Efficacy testing of biocidal products - overview of available tests_ASW_FBE_080305_final (1).pdf

8/9/2019 Efficacy testing of biocidal products - overview of available tests_ASW_FBE_080305_final (1).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/efficacy-testing-of-biocidal-products-overview-of-available-testsaswfbe080305final 1/191

October 2012

Kemikalieinspektionen

Postadress Besök Faktureringsadress Telefon & fax Internet Org nr

Box 2172 13 Sundbyberg

Esplanaden 3A,Sundbyberg

FE 124838 80 Hackås

Telefon +46 8 519 41 100Fax +46 8 735 76 98

[email protected]

202100-3880

M a l l - i d : M A G - 0 0 0 6 ,

2 0 1 1 - 1 2 - 2 8

Efficacy testing of biocidal products– overview of available tests

This report was produced by FB Engineering in 2008 at the request of the Swedish

Chemicals Agency.



At the request ofSWEDISH CHEMICALS AGENCY (KEMIKALIEINSPEKTIONEN),DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNICAL PRODUCTS

EFFICACY TESTING

OFBIOCIDAL PRODUCTS

- Overview of available tests

Göteborg 2008 Ann-Sofie Wernersson ([email protected])

FB Engineering ABSkärgårdsgatan 1, GöteborgPostal address: Box 12076, SE-402 41 Göteborg, SwedenPhone: +46 31 775 1000www.fbe.se



1

1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Full names Web page to organisations (if available) AATCC American Association of Textile

Chemists and Colorswww.aatcc.org/

AFNOR Association française denormalisation (NF standards)

/ww.afnor.fr/

AOAC Association of Official AnalyticalChemists

www.aoac.org/

ASTM American Society of Testing andMaterials

www.astm.org/)

ATCC American Type Culture CollectionBBA Federal Biological Research Centre

for Agriculture and Forestry(Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- Und ForstwirtschaftBundesrepublik Deutschland)

www.bba.de

BP Biocidal ProductBPD Biocidal Product Directive (referring

to 98/8/EG)BSI British Standards Institute (BS

standards)www.bsi.org.uk/

CA Competent AuthorityCEB Commission Des Essais

Biologiqueswww.afpp.net/commande/commissions/CEB.htm

CEFIC European Chemical IndustryCouncil

www.cefic.org

CEN European Committee forStandardisation

www.cenorm.be

CEPE European council of paint, printinginks and artist’s colours industry

www.cepe.org

CSMA Chemical Specialties Manufactures Association

www.csma.org

CTBA Centre Technique du Bois et del’Ameublement, Bordeaux

www.ctba.fr

EBPF European Biocidal Product ForumEPA United States Environmental

Protection Agencywww.epa.gov

EPPO European and Mediterranean PlantProtection Organization

www.eppo.org

ISO International StandardsOrganisation

www.iso.org/iso/home.htm

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries andFoods

MS Malaysian Standards http://msonline.sirim.my/msonlineOECD Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Developmentwww.oecd.org

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides andToxic Substances, United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency

www.epa.gov/internet/oppts/

PT Product TypeSABS South African Bureau of Standards www.sabs.co.za

http://www.afnor.fr/

http://www.epa.gov/internet/oppts/

http://www.epa.gov/internet/oppts/

http://www.afnor.fr/



3

3 SAMMANFATTNING

Effektiviteten hos biocidprodukter kan definieras som förmågan att åstadkomma en effektoch beror av den inneboende effektiviteten hos den aktiva substansen i produkten. Denpåverkas dock även av andra substanser i produkten och användningsmönstret. Inom EGregleras biocidprodukter av biociddirektivet (98/8/EC). Aktiva substanser bedöms på EGnivå medan produkterna regleras nationellt.

I direktivets Annex IIB beskrivs de informationskrav som ligger till grund för den påståddaeffektiveteten hos produkten. Det råder dock för närvarande ingen internationellsamstämmighet när det gäller specifika datakrav för respektive produkttyp för att styrkaden påstådda effektiviteten. I ”TNsG on Product Evaluation” saknas information för fleraprodukttyper när det gäller testdesign och huruvida det förekommer några standarder. ISverige ansågs tidigare att effektivitetsdata inte var viktiga för tillståndsprövningen avbiocidprodukter. Syftet med föreliggande rapport är därför att förse Kemikalieinspektionenmed en sammanställning och kort beskrivning (inklusive hur de utvärderas och vilkaeffektivitetskriter som råder) av tillgängliga effektivitetstester (både standarder och övriga),för samtliga produkttyper.

Test referenser och till viss del även testbeskrivningar erhölls genom att söka eftertestmetoder och kontaktpersoner via hemsidor, e-mail och telefonkontakt medmyndigheter, branschorganisationer, standardiseringsorganisationer, tillverkare,kommersiella laboratorier och forskningsinstitut. Sammanställningen täcker in allaprodukttyper förutom PT 16, 22 och 23 och innehåller referenser till 387 effektivitetstester,varav 341 är standarder. För en tredjedel av testerna summeras eller citeras syfte, design,

applicerbarhet och/eller effektivitetskriteria. Dessutom har mer än 250 testreferenserkontrollerats för att säkerställa att den senaste versionen tas med i sammanställningenoch för att förhindra att tester som inte längre är giltiga är med.

Eftersom effektivitet kan undersökas och mätas på så många olika sätt blir det svårt att jämföra effektiviteten hos olika produkter och att enas om krav på en viss prestanda hosprodukterna inom samma typ och användningsområde. I kombination med att det saknasspecifika testkrav finns det risk för en inkonsekvent bedömning i olika medlemsländer. Detär därför nödvändigt att myndigheter, standardiseringsorganisationer och industrintillsammans sätter prestandakrav, utecklar nya standardtester, tar fram referensproduktersamt arbetar fram listor på rekommenderade tester för specifika produkttyper ochanvändningsområden. En första början är att uppdatera de listor över tillgängliga tester

som finns i den nuvarande versionen av "TNsG on Product Evaluation".



4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................. 1

2 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 2

3 SAMMANFATTNING .......................................................................................... 3

4

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE PRESENT OVERVIEW ............................... 6

4.1

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 6

4.1.1 Biocidal Products Directive .............................................................................. 6

4.1.2 Data requirements related to efficacy .............................................................. 6

4.2 AIMS OF THIS OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 8

5 APPROACH ........................................................................................................ 9

6 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 10

6.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS vs LABEL CLAIMS ....................................... 10

6.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF EFFICACY TESTS ........................................... 10

6.3 STANDARDISED AND "IN HOUSE" PROCEDURES ...................................... 11

6.3.1 PT 1-5 ............................................................................................................... 11

6.3.2 PT 6: In-can preservat ives .............................................................................. 12

6.3.3 PT 8: Wood preservatives ............................................................................... 13

6.3.4

PT 10: Masonry biocides ................................................................................. 14

6.3.5 PT 13: Metalworking fluid preservatives ........................................................ 14

6.3.6 PT 14: Rodent icides ........................................................................................ 14

6.3.7 PT 18: Insecticides, acaricides and products to control otherarthropods ....................................................................................................... 15

6.3.8 PT 21: Ant ifouling products ............................................................................ 15

7

RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 15



6

4 BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE PRESENT OVERVIEW

4.1 BACKGROUND

4.1.1 Biocidal Products Directive

In the European Community, authorisation of Biocidal Products (BP) is regulatedby the Biocidal Products Directive (BPD)1. In regulating the use of BPs, thebenefits are to be balanced against the risks. The authorisation of a BP shouldonly be granted if that product is shown to be sufficiently effective (article 5(1)(b) of

BPD) without posing an unacceptable risk to the environment. There should alsobe no other unacceptable effects (such as development of resistance).

