
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306
PONE-D-24-06372
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pharmacology
Drugs
Antimicrobials
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Microbial Control
Antimicrobials
Physical Sciences
Materials Science
Materials
Coating Materials
Paints
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Sanitization
Disinfection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Infectious Diseases
Infectious Disease Control
Sanitization
Disinfection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Preventive Medicine
Sanitization
Disinfection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Infectious Diseases
Nosocomial Infections
Research and Analysis Methods
Animal Studies
Experimental Organism Systems
Model Organisms
Escherichia Coli
Research and Analysis Methods
Model Organisms
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Escherichia Coli
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Enterobacteriaceae
Escherichia
Escherichia Coli
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Gut Bacteria
Escherichia
Escherichia Coli
Research and Analysis Methods
Animal Studies
Experimental Organism Systems
Prokaryotic Models
Escherichia Coli
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Infectious Diseases
Viral Diseases
Covid 19
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Reduction of bioburden on large area surfaces through use of a supplemental residual antimicrobial paint
Reduction of bioburden on large area surfaces through use of a supplemental residual antimicrobial paint
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0340-365X
Hiras Jennifer Conceptualization Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
Bright Kelly R. Conceptualization Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3364-8624
Kurzejewski Jackie L. Investigation 1
McInroy Alexander E. Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4799-9208
Frutos Anthony G. Conceptualization Project administration Writing – review & editing 1
Langille Mark R. Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
Lehman Jon Q. Investigation 2
Gerba Charles P. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0284-0788
Lahiri Joydeep Conceptualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
1 Corning Incorporated, Corning, NY, United States of America
2 Department of Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America
Mukherjee Amitava Editor
VIT University, INDIA
Competing Interests: The authors [JH, JK, AM, ML, AF, JL] are employees of Corning Incorporated. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Corning Incorporated has commercialized the copper-glass ceramic additive (Corning® Guardiant®) used in the antimicrobial paint reported.

* E-mail: lahirij@corning.com
6 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030830619 2 2024
19 7 2024
© 2024 Hiras et al
2024
Hiras et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Paint is a versatile material that can be used to coat surfaces for which routine disinfection practices may be lacking. EPA-registered copper-containing supplemental residual antimicrobial paints could be used to reduce the bioburden on often-neglected surfaces. An interventional study was conducted by painting the walls of a preschool restroom and metal locker surfaces in two hospital locker rooms with a copper-containing antimicrobial paint to evaluate the potential for bioburden reduction compared to a non-copper-containing control paint. The antimicrobial paint reduced the bioburden on the preschool restroom walls by 57% and on lockers in one locker room by 63% compared to the control paint; no significant difference was observed between the two paint types in the second locker room. The upper quartile bacterial counts, which drive the overall risk by increasing exposure to pathogens, also exhibited 63% and 47% reductions for the antimicrobial paint compared to the control paint in the preschool restroom and the first locker room, respectively. Because detectible levels of bioburden are found on large-area surfaces such as walls and lockers, surfaces painted with copper-containing paints may make large-area surfaces that are prone to contamination safer in a way that is practical and economical.

Corning Incorporated provided support in the form of salaries for authors [JH, JK, AM, ML, AF, JL], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the “author contributions” section. The University of Arizona received fees for services rendered for the processing and assay of the collected samples for the detection and quantification of HPC bacteria, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Bioburden on surfaces can contribute to the transmission of harmful pathogens. Contamination of inanimate objects (fomites) has been studied extensively, particularly for high-touch surfaces such as mobile phones [1], keyboards [2], and touch screens [3]; however, other large-area surfaces should be considered as part of comprehensive disinfection plans. For instance, floors have been identified as a potential source of pathogen transmission, particularly because floors are typically cleaned but not disinfected [4,5]. Implementing daily disinfection practices is often impractical; rather, imparting these surfaces with residual antimicrobial activity offers a pragmatic alternative. We present here the first interventional study for large-area surfaces painted with a copper-containing antimicrobial paint that provides supplemental residual antimicrobial activity.

