In Surface Disinfection Compatibility: Part 1 – What Is It?, we explained how disinfectants that are incompatible with surface materials create microscopic cracks, pits, and fissures—microbial reservoirs where pathogens can hide, survive, and multiply away from the biocides used to destroy them. We also outlined the systemic gaps that allow this to happen: no mandatory testing standards, manufacturer instructions for use (IFUs) that conflict with infection prevention protocols, and surfaces selected without a thorough review of compatibility data. 

Part 2 focuses on where much of that risk is either prevented or built in: the selection of surface materials and products. And it starts with a hard look at the testing data behind those decisions. 

Testing Is Happening—Consistency Is Not 

There are still no standard testing requirements for surface disinfection compatibility, and no regulatory body enforces a uniform method for reporting results. That does not mean manufacturers are not testing. Many are. Disinfectant manufacturers, polymer suppliers, and device makers routinely publish compatibility data. The challenge is that each organization selects its own test methods, exposure conditions, and pass/fail criteria—so healthcare facilities are rarely comparing apples to apples. 

Consider how differently a few published disinfectant compatibility programs approach the same question: 

• Immersion testing: materials soaked in disinfectant for four days with daily wet/dry cycles, or wrapped in wipes and re-wrapped three times a week. 

• Wipe testing: surfaces wiped and dried 120 times under constant strain in one program, and 180 times without strain in another. 

• Simulated-use claims: one program reports exposure equivalent to roughly 3,000 applications; another reports 12 soak cycles representing 1,300 to 1,500 exposures, or about one year of use. 

• Stress testing: materials drilled, cut, and immersed for up to 72 hours to create high-stress areas. 

Each approach produces useful information. But the results cannot be directly compared, and none of them is required. A material rated “compatible” in one program may not have been exposed to the same chemistry, frequency, strain, or contact time used in another.

Lab Conditions vs. Real-World Cleaning 

Equally important, the test methods selected do not necessarily produce data that reflect how cleaning and disinfection are actually performed in healthcare. Several common gaps include: 

• Chemistry-only testing. Immersion tests measure chemical attack but not the mechanical action of wiping. A study simulating six months of routine disinfection found that wiping alone increased surface roughness on some materials—and noted that the standard EPA efficacy method may not be sensitive enough to detect the effects of modest surface damage. 

• Single-strain, accelerated conditions. Even polymer suppliers note that accelerated, single-strain test results should be confirmed under strain and exposure conditions based on actual use. 

• One product at a time. In practice, a single surface may be exposed to a quaternary ammonium–alcohol wipe used by nursing, a sporicidal bleach product used by EVS, and UV-C or hydrogen peroxide vapor during terminal cleaning. Testing rarely reflects this real-world rotation. 

• Raw materials, not assemblies. Medical devices and furnishings combine plastics, metals, coatings, textiles, and adhesives. Staff typically reach for one wipe and clean every component. Testing individual materials does not show how the assembled product performs. 

• Cosmetic vs. functional vs. microscopic damage. Acceptance criteria vary widely. Some programs rate visible discoloration or clouding; few evaluate damage at the micro level, where microbial reservoirs begin. 

Recent research shows what is at stake. A 2024 study in the Journal of Hospital Infection tested eight ready-to-use 2-in-1 detergent-disinfectant wipes against 13 common healthcare plastics using the ISO 22088-3 environmental stress cracking method. Every wipe contained agents capable of causing stress cracking; 22 of 39 plastic tests visibly cracked, and higher-pH products (above 8.0) accounted for 74% of failures. Formulations containing small or medium amines or alcohol showed a greater tendency to crack plastics—even though all shared the same primary active ingredient. 

In other words, two disinfectants with the same active ingredient can behave very differently on the same surface. Compatibility claims cannot be assumed from one product to another. 

The consequences are being recognized at the highest levels of patient safety. ECRI named deficient device cleaning instructions one of its Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2026, citing wide variation in the content, quality, and feasibility of manufacturer instructions—and urging healthcare organizations to evaluate them before purchase. 

Progress: A Patented, Uniform Test Method 

In spring 2020, under the Healthcare Surfaces Institute (HSI), engineers and scientists from competing companies came together to confront the testing inconsistency problem. Thermoplastic suppliers Eastman, Solvay, and Röhm, original equipment manufacturer Zebra Technologies, and disinfectant manufacturer PDI formed the Plastic Testing Standards subcommittee. They met weekly throughout 2020 to review existing testing standards and define a method clear enough that results could be compared. 