Efficacy can be defined as the power to produce an effect, and is described in Annex IIB and VI of the BPD as the ability to fulfil label claims. The efficacy of aBP determines the lower concentration or dose limit that should be used. Efficacyis not only related to the intrinsic efficacy of the active substance/s of the productbut also affected by non-active substances (such as surfactants and solvents)included in the product. The efficacy of a product is also related to the use patternof the product. Knowledge about how BPs are used is therefore essential in theassessment of the product.

Active substances used in BPs placed on the market are assessed at Communitylevel and must first be listed on Annex I, IA or IB of the BPD. In order to include anactive substance on Annex I, IA or IB, the notifier needs to demonstrate that theactive substance is effective in at least one application.

Products are subject to national authorisation (BPD Annex VI, articles 51, 52, 92,93). Label claims are a central issue in the assessment of efficacy. The applicantneeds to submit data on the product to substantiate the label claim and intendeduses, and efficacy claims must be presented on the product label and in productinformation. Efficacy claims that could cause the product to be used in an

inappropriate way should be avoided, in order to minimize biocide use andunwanted side effects.

4.1.2 Data requirements related to efficacy

Data requirements are listed in Annex IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB as well as IVA and IVB ofthe BPD. Product related data is found in part B of these Annexes, whereas data

1 BPD: Directive 98/8/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 16 February 1998

concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.



7

on the active substance is found in part A. The data and information required,relevant to the effectiveness of the BP is found in Annex IIB and the correspondingsection 5 of the Technical Notes for Guidance (TNsG) on Data Requirements2.

However, there is no international consensus on what data are required to provethe efficacy of a BP. In the TNsG on Product Evaluation3, it is stated that there areno existing guidelines on how to test the efficacy of BPs and no internationalagreements on label claims regarding supportive data or quality assuranceaspects of how such data are produced.

In an OECD survey4 from 1999, some questions on how authorities regarded

data on the efficacy of BPs were included. At the time of the survey, not allcountries (including Sweden) had an approval and/or notification process for allProduct Types (PTs)

5, which means that there were also no efficacy data

requirements for these PTs. Also, not all countries regarded efficacy data asimportant for the approval process. Ireland did not require any efficacy data atall, and Sweden did not consider them important for approval decision-makingsince they believed that the market will remove products that are not effectiveenough.

On the other hand, among the European countries in the survey, Belgium,Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal,Switzerland and the UK considered ”insufficient efficacy” as a cause for notauthorising a specific biocide product, at least for some product types. InBelgium, tests simulating practical use conditions were required for biocides fornon agricultural use. For use in agriculture, efficacy data were needed for

disinfectants for veterinary use and for products against ecto-parasites. InDenmark, disinfectants were validated on data from a European suspensiontest or similar. Nordic standards were used to assess wood preservatives andpaper industry was evaluating effectiveness of slimicides for pulp production. InGermany, efficacy data were the most important data for approval of vectorcontrol products (insecticides, acaricides and rodenticides in the field ofhygiene) and the actual testing was performed by the Robert-Koch Institute(disinfectants), and by the Federal Environmental Agency. The testing includedlaboratory and field tests, and was based on vector extermination. AlthoughFinland did not consider ”insufficient efficacy” as a cause for not authorising aspecific biocide product, wood impregnation chemicals were tested andassessed by the Nordic Wood Preservation Council (non obligatory inspection)and the Agricultural Research Centre tested the efficacy of all insecticides,

rodenticides and repellents.

2 Technical Guidance Document in support of the directive 98/8/ec concerning the placing of

biocidal products on the market - guidance on data requirements for active substances and biocidalproducts3 TNsG in support of Annex VI of directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council

concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Common principles and practicalprocedures for the authorisation and registration of products. Ver 10.0, July 2002.4 OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Pesticides No 9. “Report of the

Survey of OECD Member Countries’ Approaches to the Regulation of Biocides. Paris 1999.ENV/JM/MONO(99)11. This report (and its annexes) can be found at

http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_32159259_32480722_1_1_1_1,00.html

5 The 23 different Product Types (PTs) are described in Annex V of BPD.






8

In chapter 7 of the TNsG on Product Evaluation, there is some guidance on how toproceed. It focuses particularly on information that is needed for stating label

claims, study robustness and report details, Quality Assurance procedures,evaluation of data and decision making. Any efficacy claims will depend on e.g.the PT use patterns and desired effects (including target organisms). If the producthas a broad label claim, suitable principal organisms should be identified as thetarget organisms.

Annex IIB of the BPD requires likely information for the basis of a label claim. Thisincludes PT, spectrum of biological activity [target organisms and theirdevelopment stage and function as well as mode of action (used also to evaluatepotential and existing pest resistance)], area of use/site of application,geographical variability, duration of control/effect, directions for use, other relevant

information (including target dose rate, variability and application method), efficacyor inefficacy of product under certain conditions (nature of infestation, density ofmicroorganisms, application temperature).

4.2 AIMS OF THIS OVERVIEW

The guidance provided in the TNsG on Product Evaluation is not in the form of achecklist and there are no rigid criteria to evaluate efficacy data. Expert scientific judgement is therefore necessary on a case by case basis. As stated in section

7.1.2. of the TNsG on Product Evaluation, the lack of harmonisation of efficacyrequirements can result in uncertainty, confusion, inconsistency andmisunderstandings regarding the extent of efficacy data required by the regulatoryauthorities.

The TNsG on Product Evaluation includes references to available standard testsfor Product Type (PT) 1-6, 8, 10, 13-15, 18 and 21. Nevertheless, for several PTsthere is no information on how the tests are performed and whether there arestandards available (PT 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23).

In Sweden, information about efficacy was not regarded as important for the

approval decision-making in national BP applications (dossiers). Moreover, someof the PTs that are now regulated by the BPD were previously exempted fromregulation (including food and feed area disinfectants, in-can preservatives andmetal working fluid preservatives) and some regulated PTs were not subject to anauthorisation process (human and veterinary hygiene biocide products,preservatives for food and feedstocks, embalming and taxidermist fluids andbiocides for “other vertebrates”).