Paint is a versatile and long-lasting coating that can be applied to arbitrary surfaces. With the right primer, an antimicrobial paint can be applied to drywall, wood, metal, or plastic, thereby offering a flexible and economical approach to lowering bioburden on surfaces that may be overlooked by routine cleaning and disinfection practices. Copper metal is a well-studied antimicrobial material capable of killing bacteria and reducing hospital-acquired infections [6–8]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently approved copper-containing antimicrobial paints that are continuously active and can provide efficacy between regular cleaning and disinfection practices, including efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 [9]. The antimicrobial efficacy of these paints is imparted through use of a copper-containing glass-ceramic additive containing cuprous ions (Cu+1) in a water-labile phase that enables the potency of metallic copper without its look and feel [10].

In the current study, two applications of the antimicrobial paint were considered: (1) restroom walls in a preschool and (2) lockers in a hospital. Though walls demonstrate lower overall levels of contamination than high-touch surfaces, we have found higher contamination levels at lower heights (See section Preliminary study on hospital wall contamination). This finding prompted our investigation of restroom walls at a preschool, given the propensity of children to touch walls. Lockers were chosen as an example of large-area surfaces that are touched at moderate levels but are typically neglected for routine disinfection. We investigated the impact of coating lockers with an antimicrobial paint at a local hospital. Previous studies have shown that reduction of heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria on surfaces containing residual antimicrobial activity by 64% to 85% can result in a significant decrease in healthcare associated infections [6,7,11].

Materials and methods

Organic contamination screening

UltraSnap adenosine triphosphate (ATP) swabs were used along with a SystemSURE Plus luminometer (Hygiena, Scarborough, MA) to conduct an initial organic material screen on 4”x4” (103.2 cm2) areas. Follow-up assessments of pre-intervention bioburden levels were conducted by swabbing target surfaces and culturing for bacteria (see section Microbial methods).

Preliminary study on hospital wall contamination

In prior work conducted at a different hospital, evaluations of walls found higher levels of bioburden at lower heights near the floor. Swabs from walls (waiting rooms, hallways, patient rooms) were collected at different heights over 22 weeks and quantified for bioburden (Fig 1). Samples collected at heights >2 feet (2.5–6 feet, average = 3.5 feet, n = 108) had a median bacterial count of 172 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/100 cm2, while samples collected at 0.33 feet (n = 64) had a median count of 378 CFU/100 cm2, a greater than two-fold increase in median bacterial bioburden.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.g001 Fig 1 Total bacterial counts measured from hospital walls at different heights above the floor.

The box and whisker plot displays the count distribution: Median (line within box), quartiles (box top and bottom lines = upper and lower limits of 1st and 4th quartiles, respectively), and outliers (beyond whiskers).

Intervention

Interventional studies were conducted at a preschool facility and a hospital in western New York state from February-October 2023. The study involved re-painting target surfaces: preschool restroom walls and hospital locker surfaces. These represent typical environments for which supplemental residual antimicrobial products are intended. Paints were purchased from a hardware store. Half of the surfaces were painted with an EPA-registered supplemental residual antimicrobial paint (Copper Armor™, EPA Registration No. 56601–4; PPG Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) and half with a traditional, non-antimicrobial paint (Glidden® Diamond®; PPG Industries, Inc.). Both paints were tinted at the point-of-sale to match the existing color of the original painted surface. Paints were applied by professional painters using traditional equipment (e.g., rollers, brushes). To ensure good adhesion to the lockers, a primer (STIX® Waterborne Bonding Primer; Benjamin Moore & Co., Montvale, NJ) was applied prior to the paint application.

Study design

At the preschool, two adjacent restroom walls and the interior restroom door were painted with the antimicrobial paint; the two opposite walls were painted with the control paint. Samples were collected for bacterial culturing every 3–4 weeks for 5 months on weekdays before the start of the school day. Surfaces were swabbed at a height of 2–3 feet above the ground. While many restroom objects (e.g., sink, toilet, mirror) were routinely cleaned, there was no established cleaning schedule for the walls. The preschool was occupied by approximately 27–30 children/day (aged 3–10 years-old), plus adult staff, and was open five days/week. The restroom used for the intervention was the primary restroom used by the children.