That collaboration produced U.S. Patent No. 12,405,197 B2, Method for Evaluation of Chemical Resistance of Thermoplastics, granted to the Healthcare Surfaces Institute on September 2, 2025. The method provides a standard, quantitative way to determine how well thermoplastics used in non-disposable medical devices resist healthcare-grade disinfectants: 

• Matched test and control specimens. At least five test specimens and five control specimens of the same plastic are prepared in a uniform size and shape. 

• Strain that reflects the material. Specimens are placed on a curved strain jig selected based on the plastic’s stiffness and thickness, simulating the stress plastics experience in assembled devices—a key driver of environmental stress cracking. 

• Controlled disinfectant exposure. The disinfectant is applied through a saturated non-woven fabric, re-wetted to account for evaporation, for 24 hours to 7 days depending on the test and material. 

• Measured performance, not appearance alone. Exposed specimens are tested for tensile and/or impact strength and compared with unexposed controls. Specimens that retain more than 90% of control performance are considered compatible with that disinfectant. 

Most importantly, the method gives chemical, polymer, and medical device manufacturers—and healthcare end users—a uniform basis for comparing materials and disinfectants. It is a direct answer to the apples-to-apples problem. 

The patent is an important milestone, but it is not yet a certification program, and no certification program for surface disinfection compatibility is currently in place. The method also addresses thermoplastic raw materials, not finished, assembled products. The work continues through ISSA Healthcare’s Testing and Validation Task Force, chaired by Barbara Strain, which is building standard test methods, expanding the approach toward assembled products, and advocating for broader recognition of consistent, science-based testing.

Steps to Take Now When Selecting Surface Materials and Products 

Step 1: Communication 

Establish a single point of contact—such as a value analysis professional—for every purchase that requires cleaning and disinfection. This person ensures all key decision-makers review the IFUs against facility infection prevention guidelines and facilitates conversations with manufacturers so one critical question is never overlooked: Can this product be effectively cleaned and disinfected without being damaged? 

Step 2: Create Guidelines for Material Selection During Design 

Build surface disinfection compatibility into the design phase. Walls, floors, ceilings, casework, furnishings, and equipment should be reviewed as an assembly and evaluated for whether they can all be cleaned and disinfected using the same products. If a material cannot be disinfected without damage, that must be established before it enters the built environment or a product design. 

Step 3: Check Before You Purchase—and Ask How It Was Tested 

Build compatibility into every product review checklist, recognizing that EVS, infection prevention, value analysis, nursing, and facilities each evaluate products differently. Then go beyond “Is it compatible?” and ask manufacturers: 

• Which specific disinfectant products were tested—not just which active ingredients? 

• Which test method or standard was used (for example, immersion, wipe, or stress cracking under strain)? 

• How many exposure cycles were performed, and what real-world frequency do they represent? 

• Was the finished, assembled product tested, or only individual raw materials? 

• Were UV-C, hydrogen peroxide vapor, or other no-touch technologies included? 

• What were the acceptance criteria—cosmetic, functional, or microscopic? 

• Was the testing performed or verified by an independent third party? 

Warning: Never give a manufacturer a list of the disinfectants you use so they can place them on company letterhead as “approved” products. Compatibility must be tested and validated, and you need documentation showing that testing was performed. ECRI similarly recommends considering alternative vendors if a supplier cannot provide validated instructions that are practical in your environment. 

Step 4: Support Consistent Standards and Guidelines 

Progress depends on manufacturers, healthcare providers, and infection prevention professionals demanding consistent, reliable testing. Supporting and participating in the development of standard test methods is one of the most effective ways to close this gap. 

Bringing Innovation into the Evaluation 

New technologies are entering healthcare faster than ever—new chemistries, UV-C systems, autonomous equipment, surface measurement tools, and more. Each one raises the same question: Is it compatible with the surfaces and protocols already in place? 

The ISSA Healthcare Solutions & Innovation Task Force, chaired by Rich Feczko, President and Founder of Elevate Innovation Group, was created to help answer that question. Through its Innovation Scout Team, the task force evaluates emerging technologies through a structured review that goes beyond product demonstrations—examining regulatory compliance, efficacy, validation, task time, run time, air quality impact, and energy savings. Surface compatibility and IFUs are assessed in every review. 

Working with the Testing and Validation Task Force, the group is developing a standardized assessment process so innovations can be reviewed for practical adoption, efficiency, compliance, and safety. The goal is to help healthcare facilities make informed, evidence-based decisions about the products and technologies they bring into patient care environments. 