9

In order to be better prepared for evaluating the efficacy data of BPs according tothe BPD, the aims of this project were to provide the Swedish Chemicals Agency(Kemikalieinspektionen, KemI), i.e. CA Sweden with

• an overview and brief description of available efficacy test methods(standards and "in house") for BPs, including all PTs

• information on how the tests are evaluated and what efficacy criteria areapplied.

Knowledge gaps should also be identified.

5 APPROACH

The present overview includes references to both standards and non standard ("inhouse") tests submitted by individual companies. Test references and, to someextent, test descriptions were found by searching for available test procedures andcontact persons on web pages, e-mail and phone correspondence with authorities,industry organisations, standardization organizations, individual manufacturersand test institutes. Some material (including protocols from a Technical Meeting in2005 at ECB) were also provided by KemI (CA Sweden).

Much effort was made to contact individual persons in companies and test

institutes, either by e-mail and/or phone, in order to include also test references to"in house" tests and information on what standards that are actually used byindividual companies.

The web pages of the following standardisation organisations were searched forefficacy tests currently available: ASTM, CEN, EPPO, ISO and OECD. Searchphrases included "efficacy", "antiseptics", "disinfectants", "antifouling","bactericides", "preservatives". It was also valuable to search standards throughthe Technical Committees and Working Groups, such as E35 for Pesticides under ASTM.

In order to obtain a starting point for available efficacy tests, the TNsG on ProductEvaluation and national guidelines (UK and NL) were also consulted.

The project was performed during the period of November-December in 2007.



10

6 INTRODUCTION

6.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS vs LABEL CLAIMS

Performance standards refer to a predetermined efficacy required by theauthorities and should, according to the TNsG on Product Evaluation, be the samewithin all Member States for a particular use and situation. The performance standard ("pass/fail criteria") can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative6 terms.

Label claims are made by the manufacturer and written on the product label. Itmakes a claim about the function of the product, such as pest organisms that it

controls, duration of control, type of control (kill, repel etc), and directions for use(including method and application rate).

6.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OF EFFICACY TESTS

The experimental design of efficacy tests can be divided into three different types:screening tests, simulation tests and field tests.

Screening tests are usually laboratory studies of either the active substance orsimple formulations and often performed during a relatively short period of time.Studies may include dose-response tests and several replicates. Laboratory dataare usually not sufficient to predict actual treatment levels or effectiveness inservice under real situations, but can be used to estimate the innate efficacy of theproduct. An untreated control should be included.

Simulation tests are performed in artificial environments that resemble the realconditions during use and often the actual product is used in the test. An untreatedcontrol should be included.

Field studies generate data based on actual use of the product as prescribed bythe product label. Even if the exposure conditions are more realistic than thescreening tests it should be kept in mind that they are still only representing aparticular situation and efficacy could be influenced if changing e.g. the level ofpest pressure or application technology. In addition, even if time scales aregenerally longer, it is frequently not possible to perform the test during the full lifecycle of the product. PT 8 tests last e.g. 5 years but the service life might be 60years.

6 including e.g. percentage kill, extent of remaining population, greatest dilution of product still

producing the desired effect etc



11

The product should preferably be tested at a variety of application rates, includinglevels below those suggested in a real use situation. The last point ensures thatthe biocidal product dose will be as low as possible.

As in any laboratory testing of chemicals, and also stated in the TNsG on ProductEvaluation, it is appropriate to include a negative (untreated) and/or positive (aproduct/test material with the same use pattern and with proven efficacy, oftencalled a reference product) control. The negative control provides importantinformation to estimate the extent of the problem without any treatment. However,for field tests, there are often limited possibilities to include replicates in the studyand to include untreated areas as a control. The latter aspect is sometimesapproached by including pre- and posttreatment assessments. Standard BPs, tobe used as positive controls in the efficacy tests, have been developed for e.g. PT18 and 8 and can facilitate the ranking of products but also help to control the

reproducibility of a test and facilitates comparisons with other test facilities.

6.3 STANDARDISED AND " IN HOUSE" PROCEDURES

As stated in BPD Annex VI, efficacy testing should be carried out according toCommunity guidelines if available and applicable, but other methods may also beused, including other international standards (e g CEN, ISO), national standards,industry standards, individual producer standards or data from product

development, as long as these are accepted by the Competent Authority (CA).

The availability of international standards varies between PTs. In the TNsG onProduct Evaluation, there are several standards listed for PT [1-5]7, [8]8, [14]9 and[18]10; and a few for PT [6]11, [10]12, [13]13, [15]14 and [21]15. For PT 1-5, 6, 8, 10,13, 14, 18 and 21 some of the information and guidance provided in the TNsG onProduct Evaluation is summarised below. For further details, the reader shouldconsult the original reference.

6.3.1 PT 1-5

• Typical use patterns: health care area for hard surfaces (including medicalequipment), public area for reduction of nuisance, pathogens or algae toacceptable level, for veterinary or other animal accommodation areas toprevent/control outbreak of diseases, as bacteriostats against

7 from CEN, AOAC/EPA, ASTM and MAFF

8 all from CEN; in particular, EN599 describes pass/fail criteria

9 from EPA/OPP, BBA, EPPO and ASTM

10 from a number of sources, including BS, US CSMA Aerosol guide, AFNOR, WHO, South African

Bureau of standards, EPPO, ASTM and AATCC11

from AFNOR, DIN, SABS, ASTM12

from BS and ENV13

from ASTM14 from ASTM and EPA

15 from CEPE and ASTM



12

microorganisms causing aesthetic problems (odour) in presence ofmoisture.

• The EN approach is to divide the tests into phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3

tests, corresponding to testing of innate activity, simulated use and "field"testing (under practical conditions) respectively. Phase 2 tests aresubdivided into 2 steps (suspension tests and others):

o Phase 1: Suspension tests to test innate bactericidal, fungicidaland/or sporicidal activity; defining minimum standards.

o Phase 2, step 1: Suspension tests, simulating the conditions duringpractical use

o Phase 2, step 2: Other tests (handwash, handrub, surface test),simulating the conditions during practical use

o Phase 3: Field tests (practical conditions)

• Broad label claims for PT 2, if intended to be used as a disinfectant in public

hygiene, should indicate efficacy against Gram negative and Gram positivebacteria. Furthermore, if intended to destroy tuberculosis bacteria, claimsagainst Mycobacterium tuberculosis will need to be substantiated.

• Influencing factors to consider during efficacy testing of disinfectantbiocides include water hardness, interfering substances, contaminants,temperature, contact time, pH and the roughness of the surface.

6.3.2 PT 6: In-can preservatives

• Spoilage of in-can and in-tank products may be the result ofmicroorganism’s (primarily bacteria16 but also yeast17 and moulds18)feeding on substances present in the product, leading to reduced integrity.By-products of microbial growth can also contribute to spoilage andconsequences include discoloration, gassing, viscocity loss etc.