At the hospital, the men’s and women’s locker rooms utilized by hospital staff were painted. These locker rooms contained 52 and 65 lockers, respectively, with two bays in each. One locker bay was painted with the antimicrobial paint (27 lockers in the men’s room, 41 lockers in the women’s room); the other locker bay was painted with the control paint (25 lockers in the men’s room, 24 lockers in the women’s room). Samples were collected every month for six months for bioburden, coliform, and E. coli counts. The lockers were sampled in the mornings (8:00–10:00 a.m.), when use was at lower-than-average capacity to minimize disruption to hospital staff. The locker surfaces were sampled at the lower vents, which consisted of six 6”x1” slats located 6”-12” above the floor. This location was chosen based on previous results (Fig 1). The locker room usage was not tracked during the study, but an estimated 70–80 men and 90–100 women used the respective rooms. As part of the sampling protocol, the hospital lockers were disinfected with isopropyl alcohol wipes immediately after sample collection. To remove dust/debris buildup, all lockers were disinfected one week prior to sample collection in month four. Given the negligible risk with applying commercially available architectural paints and the lack of data collection from human subjects, the management at the daycare and the management at the hospital determined that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was not required for this study. Those using the facilities were unaware of the type of paint applied to each surface; normal use and cleaning schedules were maintained. Cleaning and disinfection schedules were not known for the study areas.

Numerous controls were included in the interventional study. In addition to the non-antimicrobial control paint, copper metal and stainless-steel coupons were used as environmental controls. Sampling also occurred on low-touch painted surfaces (locker surfaces 4–6 feet above the floor) and high-touch unpainted surfaces (plastic locker handles) as additional controls to ensure integrity of the collected data. Experimental controls were also included during sampling, which consisted of a spike of E. coli (ATCC#11229) containing 1 x 107 cells in 20 μl onto antimicrobial and control painted surfaces. Spiked surfaces were air dried for 30 minutes before sample collection.

Microbial methods

Sponge-Sticks (3M, Minneapolis, MN) containing 10 ml of Dey-Engley (D/E) neutralizing broth were used to sample areas of 6”x6” (232.3 cm2) or 8”x12” (619.4 cm2). Both sides of the Sponge-Stick were swabbed back and forth three times per side for each sample. The samples were sent overnight on ice to a university laboratory for culturing. The liquid from each Sponge-Stick was harvested and transferred to sterile 15-ml polypropylene tubes and the sample volume recorded (~5–7 ml).

The samples were vortexed for 10 seconds at high speed. A 4-ml aliquot was removed and added to 96 ml of sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS; pH 7.4) (Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., St Louis, MO) and assayed via the Colilert® system in Quanti-Tray®/2000 trays (IDEXX laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME). The sealed trays were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. Sample wells were compared to a positive control inoculated with E. coli (ATCC#25922). Yellow wells were considered positive for total coliforms; yellow wells that fluoresced under UV light (365 nm) were considered positive for E. coli. The numbers of positive wells were compared to a Colilert® Quanti-Tray®/2000 Most Probable Number (MPN) table to determine the MPN/100 ml (= MPN/4 ml of sample). The MPN/4 ml was adjusted to the MPN recovered per sample (based on the volume recovered).

From the remaining sample, serial 10-fold dilutions were performed using sterile PBS and 100-μl volumes of each dilution were inoculated onto duplicate R2A agar (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) plates using the spread plate method. The plates were incubated at 30°C for five days. Resulting colonies were counted to determine the colony forming units (CFU) of HPC bacteria/ml of sample. This count was adjusted to determine the CFU/entire sample (based on the volume recovered). All bacterial numbers (MPN or CFU) were then adjusted based on the surface area sampled to determine the MPN or CFU recovered per 100 cm2.

Data analyses

Not including controls, a total of 89 samples were collected from the preschool restroom and 186 samples from the hospital locker rooms from painted surfaces. An additional 20 and 54 controls (i.e., blanks, spiked controls, unpainted high-touch controls, painted low-touch controls) were collected from the preschool restroom and hospital lockers, respectively. All bioburden samples were analyzed by a non-parametric Wilcoxon test to better handle the right-skewed data. Differences between bacterial levels were considered statistically significant if P was ≤0.05. No measured samples were omitted from the analysis, except when specifically investigating the upper quartiles of the data. All analyses were performed using JMP (v16.2) statistical graphing software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Preschool restroom studies

At all intervention locations, surfaces were first screened for organic contamination using ATP swabs because of their speed and convenience. At the preschool, the level of organic material detected on the restroom walls (average = 73 relative light units (RLU), n = 27) was similar to other surfaces such as windowsills, cabinets, drawers, and drawer handles (average = 74 RLU, n = 62). Thus, the interventional study evaluated contamination levels after the coating of paint was applied onto restroom walls.

