Abstract

Importance: Healthcare surfaces are recognized reservoirs for pathogen transmission. Recent marketing claims surrounding “non-toxic,” residual, or “self-cleaning” disinfectants increasingly outpace independent validation, raising patient-safety concerns.

Objective: To critically examine disinfectant efficacy and durability claims using real-world observation and peer-reviewed evidence, and to propose an evidence-based framework for evaluating such claims in healthcare settings.

Evidence Review: Observational data from an environmental services demonstration at a national trade conference were examined alongside recent peer-reviewed studies on residual quaternary ammonium disinfectants, antimicrobial coatings, and surface hygiene practices. Regulatory guidance and infection prevention literature were reviewed to contextualize findings.

Findings: Marketing demonstrations emphasizing non-toxicity and contact-kill claims frequently neglect mechanical cleaning requirements and compatibility testing. Independent studies show that residual disinfectants marketed as providing long-term protection often fail to reduce microbial burden under real-world conditions. Antimicrobial coatings may contribute to a false sense of security when not integrated into comprehensive cleaning systems.

Conclusions and Relevance: There is no evidence supporting truly self-cleaning healthcare surfaces. Rigorous validation, compatibility testing, and integration with established cleaning protocols are non-negotiable for patient safety. Innovation without evidence represents unnecessary risk.

Introduction

Environmental surface hygiene is a foundational component of infection prevention in healthcare. Surfaces surrounding patients—particularly high-touch objects—serve as reservoirs for clinically relevant pathogens and contribute to indirect transmission via hands, equipment, and medical devices.^1,4 Claims related to disinfectant efficacy, residual activity, and self-cleaning surfaces therefore demand a level of scientific rigor commensurate with their potential impact on patient outcomes.

Despite this, marketing narratives increasingly promote disinfectants and coatings as “non-toxic,” “contact-killing,” or capable of providing extended protection with minimal human intervention. Such claims, when insufficiently validated, risk undermining established infection prevention principles.^2,3 This paper examines a real-world demonstration of such claims alongside contemporary peer-reviewed evidence and regulatory guidance to underscore why mechanical cleaning, validation, and systems-based approaches remain essential.

Observational case study: ISSA North America demonstration

At an ISSA North America event, an environmental services (EVS) leader conducted a bed-cleaning demonstration using a fluorescent marker (Glo Germ) to simulate contamination on patient-contact surfaces. The purpose of this method is well established: to visually reinforce that mechanical action—wiping, friction, and soil removal—is critical to effective cleaning and disinfection.^4,7

During the demonstration, a disinfectant representative asserted that his “non-toxic” spray product killed microbes on contact and eliminated the need for wiping. The product was applied to the fluorescent-marked surfaces and allowed to remain for the full label-specified contact time. Under ultraviolet light, simulated contamination remained clearly visible until mechanical wiping with a microfiber cloth was performed.

Two patient-safety concerns were immediately apparent. First, “non-toxicity” was repeatedly offered as reassurance when questions were raised regarding compatibility with topical medications, wound dressings, and fragile or compromised skin—particularly in burn patients. Toxicological claims alone do not establish safety under repeated exposure or in conjunction with other chemical and biological agents.^4,6,9 Second, the assertion that wiping was unnecessary contradicted both the product’s own label instructions and the well-established principle that cleaning and disinfection are inseparable processes.⁴

This interaction illustrates how theatrical demonstrations can obscure critical gaps between marketing claims and evidence-based practice.

Limitations of non-toxicity and label claims

Healthcare surfaces are complex and dynamic, accumulating residues from medications, emollients, adhesives, bodily fluids, and previous cleaning agents. Regulatory guidance emphasizes that disinfectant selection must balance antimicrobial efficacy with chemical safety, including compatibility with materials and patient exposure risk.⁸

Quaternary ammonium compounds and other biocides act on multiple microbial targets but may also interact non-specifically with polymers, tissues, and biological residues, particularly with repeated application or prolonged contact.^6,9 Claims of non-toxicity fail to address several essential questions for infection prevention and EVS leaders:

1. Has the formulation been tested for interactions with common topical medications and dressings?
2. What is the effect of repeated application on plastics, mattress covers, and coatings that contact skin or mucous membranes?
3. How does performance change in the presence of organic soil and real-world wiping patterns?