• Laboratory tests are performed either as MIC (Minimal InhibitoryConcentration), challenge testing or heat stability testing. The usual methodfor evaluating in-can preservatives in paints or other aqueous products isthe challenge test.

o MIC determinations are conducted on a dilution series of the active

substance. The minimum amount of biocide that is required to inhibitmicrobial growth is identified and efficacy is assessed against arange of bacterial, fungal and yeast spoilage organisms. Results arepresented as the concentration required to inhibit the growth of aparticular test organism and are useful for determining the spectrumof activity of an active substance.

o In the challenge test, microbial cells are added to the test sampleand the survival or death rate of these cells is monitored with respectto time.

16

Common species are Alcagenes spp, Micrococcus luteus, E. coli, Proteus vulgaris.17 Common species are Aspergillus spp, Geotrichium candidum, Penicillum spp.

18 Common species are Candida albicans, Rhodotorula rubra, Saccharomyces cerevisiae



13

o The level of active substance is usually measured by a suitablechromatographic method at time zero and after incubation at anelevated temperature to determine whether the biocide has

degraded. Incubation time and temperature varies between tests andthe results indicate the stability of the active substance in a particularproduct formulation.

• US EPA assessment criteria require that the active substances shouldshow effectiveness against bacteria in at least two representativeformulations in which the biocide is intended for use and tested (simulated-use) in at least three replicates of each of the two product formulations. Actual bacterial isolates (identified at least to genus) from spoiled productand/or ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) spoilage bacteria shouldbe employed as test inocula. Mixed bacterial and fungal inocula are notacceptable in demonstrating bacterial deterioration. Bacteriological

sampling should be quantitative and product quality observed concurrently.Test duration: 6 m to 1 yr. Conditions in the negative controls should causesignificant growth and deteriorative (physical and chemical) changes.

6.3.3 PT 8: Wood preservati ves

• Durability of treated products will rely on the residue in wood which remainsactive for the claimed service life. Efficacy will to a large extent depend onclimate (extremely variable situations exist within the EuropeanCommunity), target organisms, wood species, application process19 andexposure class (see below).

• Label claims should include a statement whether the product is aimed atfungal, insect or attack from marine borers, and whether it is a preventive orremedial (curative, eradicant)20 product. The test data required for remedialclaims may need to consider both preventive and eradicant action.

• The data required will depend on the Use/Hazard classes (see e.g. EN 335-1, -2, -3), based on increasing level of wetting degree and exposureseverity: Hazard class 1: Above ground (Dry) exposure; class 2: Aboveground (wetting, protected from the weather); class 3: Above ground(Exposed to weathering, but not in ground contact); class 4: Timbers incontact with the ground or fresh water, or above ground if water trapping orlogging exist. Hazard class 5: Timbers in the marine environment21.

19 There are three types of application methods: Penetrating treatments (including “double

vacuum”, “vacuum-pressure” and “diffusion”), surface treatments (including brush and spraytechniques and “dipping” processes) and other treatment methods.20

The minimum performance requirements for eradicant BPs are given in prEN 14128:2001.Remedial (in situ) treatment systems will be more varied than preventive treatments, depending one.g. a variety of likely treatment methods.21

Data required to support claims for preventive efficacy, for Hazard class 1: Laboratory test onwood boring insects (no fungal hazard); for class 2: Laboratory test on Wood rottingbasidiomycetes - brown rot; for class 3: Laboratory test on wood rotting basidiomycetes - brown rotand in some cases white rot, and an optional field L-joint test (5 year); for class 4: Laboratory teston Wood rotting basidiomycetes - white rot and brown rot, Laboratory test on soft rot microfungi,

and an optional field Stake test (5 year); for class 5: Laboratory test on wood rottingbasidiomycetes - white rot and brown rot, lab test on soft rot microfungi, lab test on Marine borers,and a compulsory field Marine test (5 year).



14

6.3.4 PT 10: Masonry biocides

• Effectiveness (often described as kill or prevention of regrowth) depends onsubstrate, target organisms (including dry rot fungus, fungus/yeasts,lichens, mosses and liverworts), penetration, concentration used etc.

• In laboratory tests for general surface BP use, different concentrations ofthe active substance is absorbed on assay discs applied to agar that isseeded with fungal or algae. The zone of growth inhibition is determinedafter incubation. There are also simulated use and field tests.

• To test products intended for the control of dry rot, simulated use tests arebased on employing mortar treated with the product and then exposed tochallenge by Serpula lacrymans. Growth over or through the treated

substrate is evaluated. Outbreaks of dry rot are unique and to control growth it isneccary to implement a number of measures. It is therefore difficult to include"untreated controls" and to design field tests.

6.3.5 PT 13: Metalworking flu id preservatives

• Simple laboratory tests generally determine MIC (Minimum InhibitoryConcentrations). Many plant variables (such as machine characteristics,metal, and the present microorganisms - both bacteria and fungi and yeast)can influence overall preservative efficacy. Field use levels are therefore

often difficult to predict based on laboratory tests.• In simulated use tests the fluid and preservative is generally placed in a

vessel and tested in a shaker, aeration or pump system, regulated in amanner that simulates the plant conditions. Microbial inoculation isperformed repeatedly and the fluid is monitored regarding visualappearance, pH, oxygen uptake and the presence/survival ofmicroorganisms.

• Field (in-use) tests will only be applicable to the particular conditions duringthe test and it may be difficult to run concurrent negative controls.

6.3.6 PT 14: Rodenticides

• Rodent species can cause montory loss (through consumption or spoilageof foodstuff or damage due to gnawing and burrowing) and spread disease.Major target organisms include rats and house mice. Selected test speciesshould be relevant to the geographic region and specified on the label.

• Laboratory test methods for products include “no choice” tests (testorganisms are only offered contaminated food) and “choice” tests (bothcontaminated and uncontaminated food is offered) as well as studiesrelated to specific product types (contact rodenticides or gassing agents) orrelated to specific efficacy claims (for use in damp situations).



15

• In field trials /under seminatural conditions/ rodent activity on the site shouldbe determined before and after treatments and amount of bait consumedshould be monitored.

6.3.7 PT 18: Insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods

• The standards can be used for testing efficacy against flying, crawling,larval insects and also to test fumigants.

• Product applications include spr ay, textiles and fumigation. The effectsinclude knockdown, kill, residual22, flushing, ovicidal/larvicidal and thecontrol of resistant pests. Treatment methods include general surfacetreatment, crack/crevice treatment, contact (direct) space spray, spottreatment and baits.

• The tests are performed either as lab/screening tests, simulated use testsor field tests.

6.3.8 PT 21: Antifouling products

• Although there are a few standards related to antifouling products, theseare usually related to leaching rate rather than efficacy. The two standardsincluded produce simulated field data (raft testing) during which panelscoated with the test formulation are immersed in water under static

conditions. Other test principles could be in vitro (lab test) and field (patch)test.