The results of bacterial contamination over the four-month study at the preschool restroom are shown in Fig 2. The median HPC bacterial count for the walls with the antimicrobial paint was 204 CFU/100 cm2, while the walls with the control paint had a median count of 494 CFU/100 cm2. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0007), with the antimicrobial paint exhibiting a 59% lower median bioburden than the control paint.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.g002 Fig 2 HPC bacterial counts on preschool restroom walls with copper-containing antimicrobial painted and control painted surfaces.

The box and whisker plot displays the count distribution: Median (line within box), quartiles (box top and bottom lines = upper and lower limits of 1st and 4th quartiles, respectively), and outliers (beyond whiskers).

Hospital locker room study

Surfaces evaluated as part of the pre-intervention organic contamination screen at the hospital included walls, bed rails, call buttons, chair armrests, tray tables, drawer handles, and lockers used by hospital staff. The walls had an organic contamination level (average = 81 RLU, n = 94) similar to that found on higher-touch surfaces such as bed rails, call buttons, tray tables, drawer handles, IV poles, and arm rests (average = 87 RLU, n = 264). Of the non-wall surfaces screened, lockers had higher levels of organic material (average = 100 RLU, n = 189) than other surfaces (average = 87 RLU, n = 409). This suggested that the locker rooms had higher levels of either organic, non-microbial or microbial contamination, presumably resulting from the lack of disinfection practices relative to surfaces in admitted patient areas. Measurable levels of bioburden on the locker room surfaces were confirmed, with higher levels on the lower locker vents (average = 2,437 CFU, n = 10) located closer to the ground (~1 foot above floor) than on upper locker surfaces (average = 399 CFU, n = 10) (above locker handle, ~3 feet above floor). This finding is consistent with prior measurements of bacterial contamination versus wall height (Fig 1).

Due to the skewness in the data and the expectation of unequal variance between paint types, median bioburden counts were analyzed (Fig 3). The median bacterial count for the men’s locker surfaces with the antimicrobial paint was 595 CFU/100 cm2; the median count with the control paint was 1,611 CFU/100 cm2. This difference in median bioburden was statistically significant (P = 0.0002), with the antimicrobial paint exhibiting a 63% lower median bioburden than the control paint. The median bioburden on the locker surfaces in the women’s locker room was higher than in the men’s locker room for both the antimicrobial paint (2,401 CFU/100 cm2) and control paint (2,031 CFU/100 cm2) and was not significantly different between the paint types (P = 0.057). The difference in median bioburden between locker rooms was statistically significant for the antimicrobial painted surfaces (P<0.0001), but there was no difference for the control painted surfaces (P = 0.33). The antimicrobial painted surfaces exhibited a similar trend in the men’s locker room for the spiked E. coli control levels (average log recovered 3.29±0.26 CFU/100 cm2) compared to the control painted surfaces (average log recovered 4.55±0.93 CFU/100 cm2); no differences were observed for the women’s locker room. The reasons for the lack of differentiation between the two painted surfaces in the women’s locker room is unclear but potential reasons are discussed later. Median microbial measurements, further broken down by month for the men’s locker surfaces, are summarized in Fig 4. The data show relatively consistent reduction in microbial burden across the study period.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.g003 Fig 3 HPC bacterial counts on hospital lockers with copper-containing antimicrobial-painted and control-painted surfaces.

The box and whisker plot displays the count distribution: Median (line within box), quartiles (box top and bottom lines = upper and lower limits of 1st and 4th quartiles, respectively), and outliers (beyond whiskers).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.g004 Fig 4 Median bacterial counts over time from the men’s hospital locker rooms recovered from the copper-containing antimicrobial painted surfaces (solid) and the control painted surfaces (striped).

The corresponding percent reductions in median bacterial counts due to the antimicrobial surfaces are listed for each month.

