Content uploaded by Phyllis Kuhn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Phyllis Kuhn on Aug 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Search
Mission
CDA Staff
CDA Offices
Press Room
Membership
Member Login
A
ntimicrobial
Surfaces
A
rchitecture
A
utomotive
Electrical
Building Wire
Energy Efficiency
Power Quality
Tube, Pipe & Fittings
Fuel Gas
Industrial
Seawater
Machined Products
Telecommunications
Copper Compounds
Find Suppliers Of
Copper
Copper Data Center
Standards &
Properties
A
pplications Directory
Market Data
Publications List
Discover Copper
Magazine
Copper Facts
Copper Through The
Ag
es
The Statue Of Liberty
Copper Production
The History Of
Copper In The U.S.
60 Centuries Of
Copper
Copper In the Arts
Copper In Your
Home
Recycling Copper
Copper In Drinking
Water
Copper & the Natural
Environment
Home > Applications > Antimicrobial Copper Surfaces > Additional Research Information > Doorknobs: A Source of
Nosocomial Infection?
Doorknobs: A Source of Nosocomial Infection?
by Phyllis J. Kuhn, Ph.D.
DISCLAIMER: The following article is based upon independent scientific research and is provided for
informational purposes only. The conclusions reached in this article are the opinions of the researchers and
authors. U.S. EPA-approved testing demonstrates antimicrobial effectiveness for copper alloys against
only the following organisms: Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacter aerogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). References to
effectiveness against Streptococcus have not been proven by U.S. EPA-approved testing and are only the product
of initial exploratory testing. No claim of antimicrobial effectiveness is made, either express of implied, with
regard to these organisms. Additionally, copper alloy surfaces are not approved for use in direct food-contact
applications.
Sleek and shining stainless steel doorknobs and push plates look reassuringly clean on a hospital door. By
contrast, doorknobs and push plates of tarnished brass look dirty and contaminating. But even when tarnished,
brass – an alloy typically of 67% copper and 33% zinc – is bactericidal, while stainless steel – about 88% iron and
12% chromium – does little to impede bacterial growth. My interest in comparing hardware on hospital doors arose
from in-service training conducted for housekeeping and maintenance personnel at Hamot Medical center. To
heighten their awareness of modes of infection, the students were given blood agar plates and instructions on their
use, and they returned with cultures from such diverse sources as toilet bowl water (remarkably clean), salad from
the employees’ cafeteria (heavily colonized), and doorknobs. Brass doorknob cultures showed sparse
streptococcal and staphylococcal growth; stainless steel doorknob cultures showed heavy growth of Gram-positive
organisms and an array of Gram-negative organisms, including Proteus species.
In a later pursuit of the investigation of bacterial growth on metal, small strips of stainless steel, brass, aluminum,
and copper were inoculated with broths of Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus group D, and
Pseudomonas species. The broths contained approximately 10,000,000 bacteria/ml, a very heavy inoculum. Then
the strips were air-dried for 24 hours at room temperature, inoculated onto blood agar plates, and incubated for 24
hours at 37°C.
The results were striking. The copper and brass showed little or no growth, while the aluminum and stainless steel
produced a heavy growth of all microbes.
How fast did the microbes die on copper and brass? The test was repeated at drying intervals of 15 minutes, I
hour, 5 hours, 7 hours, 20 hours, and 24 hours. Brass disinfected itself in seven hours or less, depending on the
inoculum size and the condition of the surface of the metal, freshly scoured brass disinfecting itself in one hour.
Copper disinfected itself of some microbes within 15 minutes. Aluminum and stainless steel produced heavy
growths of all isolates after eight days and growths of most isolates (except Pseudomonas) when I ended that part
of my investigation after three weeks.
In the next part of the investigation, brass and copper strips were covered with seeded agar and incubated in
culture for 24 hours. Because the metals are toxic, I expected a zone of inhibition around the strips, but instead,
most of the bacteria piled up by the edges of the strips. Why? According to the Arndt-Shultz law, low levels of
poisons tend to stimulate biological activity rather than depress it¹, making an organism’s membrane more
permeable to entry by nutrients. Streptococcus group D, however, grew equally well around and over the metal.
To determine whether bacteria in the clear areas under the seeded agar were killed or merely inhibited, the areas
were replica-plated. (This consists of tamping a sterile nubby material like velveteen on a culture plate and
inoculating it onto a fresh plate. The technique allows the transferred bacteria to proliferate-if they are still viable.)
Replica plates from the stainless steel and aluminum strips grew, while replica plates from the brass and copper
strips did not. Scanning electron micrographs of the surfaces of the metals showed that E. coli was completely
disrupted on the brass while remaining intact on the stainless steel.1
What are the implications? Culturing a stainless steel knob on a door between a burn unit and an intensive-care
unit, I found a multiply resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis with a susceptibility pattern identical to that found in
the blood of a septic patient in the intensive-care unit. Cultures of wounds of several other patients yielded similar
organisms. None of these observations prove cause, of course, but they ought to impress us with the need to take
precautions, particularly in the presence of multiply resistant microbes.
Page 1 of 2Applications: Antimicrobial Copper Surfaces - Doorknobs: A Source of Nosocomial Infe...
9/26/2008htt
p
://64.90.169.159/a
pp
lications/antimicrobial/
p
a
p
ers/doorknob.html
Ironically, stainless steel is actually more expensive than steel coated with brass – $117 vs. $108 for the hardware
for one door, according to one price quotation. If your hospital is being renovated, try to retain old brass hardware
or have it repeated; if you have stainless steel hardware, make certain that it is disinfected daily, especially in
critical-care areas.
We have known for years that certain metals are toxic to bacteria. It is the application of this knowledge to better
infection control that warrants further attention.
Reference
1. Lamanna C. and Mallette MF. Chemical disinfection. In: Basic Bacteriology, Its Biological and chemical
Background. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1965, p 897.
© 1983 and published by Medical Economics Company Inc., at Oradell, N.J. 07649. All rights reserved. None of the content
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocop
y
in
g
, recordin
g
, or otherwise
)
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Home | About CDA | Applications | Copper & Human Health | Resources & Tools | Education | Copper In Your Home | Copper & the Environment |
Innovations
Copyright © 2008 Copper Development Association | All Rights Reserved |Terms of Use |Link to Us |Email Us | Member of ICA Global Network
Page 2 of 2Applications: Antimicrobial Copper Surfaces - Doorknobs: A Source of Nosocomial Infe...
9/26/2008htt
p
://64.90.169.159/a
pp
lications/antimicrobial/
p
a
p
ers/doorknob.html