Without formal compatibility and safety testing under simulated-use or real-world conditions, reliance on non-toxicity language is scientifically insufficient and ethically problematic.^4,6

Durability claims under real-world conditions

Recent research published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology provides a rigorous evaluation of residual disinfectant claims.² Investigators examined a commercially available spray-on, surface-anchoring quaternary ammonium salt biocide marketed as providing 30-day antimicrobial protection. Microbial burden was measured on high-touch surfaces in an active microbiology laboratory for one month before and after application, while routine cleaning practices continued.

Across floors, benches, handles, and glass surfaces, statistical modeling demonstrated no meaningful reduction in microbial contamination at either five- or 30-days post-application. In some cases, the proportion of samples exceeding predefined microbial thresholds increased after treatment.² These findings indicate that, under real-world conditions involving abrasion, re-contamination, and routine cleaning, the advertised durability did not persist.

These results reinforce key principles for healthcare settings:

• Standardized laboratory testing does not reliably predict performance in high-touch clinical environments.^2,5
• Durability claims must account for routine cleaning agents, mechanical abrasion, and organic soil.⁸
• Without independent, real-world validation, extended-protection claims may offer negligible patient-safety benefit.^2,3

The myth of self-cleaning surfaces

Marketing language surrounding residual disinfectants and antimicrobial coatings frequently implies autonomous, self-cleaning functionality. The peer-reviewed literature consistently contradicts this implication. Even when residual activity is demonstrated, such technologies function only as adjuncts to routine cleaning and disinfection.^3,7

Laboratory studies of residual quaternary ammonium disinfectants show that efficacy depends on surface orientation, film thickness, and preservation of the dried layer.⁵ Authors emphasize that abrasion and soil accumulation rapidly degrade residual effectiveness and that manual cleaning remains essential.⁵

Healthcare surface hygiene experts further warn that antimicrobial coatings may foster behavioral complacency. When staff believe a surface is inherently self-disinfecting, adherence to cleaning protocols, contact times, and verification measures may decline.^3,7 This false sense of security may pose a greater risk than reliance on conventional disinfectants supported by robust training and monitoring systems.^4,7

An evidence-based framework for product evaluation

Drawing from observational experience, peer-reviewed evidence, and regulatory guidance, healthcare organizations should apply the following framework when evaluating disinfectant and durability claims:

1. Context-relevant efficacy data:
   Claims must be supported by standardized and simulated-use or real-world studies reflecting healthcare surfaces, organisms, soil loads, and workflows.^2,4
2. Realistic durability testing:
   Residual claims should be validated under repeated cleaning, abrasion, and contamination cycles.^2,8
3. Compatibility and safety evidence:
   Products must demonstrate non-interaction with medications, dressings, devices, and compromised skin, especially in high-risk populations.^4,6,9
4. Systems integration:
   Antimicrobial technologies should complement—not replace—mechanical cleaning, staff training, audit tools, and feedback mechanisms.^4,7

Conclusion

Environmental surfaces remain important reservoirs for healthcare-associated pathogens, particularly around vulnerable and immunocompromised patients.^4,6 While innovation in disinfectant technology is welcome, it cannot substitute for evidence-based practice. Overreliance on unvalidated residual biocides raises concerns regarding safety, cost, behavioral complacency, and the potential for biocide tolerance.^6,9

The ISSA demonstration serves as a cautionary example. When simple fluorescent testing revealed persistent contamination without wiping, the disconnect between marketing claims and real-world performance became undeniable. In healthcare, evidence is not optional. There is no shortcut around the fundamentals of mechanical cleaning, validated disinfection, and well-trained staff.

References

1. Otter JA, Yezli S, French GL. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(7):687-699.
2. McCoy WF, et al. Evaluation of a surface-anchoring quaternary ammonium salt biocide under real-world conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2025;91(10):e00803-25.
3. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Self-disinfecting surfaces: review of current methodologies and future prospects. Am J Infect Control. 2024;52(3):e45-e52.
4. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2016;30(3):609-637.
5. Anderson DJ, et al. Laboratory evaluation of residual disinfectant films on healthcare surfaces. Am J Infect Control. 2024;52(5):512-518.
6. Maillard JY. Resistance of bacteria to biocides. Microbiology. 2007;153(Pt 4):1061-1072.
7. Mitchell BG, et al. Practical use of self-disinfecting surfaces in healthcare. Infect Control Today. 2023.
8. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for products adding residual efficacy claims. EPA; 2023.
9. Kampf G. Biocidal agents used for disinfection and their interactions with organic matter. J Hosp Infect. 2024;139:45-52.
10. Smith R. Self-cleaning surfaces are not—but that doesn’t make them useless. Propmodo. 2024.