In the men’s locker room, two antimicrobial painted lockers and six control painted lockers were positive for coliforms. In the women’s locker room, six antimicrobial painted lockers and 14 control painted lockers were positive for coliforms (Table 1). A reduction in coliform counts was observed on antimicrobial paints compared to control paints, but the sample size was too small to determine significance. Only three samples were positive for E. coli during the entire study. One was from an unpainted locker handle (control) in the women’s locker room (with 1.78 MPN/100 cm2) during month six. The other two positive samples were collected from the men’s locker room in month five–one from a locker with antimicrobial paint and one from a locker with control paint. Both were at the detection limit for the assay (0.23 MPN E. coli/100 cm2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.t001 Table 1 Summary statistics from interventional studies.

Intervention Location	Preschool
Restroom Walls	Hospital Locker Room	
Men’s	Women’s	
Paint Type	Antimicrobial	Control	Antimicrobial	Control	Antimicrobial	Control	
Total Samples	45	44	47	46	46	47	
Median Bacterial Count
(CFU/100 cm 2 )	204	494	595	1611	2401	2031	
P	0.0007
	0.0002
	0.057
	
Percent Reduction	59%	 	63%	 	0%	 	
Upper Quartile Bacterial Count
(CFU/100 cm 2 )	915	2499	2067	3897	6269	6672	
P	0.003
	0.006
	0.88
	
Percent Reduction	63%	 	47%	 	6%	
	
Positive Coliform Result a	N/A	2 of 47	6 of 46	6 of 46	14 of 47	
Percent Positivity Rate	N/A	4.3%	13.0%	13.0%	25.5%	
aColiform testing was not conducted in the preschool restroom.

Summary statistics with upper quartile bacterial counts

Summary statistics from studies conducted at the preschool restroom and hospital locker rooms are shown in Table 1. The upper quartile bacterial counts (highest 25%) were analyzed separately since surfaces with higher contamination levels are the main contributors to both the risk of cross-contamination and exposure to pathogens. The upper quartile HPC counts followed the same trend as the total counts, with the antimicrobial paint showing a 63% reduction and 47% reduction in bacterial counts compared to the control paint in the preschool restroom and hospital men’s locker room, respectively. There was not a statistically significant difference in the upper quartile bacterial counts between the two painted surfaces for the women’s locker room.

Discussion

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA created a new category of residual supplemental antimicrobial products that were allowed to make both bactericidal and virucidal claims [12]. For registration, products are tested for efficacy against core organisms across the germ hierarchy (e.g., enveloped/non-enveloped viruses, Gram-positive/Gram-negative bacteria). Claims of efficacy against human pathogens can only be obtained for products that pass the EPA copper protocol (introduced in 2008 [13]) because it is a more realistic simulation of contamination than traditional antimicrobial tests (e.g., JIS Z 2801, ISO 22196). Furthermore, products must undergo wear testing to demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy after wiping with cleaners simulating five years of cleaning. The EPA-registered antimicrobial paint used in these evaluations has claims for killing 99.9% of the following bacteria/viruses within two hours of exposure: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacter aerogenes, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), Escherichia coli, Salmonella, feline calicivirus, and SARS-CoV-2 virus. This paint is also listed on the EPA List N Appendix: Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products for Coronavirus (COVID-19) [9].

Schmidt et al. [6] studied the effectiveness of intervention with metallic copper alloy surfaces in healthcare settings, reporting an 83% reduction in bioburden for objects formerly covered with plastic, wood, or stainless-steel. Importantly, studies in hospital intensive care unit rooms employing copper alloy surfaces showed a 58% decrease in hospital-acquired infections compared to standard rooms [6,7]. In the present study with the first reported field trial of a copper-containing supplemental residual antimicrobial paint, an average microbial bioburden reduction of 59% on the preschool restroom walls and 63% in the men’s locker room was observed when compared to control paints. The measured bioburden reduction was significant, though lower than reported by Schmidt and co-workers for metallic copper [6]. The results also demonstrated that the antimicrobial paint reduced the upper quartile of microbial contamination, which is important for mitigating risk. Such peak pathogen levels drive the overall risk since they increase the odds of infection [14]. The upper quartile of bacterial counts was reduced by 63% in the preschool restroom and by 47% in the men’s locker room. Further, fewer positive coliform counts were observed in both the men’s and women’s locker rooms when using the antimicrobial paint.