7 RESULTS

7.1 TEST REFERENCES FOUND IN THIS OVERVIEW

National and international standards, in house tests and other test references areincluded in the list presented in Appendix I, comprising in total 387 test references.Of these, 341 are standards and 46 are "in house" and other non standardisedprocedures developed either by the manufacturers or external test institutes andresearch laboratories.

The standard test references already listed in TNsG of Product Evaluation are allincluded in the list, except tests that are not considered "efficacy tests" (see below)and tests that have since been withdrawn. In addition, web pages of some of thestandardisation organisations were searched for the latest versions and currently

22

Residual effects are due to active substances that remain active for a long time (weeks tomonths) in order to control e.g. walking insects (that are unlikely to react to space sprays).Treatments are applied at high dosages to surfaces or as palatable baits.



16

available tests (see next section). Manufacturers, industry organisations, otherMSs and test institutes and laboratories were also contacted regarding tests thatthey use or know are being used.

About 90 manufacturers, test institutes and industry organisations were contacted.Out of these, 37 responded. In some cases there was a high interest in the projectbut due to the limited timeline of the project and/or other restrictions somecompanies could not contribute with specific test references to particular productsto be included in the overview. In addition, some of the contacted companies didnot manufacture and/or test /the efficacy of/ BPs. Nevertheless, 14 companiescontributed with a total of 130 test references (including both standards and othertest methods) to the overview, and one manufacturer will send referencesseparately at a later stage.

7.1.1 International standardisation organisations – own searches

The web pages of the following standardisation organisations were also searchedfor efficacy tests currently available: ASTM, CEN, EPPO, ISO and OECD. Theresults are included in Appendix I.

Some additional CEN standards only indirectly related to actual efficacy testinginclude (but is probably not limited to) EN 1014 part 1-4 (methods of sampling andanalysis of creosote), EN212:2003 (General guidance on sampling and

preparation for analysis of wood preservatives and treated timber), EN 335-1 and -2 s well as EN 599-1 and -2 and EN 14128:2003 (related to use and hazardclasses, performance criteria and labelling regarding durability of wood and wood-based products). These tests are not included in Appendix I.

EPPO is primarily focused on Plant Protection Products, although some standardscan also be applicable to some biocidal product types, such as rodenticides (PT14) and fumigants (PT 18). Except for the standards included in Appendix I, theyhave also published a “Good Plant Protection Practice” for rodent control for cropprotections and on farms23.

ASTM has several standards applicable to microorganisms and woodpreservatives but also other PTs. Most ASTM standards have not been ringtested, except some of the standards that correspond to USEPA methods.Working groups searched are E35 (Pesticides, including subcommittees 35.12Insect control agents, 35.22 Pesticide formulations and delivery systems, 35.15 Antimicrobial agents), E47.01 (Aquatic Assessment and Toxicology), D31.02(Leather, subcommittee wet blue), D01.28 (Biodeterioration) and D01.45 (MarineCoatings), both subcommittees under D01 (Paint and related coatings, materials

23 PP 2/5(1) Rodent control for crop protection and on farms. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 25, 709-736. It

was edited as an EPPO standard in 1998 and can be found athttp://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/gpp.htm

http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/gpp.htm





17

and applications), G03.04 (Weathering and durability, biological deterioration),D14.30 (Wood adhesives, subcommittee under D13 Adhesives).

Some additional ASTM standards only indirectly related to actual efficacy testinginclude (but is not limited to): ASTM E1326-06 (Standard guide for evalutatingnonconventional microbiological tests used for enumerating bacteria), ASTMD5259-92(2006) (Standard Test Method for Isolation and Enumeration ofEnterococci from Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure), ASTM E1427-00e1(Standard Guide for Selecting Test Methods to Determine the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Agents and Other Chemicals for the Prevention, Inactivation andRemoval of Biofilm), D283-84(1990)e1 and D284-88(1993)e1 (related to chemicalanalysis of active substances in antifouling products) and D5108-90 (StandardTest Method for Organitin Release Rates of Antifouling Coating Systems in SeaWater). These are not included in the list.

ISO standards have been ring tested but there are only a few available publishedefficacy standards, included in Appendix I.

As opposed to e.g. fate and ecotoxicity tests, efficacy testing is covered only to alittle extent by OECD guidelines. There are only a few applicable OECD guidelinespublished, although there are some drafts, see Appendix I. Five new test methodsto evaluate efficacy of antimicrobials on hard surfaces will be investigated in ringtrial. For the particular case of testing piscicides (PT17), it is possible to use testguidelines that were developed for aquatic toxicity testing.

The US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) haspublished updated test guidelines in ten series, of which 810 is related to productperformance24. Nine guidelines related to Product Performance were finalized andpublished on the web page at the time of the present project and included in theoverview.

7.1.2 Tests used in other MSs – TM and national guidelines

In the second Technical Meeting at ECB in 2005 (TMII05), the MSs were asked to

submit references to any efficacy tests that they knew were being used within theirterritory, based on a list provided by COM. CA France provided a detailedresponse and test references on their list have been included in Appendix I, if alsofound on the homepages of the standardisation organisations. In the German list,some standards that are not actually efficacy tests were indicated and thereforeerased from Appendix I.

In the UK, detailed national guidance documents can be found at the Health andSafety Executive (HSE) website25 for wood preservatives, rodenticides, anti-foulingproducts, surface biocides, as well as insecticides and acaricides. These

24 http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm

25 http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/application/index.htm



18

guidelines outline the nature and extent of testing required to gain approval and allbut the antifouling guideline include lists of available standards. Upon contactingthe HSE, it was found that the most commonly used efficacy standards they have

encountered so far are EN standards, but ASTM standards are probably the nextmost frequently submitted. They state that industry tests are also common,especially for some PTs. Wood preservatives have generally been testedaccording to CEN standards; insecticides according to in house tests (but whereguidelines are used, they are most frequently WHO tests); rodenticides accordingto non standard tests or EPPO guidelines; anti-fouling paints were normally testedin industry raft tests or patch tests and finally surface biocides were mostcommonly tested according to non standard test methods. A list of references totests for some PTs that was so far included in the authorisation process was alsoprovided and these references have been included in Appendix I.

In Denmark, wood preservatives are efficacy tested according to CEN standards.

In the Netherlands, The Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Productsand Biocides (Ctgb)26 is responsible for the authorisation of biocides. On itswebsite, efficacy concept guidance documents are available for disinfectants,wood preservatives and rodenticides. There is also a guidance document comingup on insecticides and a new version of the rodenticide guideline is presentlybeing negotioated in Technical Meetings. References found in the last version ofthe rodenticide guidance document as well as the guidance for wood preservativeswere included in Appendix I.

