AAC
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kilvington, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, R.
Right arrow Articles by Kilvington, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, July 2001, p. 2038-2043, Vol. 45, No. 7
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.7.2038-2043.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Contact Lens Disinfection Systems and Solutions against Acanthamoeba polyphaga

Reanne Hughes and Simon Kilvington*

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 9HN, United Kingdom

Received 19 January 2001/Returned for modification 26 March 2001/Accepted 24 April 2001

Acanthamoeba is a free-living amoeba causing a potentially blinding infection of the cornea. Contact lens wearers are most at risk and account for some 95% of cases. Hydrogen peroxide is used for contact lens disinfection due to its broad antimicrobial activity. Lenses must be neutralized before use to avoid pronounced stinging and possible corneal damage. Neutralization is achieved by adding a catalyst during the disinfection process (one-step) or afterwards (two-step). Here, the activities of commercial peroxide systems and individual solutions against trophozoites and cysts of Acanthamoeba polyphaga were compared. All disinfection systems were active against trophozoites, giving a >= 3-log (99.9%) kill within 1 h. Of the four one-step systems, only one showed some cysticidal activity, giving a 1.28 ± 0.41-log reduction. Both two-step systems were cysticidal, giving a >= 3-log kill at 4 h. All system peroxide solutions were cysticidal, giving a >= 3-log kill by 4 to 6 h. Variation in the cysticidal rate was observed with two solutions that gave a 1.8- to 2.1-log kill at 4 h compared with 3.0 to 4.0 for the rest (P < 0.05). No cysticidal activity was found with the peroxigen sodium perborate or the contact lens protein remover subtilisin A. Two-step systems are cysticidal providing contact times of at least 4 h are employed. Variation in cyst killing occurs between peroxide solutions, possibly due to formulation differences. One-step systems are less effective against Acanthamoeba cysts due to rapid peroxide neutralization. The cysticidal activity of one-step systems could be improved if neutralization rates were retarded.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Leicester, Medical Sciences Building, P.O. Box 138, University Rd., Leicester LE1 9HN, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 (0) 116 252 2950. Fax: 44 (0) 116 252 5030. E-mail: sk46{at}leicester.ac.uk.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, July 2001, p. 2038-2043, Vol. 45, No. 7
0066-4804/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/AAC.45.7.2038-2043.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
J. Clin. Microbiol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.