Studies were conducted over 4–6 months in both locations. There was an insufficient number of timepoints for a long-term statistical analysis of product performance; however, the median bioburden counts for the men’s locker room showed a consistent trend. The antimicrobial paint had a lower mean bioburden than the control paint at each sampling timepoint and there were observed variations in the total bioburden over time. The reduction at month four could be explained by the fact that the surfaces were disinfected with isopropyl alcohol wipes one week prior to sample collection, removing debris and possible contamination. Irrespective of absolute bioburden, the results also showed that the reduction in microbial contamination due to the antimicrobial paint was maintained over the study period, suggesting a long-lasting nature of its antimicrobial potency.

While two of three intervention areas demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in bioburden on the antimicrobial painted surface, no reduction was observed for the women’s locker room for the median bioburden or upper quartile of bioburden. The reason for this difference relative to the men’s locker room is unclear. A factor that could have influenced the results is the level of soil found on painted surfaces. Interfering substances like dirt, dust, and organic contaminants from cosmetics or personal care products could prevent organisms from contacting the painted surface and limit its efficacy. Differences in the level of bioburden present in environments occupied by men and women have been observed in other studies, such as in offices [15] and university dormitories [16].

A strength of this study was the ability to compare the supplemental residual antimicrobial paint product at the same time and in the same environment as the control paint. This eliminated study variables associated with an interventional study focused on a pre- and post-intervention analysis. The evaluation of multiple locations over 4–6 months further supports the reliability of the findings. In addition, a large surface area was sampled (~232–619 cm2) and a culture medium designed to optimize the recovery of a large range of bacterial types and environmentally-stressed bacteria was used.

Although microbial contamination of low-touch areas is considered a lower risk for pathogen transmission, they can still serve as a reservoir of disease-causing microorganisms. This is especially true of areas outside of patient rooms (e.g., break rooms, waiting rooms) that do not receive the same degree of cleaning. Pathogens on low-touch areas may also be resuspended/re-aerosolized by human activity, resulting in contamination of more frequently-touched surfaces [17].

Conclusions

The results from this study demonstrate that there are detectible levels of contamination found on large-area surfaces like walls and lockers and that contamination levels can be reduced through use of a supplemental residual antimicrobial coating. The application of antimicrobial paints to walls and other large-area surfaces could be a practical and cost-effective addition to comprehensive cleaning/disinfection practices. A distinct advantage of using paint is its broad applicability to a variety of surface types and its large color palette, enabling everyday objects and surfaces to be imparted with antimicrobial efficacy with minimal compromise to aesthetics and décor. As this was the first field study of a supplemental residual antimicrobial paint, additional studies are recommended to further assess the potential benefits of using antimicrobial paints as part of a comprehensive disinfection plan. Antimicrobial paints are ideally suited for addressing neglected surfaces and may lead to meaningful reductions in contamination.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset S1 Raw dataset.

Raw dataset for all figures in the manuscript.

(XLSX)

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.r001
Decision Letter 0
Mukherjee Amitava Academic Editor
© 2024 Amitava Mukherjee
2024
Amitava Mukherjee
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
16 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-06372Reduction of bioburden on large area surfaces through use of a supplemental residual antimicrobial paintPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lahiri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"Conflicts of interest: Jennifer Hiras, Jackie L. Kurzejewski, Alexander E. McInroy, Anthony G. Frutos, Mark R. Langille, and Joydeep Lahiri are employees at Corning Incorporated; Corning has commercialized the copper-glass ceramic additive (Corning® Guardiant®) used in the antimicrobial paint reported. This study was funded by Corning Incorporated and the University of Arizona received fees for services rendered for the processing and assay of the collected samples for the detection and quantification of HPC bacteria, coliforms, and Escherichia coli."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Corning Incorporated

A. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

B. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Thank you for this interesting manuscript. I have just some comments:

Line 71: Please delete "CFU" (mentioned in the next line again)

Line 103/104: Why is the control paint used for 24 lockers in women's locker room and the antimicrobial paint for 41 lockers?