7.1.3 Methods in use according to manufacturers and indust ry organisations

In the TNsG on Product Evaluation as as well as national guidelines (UK and NL)there are several lists of available standard tests available for efficacy testing ofbiocide products (see above). However, they do not make any comments on thesuitability of particular test methods and how frequently they are used. In order toobtain an indication as to what tests are actually applied on the BPs by differentcompanies today (i.e. what test data the CA Sweden – and other Member States –may expect to receive in applications), manufacturers were also contacted to ask

about what tests they use on their products. In addition, several tests available arenot in the form of standards but rather “in house” methods, sometimes developedby the companies themselves and therefore not listed in the TNsG on ProductEvaluation.

Companies were initially contacted in Sweden but because suitable contactpersons were usually found to be located abroad, the companies were later mainlycontacted internationally. In addition, test institutes were also contacted, regardingavailable efficacy tests on BPs and these references are also included in AppendixI.

26 http://www.ctb.agro.nl

http://www.ctgb.nl/

http://www.ctgb.nl/

http://www.ctgb.nl/

http://www.ctgb.nl/

http://www.ctgb.nl/

http://www.ctgb.nl/



19

7.1.4 Test endpoints

In the TNsG on Product Evaluation it is pointed out that Good Laboratory Practice(GLP) is not required for efficacy tests, although the spirit of these principlesshould be applied at least during documentation. Due to limited access to full texttest descriptions and the short time period of the project, an in-depth evaluation ofany particular tests could not be performed. The individual design, applicability andefficacy criteria, was therefore only briefly cited or summarised in Appendix I, ifinformation was available from either the home page of the standardisationorganisations or from full text references. However, it can be concluded that theresults of efficacy tests are expressed in numerous ways, depending on PT, test

design etc. Some examples of efficacy endpoints are "mean time to 50%knockdown of flies", % kill, EC50 ("concentration causing the measured effect in50% of the test population"), "elapsed time to first bite", “% ants crossing a tilewithin 60 minutes”, “MIC (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration)”, ‘”% reduction inCFU (Colony Forming Units)” etc, see Appendix I for particular tests.

7.2 LIMITATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS

In this project, a priority was to cover most or preferably all PTs rather than obtain

in depth information on tests for a particular PT. Although for some PTs only a fewtest references were found, Appendix I covers all PTs except PT 16, 22 and 23. One reason for the major lack of information on some PTs may be that there areonly a few products that will belong to this group (particularly true for e.g. PT 20,because these products are generally covered by other regulations), but also thatnot all product types have been previously regulated in all Member States.

Almost 90 % of the tests included in the overview are standards, although thesituation can vary between different PTs. There are most likely several additional"in house" and non standardised tests, not available to the author during therelatively short time period of the project. The coverage related to non standard

tests is related to the contributions obtained from different manufacturers. Thereare also several additional standards available, but in this project in-depthsearches were focused on international standardisation organisations rather thannational standards.



20

8 DISCUSSION

BPD Annex VI, paragraph 92 and 93:

”92. Member States shall not authorise a biocidal product which does notpossess acceptable efficacy when used in accordance with the conditionsspecified on the proposed label or with other conditions of authorisation.

93. The level, consistency and duration of protection, control or other intendedeffects must, as a minimum, be similar to those resulting from suitable referenceproducts, where such products exist, or to other means of control. Where noreference products exist, the biocidal product must give a defined level ofprotection or control in the areas of proposed use. Conclusions as to theperformance of the biocidal product must be valid for all areas of proposed use

and for all areas in the Member State except where the proposed labelprescribes that the biocidal product is intended for use in specificcircumstances. Member States shall evaluate dose response data generated intrials (which must include an untreated control) involving dose rates lower thanthe recommended rate, in order to assess if the recommended dose is theminimum necessary to achieve the desired effect.”

8.1 EVALUATING EFFICACY – COMPARING TEST RESULTS TO LABEL

CLAIMS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The purpose of testing BPs using efficacy tests, is to determine whether theproducts posess “acceptable efficacy” (see BPD Annex VI, para 92). Statisticallysignificant results in a quantitative test including a negative control indicateswhether the product is efficient compared to no treatment at all. However, as withany laboratory testing, whether a particular result is statistically significant isinfluenced by aspects such as the number of replicates tested and other factorsrelated to test design (incubation period, choice of test organism etc). Therefore, aproduct may be "efficient" according to one particular test, but maybe not ifapplying other test conditions.

Furthermore, “statistically significant” may not be efficient enough from a user’spoint of view. A product causing 20% reduction in the number of cockroaches isprobably not regarded as efficient enough. BPs need to be efficient also in “reallife” and should fulfil minimum requirements for a certain use. Therefore, testresults need to be compared to performance standards (pass/fail criteria).

Individual efficacy test methods usually do not include pass/fail criteria, althoughthere exists CEN standards with pass-fail criteria for PT 8 (EN599) and severalapplications under PT 1-5 (prEN14885:2006). Therefore, in most cases, the

efficacy of BPs has to be evaluated by comparing test results to the label claimsmade by the manufacturer. The evaluating authorities need good knowledge about



22

Even with long term field tests it is not easy to predict real performance of theproduct. The problems associated with efficacy testing are not unique though;

predicting ecosystem effects of chemicals based on a few toxicity tests performedin the laboratory is also not a simple task. However, if harmonising performancestandards in so far as possible for particular PTs, use situations and label claims,the authorisation process as well as the choice of test method and design will befacilitated.

9 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

• In total, 387 test references are included in this overview, covering all PTsexcept 16, 22 and 23. The overview is based on references from the TNsGon Product Evaluation and information from manufacturers, MSs andnational guidelines, test institutes and own searches of tests available onthe homepage of some international standardisation organisations. About90% of the available tests included are standards.

• For one third of the test references included in this overview, the scope,design, applicability and/or efficacy criteria is briefly summarised as far aspossible if information was available.

• The test references of more than 250 standards have been checked tomake sure that the newest version available is included in the overview.

• Efforts should be made to developo performance standards (pass/fail criteria) to minimize inconsistent

evaluation of efficacyo additional standard methods in order to cover the most frequent

applicationso suitable reference substances, to facilitate ranking of different BPs

that were tested using different procedures and also the evaluationof the reproducibility of test results.

o lists of recommended tests for particular products and use situations.

• Authorities, standardisation organisations and industry representativesneed to be involved during the development of pass/fail criteria, new teststandards, reference products identification and to establish lists ofrecommended tests for particular product applications. As a start, the listsof available standards for efficacy testing of BPs need to be updated in theTNsG on Product Evaluation, since several tests have been withdrawn orreplaced by newer versions. It is the hope of the author that the present

overview may be of assistance in this process.



23

10 APPENDIX I. TEST PROCEDURES (STANDARDS AND OTHER

REFERENCES).

The following table includes relevant standards from TNsG on Product Evaluation,list of standards used in France, national guidelines (UK, NL), results from ownsearches on the web page of standardisation organisations, standards and nonstandardized test refered to and/or supplied by manufacturers, industryorganizations and performing laboratories. The standards related to multiplesources are updated to the most recent version if applicable. References in italicshave been checked by searching the web page of the standardisation organisation(reference number, title) and, if applicable, been updated to the most recent

version of the test.

