In Part 1 – What Is It?, we explained how disinfectants that are incompatible with surface materials create microscopic damage—microbial reservoirs where pathogens hide from the biocides meant to destroy them. Part 2 turns to where much of that risk is prevented or built in: the selection of surface materials and products, and the testing data behind those decisions.

Testing Is Happening—Consistency Is Not

There are still no standard testing requirements for surface disinfection compatibility. That does not mean manufacturers aren’t testing—many are. But each selects its own methods, exposure conditions, and pass/fail criteria. One program wipes surfaces 120 times under strain; another wipes 180 times without it; others rely on multi-day immersion. The results cannot be directly compared, so healthcare facilities are rarely comparing apples to apples.

Test methods also may not reflect how cleaning and disinfection are actually done in healthcare settings. Immersion tests miss the mechanical action of wiping. Products are tested one at a time, while a single surface may see a quat-alcohol wipe, a sporicidal bleach product, and UV-C multiple times in a day. Raw materials are tested, while medical or patient care devices and furnishings combine plastics, metals, coatings, and textiles. As an example, a medical device may have up to nine different surface materials that can’t all be cleaned the same way with the same disinfectants. Also not considered are the seams and connection points where disinfectants can pool.

The stakes are real. A 2024 Journal of Hospital Infection study found that all eight 2-in-1 detergent-disinfectant wipes tested contained agents capable of stress cracking plastics, with visible cracking in 22 of 39 plastic tests—even though all shared the same primary active ingredient. ECRI also named deficient device cleaning instructions among its Top 10 Health Technology Hazards for 2026.

Progress: A Patented, Uniform Test Method

Beginning in 2020, the Healthcare Surfacs Institute (HIS) brought together competing polymer suppliers, a device manufacturer, and a disinfectant manufacturer to develop a common test method. The result is U.S. Patent No. 12,405,197 B2, Method for Evaluation of Chemical Resistance of Thermoplastics, granted to HSI in September 2025. Plastic specimens are placed under strain matched to the material’s stiffness, exposed to disinfectant for 24 hours to 7 days, and tested against unexposed controls; those retaining more than 90% of their strength are considered compatible. The method creates a uniform basis for comparison. It is not yet a certification program, and no certification program is currently in place—work continues through ISSA Healthcare’s Testing and Validation Task Force.

Four Steps to Take Now

• Communicate. Designate a single point of contact, such as a value analysis professional, for purchases that require cleaning and disinfection.

• Plan during design. Review surfaces as an assembly and confirm they can all be disinfected with the same products.

• Ask how it was tested. Which specific disinfectants, which method, how many cycles, and was the assembled product tested? Never accept your disinfectant list on manufacturer letterhead as proof of compatibility.

• Support consistent standards. Progress depends on facilities and manufacturers demanding reliable, comparable testing.

Bringing Innovation into the Evaluation

The ISSA Healthcare Solutions & Innovation Task Force, chaired by Rich Feczko, evaluates emerging technologies—chemistries, UV-C, autonomous equipment, surface measurement, and more—for regulatory compliance, efficacy, validation, and safety, with surface compatibility and IFUs assessed in every review. Working with the Testing and Validation Task Force, the group is developing a standardized assessment process to help facilities make evidence-based decisions.

Get involved

Share an innovation with the Innovation Scout Team, or volunteer for an ISSA Healthcare task force at issa.com/healthcare-task-forces.

Read the full article: The complete version of Part 2, including a detailed comparison of test approaches, the full list of questions to ask manufacturers, and all references, is available at https://www.issa.com/articles/healthcare-environmental-hygiene/surface-disinfection-compatibility-part-2-selecting-surface-materials-and-products/.

Next in this series: Part 3 – The Costs of Incompatibility in Healthcare examines the clinical, operational, and financial costs of overlooking surface disinfection compatibility.