Line 163: Please defined "RLU" (first occurrence)

Reviewer #2: The article provides a comprehensive description of the findings of the study. The methodology employed is thoroughly explained. The results are presented in a clear and concise manner, and are supported by relevant data. The discussion section of the article presents a well-informed analysis of the results, drawing on relevant literature and theoretical frameworks.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
17 Jul 2024

We have responded to the editor and reviewer comments in the cover letter, as instructed.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.r003
Decision Letter 1
Mukherjee Amitava Academic Editor
© 2024 Amitava Mukherjee
2024
Amitava Mukherjee
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
22 Jul 2024

Reduction of bioburden on large area surfaces through use of a supplemental residual antimicrobial paint

PONE-D-24-06372R1

Dear Dr. Lahiri,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0308306.r004
Acceptance letter
Mukherjee Amitava Academic Editor
© 2024 Amitava Mukherjee
2024
Amitava Mukherjee
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
29 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-06372R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lahiri,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Kopp J , Cawcutt KA , Musil L , Huang X , Minard CG , Hetland B . Efficacy of a bioburden reduction intervention on mobile phones of critical care nurses. Am J Infect Control. 2023; 51 (1 ): 35–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2022.04.013 35569614
2 Bures S , Fishbain JT , Uyehara CF , Parker JM , Berg BW . Computer keyboards and faucet handles as reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens in the intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control. 2000; 28 (6 ): 465–471. doi: 10.1067/mic.2000.107267 11114617
3 Gerba CP , Wuollet AL , Raisanen P , Lopez GU . Bacterial contamination of computer touch screens. Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44 (3 ):358–360. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.013 26940596
4 Donskey CJ . Beyond high-touch surfaces: Portable equipment and floors as potential sources of transmission of health care-associated pathogens. Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47S : A90–A95. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.03.017 31146857
5 Donskey CJ . Update on potential interventions to reduce the risk for transmission of health care-associated pathogens from floors and sinks. Am J Infect Control. 2023; 51 (11S ):A120–A125. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2023.03.009 37890941
6 Schmidt MG , Attaway HH , Sharpe PA , John J Jr , Sepkowitz KA , Morgan A , et al . Sustained reduction of microbial burden on common hospital surfaces through introduction of copper. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50 (7 ): 2217–2223. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01032-12 22553242
7 Salgado CD , Sepkowitz KA , John JF , Cantey JR , Attaway HH , Freeman KD , et al . Copper surfaces reduce the rate of healthcare-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013; 34 (5 ): 479–486. doi: 10.1086/670207 23571364
8 Michels HT , Keevil CW , Salgado CD , Schmidt MG . From laboratory research to a clinical trial: copper alloy surfaces kill bacteria and reduce hospital-acquired infections. HERD. 2015; 9 (1 ): 64–79. doi: 10.1177/1937586715592650 26163568
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency [Internet]. List N Appendix: Supplemental Residual Antimicrobial Products for Coronavirus (COVID-19); [Updated 2023 May 2]. Accessed on January 23, 2024 at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-appendix-supplemental-residual-antimicrobial-products-coronavirus.
10 Gross TM , Lahiri J , Golas A , Luo J , Verrier F , Kurzejewski JL , et al . Copper-containing glass ceramic with high antimicrobial efficacy. Nat. Comm. 2019; 10 (1 ): 1979. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09946-9 31040286
11 Ellingson KD , Pogreba-Brown K , Gerba CP , Elliott SP . Impact of a novel antimicrobial surface coating on health care–associated infections and environmental bioburden at 2 urban hospitals. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71 (8 ):1807–1813. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1077 31665372
12 United States Environmental Protection Agency [Internet]. Guidance for Products Adding Residual Efficacy Claims; [Updated 2023 October 4]. Accessed January 23, 2024 at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/guidance-products-adding-residual-efficacy-claims.
13 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Test Method for Efficacy of Copper Alloy Surfaces as a Sanitizer (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2008).
14 Haas CN . How to average microbial densities to characterize risk. Water Res. 1996; 30 (4 ):1036–1038. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00228-6
15 Hewitt KM , Gerba CP , Maxwell SL , Kelley ST . Office space bacterial abundance and diversity in three metropolitan areas. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (5 ): e37849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037849 22666400
16 Li Y , Ge Y , Wu C , Guan D , Liu J , Wang F . Assessment of culturable airborne bacteria of indoor environments in classrooms, dormitories and dining hall at university: a case study in China. Aerobiologia (Bologna). 2020; 36 (3 ): 313–324. doi: 10.1007/s10453-020-09633-z 32421086
17 Hospodsky D , Qian J , Nazaroff WW , Yamamoto N , Bibby K , Rismani-Yazdi H , Peccia J . Human occupancy as a source of indoor airborne bacteria. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (4 ): e34867. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034867 22529946