The suitability of particular test methods have not been evaluated, but for severaltests (if information was available to the author), the test procedures andevaluation criteria have been briefly summarised, based or cited mainly frominformation found in the description of the tests available on the web pages of thestandardisation organisations, full test description and/or from the TNsG onProduct Evaluation (TNsG PE).

For ASTM methods, the number after the hyphen is refering to the last revisiondate of the test; the number in parenthesis is referring to the last reapproval of the

test.

The table includes only standards that are related to efficacy testing (as far as thishas been possible to read out from the title and available descriptions of thestandard), not e.g. use class standards (for PT8), leaching rate standards (for PT21) etc. Standards that may have been present in the TNsG on Product Evaluationbut withdrawn since then (such as several ASTM standards related to avicides,PT15) are also not included. Section 810.2000 of the OPPTS of US EPA is relatedto antimicrobials in public health, but none of the guidelines were found on theEPA web page at the time of the project. Although several EPA guidelines relatedto PT 1-5 were included in the TNsG on Product Evaluation, these are not

included in table 1 due to uncertain reference details (titles are missing in theTNsG PE).

The list is not exhaustive and the PT designation of a particular test reference maynot always reflect possible applications of the test method and in some cases itwas difficult to assign the test to a particular PT.



24

Table 1. Overview of efficacy test references, in order of product type.

REFERENCE

TITLE PT SHORT TEST DESCRIPTION(IF TEST METHOD

AVAILABLE ORINFORMATION PROVIDEDFROM ELSEWHERE)

TYPE OFREFERENCESOURCE

ASTME1891-97(2002)

Standard Guide forDetermination of aSurvival Curve for Antimicrobial Agents Against SelectedMicroorganisms andCalculation of a D-Value and

ConcentrationCoefficient

? Own searches

ASTMWK15324

Test Method forDetermining the Time-Kill Kinetics Of AntimicrobialCompounds

? This test method assesses themicrobicidal activity ofantimicrobial materials,whereby the survival oforganisms exposed to a watermiscible antimicrobial agent isdetermined as a function oftime. The primary purpose ofthis method is to provide a setof standardized conditions andtest organisms to facilitate

comparative assessments ofantimicrobial materialsmiscible in aqueous systems.

Own searches

ASTMG160-03

Standard Practice forEvaluating MicrobialSusceptibility ofNonmetallic Materialsby Laboratory SoilBurial

8-10?

A wide variety of propertiesmay be affected by microbialattack depending on materialor item characteristic.Standard methods (whereavailable) should be used foreach different property to beevaluated. This practice doesnot attempt to enumerate all ofthe possible properties ofinterest nor specify the mostappropriate test for thoseproperties. Test methods must,however, be appropriate to thematerial being tested.Evaluation of a nonmetallicmaterial's microbiologicalsusceptibility when in contactwith the natural environment ofthe soil and is intended for useon material test specimensthat are approximately 2 cm(3/4 in.) thick and 100 cm2 (20in2) or less. It is recommendedthat this practice be combined

Own searches



25

REFERENCE




with appropriate environmentalexposures (for example,sunlight simulating weatheringdevices, the hydrolytic effectsof extended aqueous contact,or extraneous nutrients) orfabrication into articles (forexample, adhesive bonding ofseams) which may promotemicrobiological susceptibilityduring the service life of

material.Microbiological susceptibilitymay be reflected by a numberof changes including staining,weight loss, or reduction intensile or flexural strength.This practice may be appliedto articles that do not spendthe majority of their service lifein soil.

Alleman,J.E.,Etzel,

J.E.,Gendron,D.,Kirsch,E.J.,Conley,J.,Fidelle,T.,Handy,F., andHildebrandt, M.

42nd

PurdueIndustrialWasteConference, May1987,519-524

ComparativeEvaluation of

Alternative Halogen-

based DisinfectionStrategies

1-5 Microorganisms were exposedto a mixture of biocide insolution for 4 or 16 minutes.

The percentage survival wasassessed under variousconditions such as high or lownitrogen (as ammonium), highpH or low temperatures.

Manufacturer

AmericanPublicHealth

Association, 16th

Edition,1985

Standard Methods forthe Examination ofWater and Wastewater(SMEWW).

1-5 A swimming pool trial wasperformed over a three monthperiod to demonstrate thedisinfection efficacy of theproduct. Water samples were

collected for microbialanalysis. Water and, air

Manufacturer



26

REFERENCE




temperature, number ofbathers (at the time whensamples were taken and totalbathers for the day), eye andskin irritation and water claritywere also measured.Criteria for effective controlwas determined as follows:The state of California,Department of Health Servicesrequirement for pool water is;

Bacteriological quality of waterin the swimming pool shall besuch that not more than twoconsecutive samples, takenwhen the pool is in use shall:1. Contain more than 200bacteria per ml, as determinedby the standard plate count; or2. Contain a total coliformorganism count of 2.2 orgreater per 100 ml of sample3. Chemical quality of water inthe pool shall not cause

irritation of eyes or skin of thebathers, or have otherobjectionable physiologicaleffects on bathers.

AOAC(Association ofOfficial

AnalyticalChemists) officialmethod965.13

“Disinfectant (water)for Swimming Pools”official method of

Analysis, 16th Edition,1995

1-5 Manufacturer

ASTME1052-96(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents Against Viruses inSuspension

1-5 Laboratory suspension testthat determines theeffectiveness of antimicrobialsolutions against designatedprototype viruses. Theeffective antimicrobialconcentration should bedetermined using cell culturesas the host system for specificviruses. For specialapplications of virucides, suchas inactivation of viruses incontaminated liquid wastes,

and as a first stage indetermining virucidal potential

Manufacturer



27

REFERENCE




of liquid chemical germicides,liquid hand soaps, OTCtopicals or other skin products.

ASTME1053-97(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of Virucidal Agents Intended forInanimateEnvironmentalSurfaces

1-5 Laboratory test method.Evaluates the virucidal efficacyof liquid, aerosol, or triggerspray antimicrobial solutionson inanimate nonporousenvironmental surfaces,against designated prototype

viruses. The effectiveantimicrobial concentrationshould be determined utilizingcell cultures as the hostsystem for specific viruses.Efficacy is measured by apercentage reduction in titer.

Manufacturer

ASTME1054-02

Standard TestMethods for Evaluationof Inactivators of Antimicrobial Agents

1-5 Effectiveness of proceduresand agents for inactivating(neutralizing, quenching) themicrobiocidal properties ofantimicrobial agents and toensure that no components of

the neutralizing proceduresand agents, themselves, exertan inhibitory effect onmicroorganisms targeted forrecovery.