Get involved 

Have an innovation to share? The Innovation Scout Team welcomes new products and technologies for review. 

Lend your expertise. ISSA Healthcare is seeking volunteers for its task forces, including Testing and Validation and Solutions & Innovations. Learn more at issa.com/healthcare-task-forces. 

Next in this series: Surface Disinfection Compatibility: Part 3 – The Costs of Incompatibility in Healthcare examines the clinical, operational, and financial costs of overlooking surface disinfection compatibility. Missed Part 1? Read it here.

References 

1. Lybert L. Surface Disinfection Compatibility: Part 1 – What Is It? ISSA Healthcare Newsletter. 2026. https://www.issa.com/healthcare-news/surface-disinfection-compatibility-part-1-2/ 
2. Lybert L. Surface Disinfection Compatibility Part 2: Selecting Surface Materials. ISSA. 2022. https://www.issa.com/articles/surface-disinfection-compatibility-part-2/ 
3. Zettel M, Liu Y, Hicks J, Bernhard K, Bajaj P, Lamont M, Turner E. Method for evaluation of chemical resistance of thermoplastics. U.S. Patent No. 12,405,197 B2. Healthcare Surfaces Institute; granted September 2, 2025. https://patents.google.com/patent/US12405197B2/en 
4. PDI. Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Chemical Resistance of Thermoplastics for Non-Disposable Medical Devices. https://pdihc.com/standard-test-method-for-evaluation/ 
5. Jennings J, James DE, Wares KD, Campbell-Train A, Siani H. Chemical resistance testing of plastics: material compatibility of detergent and disinfectant products. J Hosp Infect. 2024;149:172–181. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2024.04.023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38740301/ 
6. Jo H, West AM, Teska PJ, Oliver HF, Howarter JA. Assessment of early onset surface damage from accelerated disinfection protocol. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:24. doi:10.1186/s13756-019-0467-9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6357435/ 
7. ECRI. Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2026: Executive Brief. Hazard #7: Deficient Device Cleaning Instructions Continue to Endanger Patients. https://home.ecri.org/blogs/ecri-news/examining-the-greatest-health-technology-threats-of-2026 
8. ISSA. When Testing Fails: The Hidden Risks of Healthcare Surfaces. 2025. https://www.issa.com/articles/when-testing-fails-the-hidden-risks-of-healthcare-surfaces/ 
9. ISSA Healthcare. Task Forces. https://www.issa.com/healthcare-task-forces/ 
10. Feczko R. The Innovation Scout Team: ISSA Healthcare Solutions & Innovation Task Force. ISSA Healthcare Newsletter. August 2026. https://www.issa.com/industry-news/the-innovation-scout-team-issa-healthcare-solutions-innovation-task-force/ 
11. Healthcare Surfaces Institute. HSI Surface Materials & Products Certification Program. https://healthcaresurfacesinstitute.org/surface-certification/ 
12. Avient. Chemically Resistant Polymers for Next Generation Devices. White paper. 2021. https://www.avient.com/sites/default/files/2021-12/Chemically%20Resistant%20Materials%20Whitepaper.pdf 
13. CloroxPro. Surface Compatibility Playbook. https://assets.ctfassets.net/y7shn3z27tn6/78t4KopMGYl7UkmpNT8hDL/f2c529643012654890c3375120eadd00/NI-50246_HC_CloroxPro_CmptbltyPlybkBro_web.pdf 
14. PDI. Sani-Cloth Wipes Materials Compatibility Reference Guide. https://pdihc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/PDI-Compatibility-Brochure_UPDATE-0126_09238824_web.pdf 
15. Ecolab. Disinfectant 1 Wipe Material Compatibility. 2022. https://www.ecolab.com/-/media/Ecolab/Ecolab-Home/Images/Markets/Healthcare-Wipes-Promo/Disinfectant-1-Material-Compatibility-2022-pdf.pdf 
16. GOJO. PURELL Professional Surface Disinfectant Spray Technical Bulletin. 2022. https://www.gojo.com/-/media/GOJO-Site/Surfaces-Compatibility/Files/PURELL-Professional-Surface-Disinfectant-Spray-Technical-Bulletin.pdf 
17. APSIC guidelines for environmental hygiene: surface cleaning, air and water quality in hospitals—2025 update. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2025. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antimicrobial-stewardship-and-healthcare-epidemiology/article/apsic-guidelines-for-environmental-hygiene-surface-cleaning-air-and-water-quality-in-hospitals-2025-update/F5B84DF349A6F40914BBE3C47FABA524