling microbial survival in buildup biofilm for complex medical devices. BMC Infect Dis 2009; 9:56 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Alfa MJ, Ribeiro MM, da Costa Luciano C, Franca R, Olson N et al. A novel polytetrafluoroethylene-channel model, which simulates low levels of culturable bacteria in buildup biofilm after repeated endoscope reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86:442–451 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ribeiro MM, Graziano KU, Olson N, França R, Alfa MJ. The polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) channel model of cyclic-buildup biofilm and traditional biofilm: the impact of friction, and detergent on cleaning and subsequent high-level disinfection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41:172–180 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Wong M, Wang Y, Wang H, Marrone AK, Haugen SP et al. Research: fluorescence microscopy-based protocol for detecting residual bacteria on medical devices. Biomed Instrum Technol 2020; 54:397–409 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Anderson GG, James S, Kovvali S, Dang FW, Vishwakarma A et al. Comparison of two models of biofilm formation on reusable stainless steel medical device material. J Hosp Infect 2026; 168:23–30 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Goeres DM, Hamilton MA, Beck NA, Buckingham-Meyer K, Hilyard JD et al. A method for growing a biofilm under low shear at the air-liquid interface using the drip flow biofilm reactor. Nat Protoc 2009; 4:783–788 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. ASTM E2647-20 Standard Test Method for Quantification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Grown Using Drip Flow Biofilm Reactor with Low Shear and Continuous Flow. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM;
  30. Alfa MJ, Singh H. Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91:236–247 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Balan GG, Sfarti CV, Chiriac SA, Stanciu C, Trifan A. Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 38:2205–2213 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kovaleva J. Endoscope drying and its pitfalls. J Hosp Infect 2017; 97:319–328 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Dong D, Thomas N, Ramezanpour M, Psaltis AJ, Huang S et al. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms by quatsomes in low concentrations. Exp Biol Med 2020; 245:34–41 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pettit RK, Weber CA, Kean MJ, Hoffmann H, Pettit GR et al. Microplate Alamar blue assay for Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49:2612–2617 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Redelman CV, Maduakolam C, Anderson GG. Alcohol treatment enhances Staphylococcus aureus biofilm development. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2012; 66:411–418 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Keogh D, Lam LN, Doyle LE, Matysik A, Pavagadhi S et al. Extracellular electron transfer powers Enterococcus faecalis biofilm metabolism. mBio 2018; 9:e00626-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Miao J, Lin S, Soteyome T, Peters BM, Li Y et al. Biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus under food heat processing conditions: first report on CML production within biofilm. Sci Rep 2019; 9:1312 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Moormeier DE, Bose JL, Horswill AR, Bayles KW. Temporal and stochastic control of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm development. mBio 2014; 5:e01341-14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schaffer SD, Hutchison CA, Rouchon CN, Mdluli NV, Weinstein AJ et al. Diverse Enterococcus faecalis strains show heterogeneity in biofilm properties. Res Microbiol 2023; 174:103986 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Frey AD, Kallio PT. Bacterial hemoglobins and flavohemoglobins: versatile proteins and their impact on microbiology and biotechnology. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2003; 27:525–545 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Webster DA, Dikshit KL, Pagilla KR, Stark BC. The discovery of Vitreoscilla hemoglobin and early studies on its biochemical functions, the control of its expression, and its use in practical applications. Microorganisms 2021; 9:1637 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Benincasa M, Lagatolla C, Dolzani L, Milan A, Pacor S et al. Biofilms from Klebsiella pneumoniae: matrix polysaccharide structure and interactions with antimicrobial peptides. Microorganisms 2016; 4:26 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Cescutti P, De Benedetto G, Rizzo R. Structural determination of the polysaccharide isolated from biofilms produced by a clinical strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Carbohydr Res 2016; 430:29–35 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ran SJ, Jiang W, Zhu CL, Liang JP. Exploration of the mechanisms of biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis in glucose starvation environments. Aust Dent J 2015; 60:143–153 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sadovskaya I, Chaignon P, Kogan G, Chokr A, Vinogradov E et al. Carbohydrate-containing components of biofilms produced in vitro by some staphylococcal strains related to orthopaedic prosthesis infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2006; 47:75–82 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Steinberger RE, Holden PA. Macromolecular composition of unsaturated Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms with time and carbon source. Biofilms 2004; 1:37–47 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sugimoto S, Sato F, Miyakawa R, Chiba A, Onodera S et al. Broad impact of extracellular DNA on biofilm formation by clinically isolated Methicillin-resistant and -sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Sci Rep 2018; 8:2254 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Rioufol C, Devys C, Meunier G, Perraud M, Goullet D. Quantitative determination of endotoxins released by bacterial biofilms. J Hosp Infect 1999; 43:203–209 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson C, Lukowicz R, Merchant S, Valquier-Flynn H, Caballero J et al. Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods for biofilm growth: a mini-review. Res Rev J Eng Technol 2017; 6: [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Alfa MJ, Degagne P, Olson N. Worst-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1999; 27:392–401 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Alfa MJ. Medical instrument reprocessing: current issues with cleaning and cleaning monitoring. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47S:A10–A16 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Chan ASF, Chan HLY, Yan BKL, Lai MKC. Effectiveness of adenosine triphosphate to monitor manual cleaning and disinfection efficacy of flexible endoscopes in Hong Kong. JGH Open 2023; 7:141–147 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Haas B, James S, Parker AE, Gagnon MC, Goulet N et al. Comparison of quantification methods for an endoscope lumen biofilm model. Biofilm 2023; 6:100163 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mandakhalikar KD, Rahmat JN, Chiong E, Neoh KG, Shen L et al. Extraction and quantification of biofilm bacteria: method optimized for urinary catheters. Sci Rep 2018; 8:8069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Herten M, Bisdas T, Knaack D, Becker K, Osada N et al. Rapid in vitro quantification of S. aureus biofilms on vascular graft surfaces. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:2333 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Guan A, Wang Y, Phillips KS. An extraction free modified o-phthalaldehyde assay for quantifying residual protein and microbial biofilms on surfaces. Biofouling 2018; 34:925–934 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001684
Loading
Identifying markers of biofilm formation on medical-grade stainless steel as a representative medical device material
Microbiology 172, 001684 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.001684
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001684
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001684
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error