Own searches

ASTME1115-02

Test Method forEvaluation of SurgicalHand ScrubFormulations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1153-03

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy ofSanitizersRecommended for

Inanimate Non-FoodContact Surfaces

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1173-01e1

Standard Test Methodof a Evaluation of aPreoperative,Precatheterization, orPreinjection SkinPreparations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1174-06

Test Method forEvaluation of theEffectiveness of HealthCare PersonnelHandwash

Formulations

1-5 Own searches

ASTM Standard Test Method 1-5 Own searches



28

REFERENCE




E1327-07 for Evaluation of AntimicrobialHandwashFormulations byUtilizing FingernailRegions

ASTME1482-04

Standard Test Methodfor Neutralization ofVirucidal Agents inVirucidal EfficacyEvaluations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1589-05 Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation of First Aid Antiseptic DrugProducts

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1766-95(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Determination ofEffectiveness ofSterilization Processesfor Reusable MedicalDevices

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1837-96(2002)

Standard Test Methodto Determine Efficacyof Disinfection

Processes forReusable MedicalDevices (SimulatedUse Test)

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1838-02

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theVirus-EliminatingEffectiveness of LiquidHygienic Handwashand Handrub AgentsUsing the Fingerpadsof Adult Volunteers

1-5 Own searches

ASTM

E1882-05

Standard Test Method

for Evaluation of AntimicrobialFormulations by the Agar Patch Technique

1-5 This test method determines

the antibacterial activity andpersistence of testformulations, as measured bythe inhibition of a testorganism on an agar surfaceexposed to test sites onhuman skin treated with theformulations. This procedurecan be used to evaluateformulations containingingredients intended to inhibitgrowth of bacteria on intactskin and measures the

difference, post-product-exposure, between numbers of

Own searches



29

REFERENCE




bacterial colonies on activetest formulation plates andnumbers on control plates,expressed as percentinhibition.This procedure may also beused to test for persistence ofactivity, as a function of timeelapsed between application ofactive test formulation andapplication of active test

plates. Because no procedurefor neutralization of theantimicrobial action of activeingredients can be included inthe test, the agar patchmethod is limited to the extentthat results expressed aspercent inhibition do notdifferentiate betweenbacteriostatic and bacteriocidaleffects and, hence, must notbe portrayed as “reductions.”

ASTM

E1883-02


for Assessment of an AntibacterialHandwash Product byMultiple Basin WashTechnique

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2011-99

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation ofHandwashingFormulations for Virus-Eliminating ActivityUsing the Entire Hand

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2111-05

Standard QuantitativeCarrier Test Method to

Evaluate theBactericidal,Fungicidal,Mycobactericidal, andSporicidal Potencies ofLiquid ChemicalMicrobicides

1-5 This test can be performedwith or without a soil load to

determine the effect of suchloading on microbicideperformance. The soil loaddeveloped for this test is amixture of three types ofproteins (high molecularweight proteins, low molecularweight peptides, and mucousmaterial) to represent the bodysecretions, excretions, or otherextraneous substances thatchemical microbicides mayencounter under field

condititions.This test method is designed

Own searches



30

REFERENCE




for use in product developmentand for the generation ofproduct potency data. This testmethod is fully quantitative andit also avoids any loss of viableorganisms through wash off. Itpermits the loading of eachcarrier with a known volume ofthe test organism. Theincorporation of controls canalso determine the initial load

of colony forming units (CFU)of organisms on the testcarriers and any loss in CFUafter the mandatory drying ofthe inoculum. This test methodis designed to have survivorsand also to be used with aperformance standard. Thesurviving microorganisms oneach test carrier are comparedto the mean of no less thanthree control carriers todetermine if the performance

standard has been met. Toallow proper statisticalevaluation of results, the sizeof the test inoculum should besufficiently large to take intoaccount both the performancestandard and the experimentalvariation in the results.

ASTME2197-02

Standard QuantitativeDisk Carrier TestMethod forDetermining theBactericidal, Virucidal,

Fungicidal,Mycobactericidal andSporicidal Activities ofLiquid ChemicalGermicides

1-5 The method is designed toevaluate the ability of liquidchemical germicides toinactivate vegetative bacteria,viruses, fungi, mycobacteria

and bacterial spores in thepresence of a soil load on diskcarriers that representenvironmental surfaces andmedical devices. It is alsodesigned to have survivorsthat can be compared to meanof no less than three controlcarriers to determine if theperformance standard hasbeen met. For proper statisticalevaluation of the results, thesize of the test inoculum

should be sufficiently large totake into account both the

Own searches



31

REFERENCE




performance standard and theexperimental variation in theresults. The test protocol doesnot include any wiping orrubbing action. It is, therefore,not designed for testinggermicide-soaked wipes.

ASTME2274-03

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation ofLaundry Sanitizers andDisinfectants

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2276-03e1

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theBacteria-EliminatingEffectiveness ofHygienic Handwashand Handrub AgentsUsing the Fingerpadsof Adult Subjects

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2314-03

Standard Test Methodfor Determination ofEffectiveness ofCleaning Processesfor Reusable Medical

Instruments Using aMicrobiologic Method(Simulated Use Test)

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2315-03

Standard Guide for Assessment of Antimicrobial ActivityUsing a Time-KillProcedure

1-5 This guide covers examples ofa basic method to measure thechanges of a population ofaerobic microorganisms withina specified sampling timewhen tested againstantimicrobial test materials invitro. Several options fororganism selection and

growth, inoculum preparation,sampling times andtemperatures are provided. Antimicrobial activity of specificmaterials, as measured by thistechnique, may varysignificantly on variablesselected.

Own searches

ASTME2361-04

Standard Guide forTesting Leave-OnProducts Using In-SituMethods

1-5 This guide covers testmethods and samplingprocedure options for leave-onproducts (such as alcoholhand rubs and lotions

containing antimicrobialingredients) for consumer and

Own searches



32

REFERENCE




hospital personnel. Theseproducts are distinguishedfrom conventional washing andscrubbing preparations in thatthey do not rely on the rinsing,physical removal, andantimicrobial action indetermining theireffectiveness. Althoughagitation and friction mayserve to release organisms

from the skin and folds andcrevices, organisms are thenkilled in situ and are not rinsedfrom the skin surface beforesampling. Appropriate testmethods for the hands havebeen published, while othersampling methods will beneeded for testing body areasother than the hands.

ASTME2362-04

Standard Practice forEvaluation of Pre-saturated or

ImpregnatedTowelettes for HardSurface Disinfection

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2406-04

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation ofLaundry Sanitizers andDisinfectants for Usein High EfficiencyWashing Operations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME640-06

Standard Test Methodfor Preservatives in

Water-ContainingCosmetics

1-5 This test method should beused to determine if a

preservative or preservativesystem has application for thepreservation of water-misciblecosmetic products.It sets minimal requirementsfor preservative performancein model formulations.

Own searches

ASTMWK12880

Standard Guide forEvaluation of CleanRoom Disinfectants

1-5 Own searches

ASTMWK4751

Standard Guide forSelecting TestMethods to Determine

the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents

1-5 Own searches



33

REFERENCE




and Other Chemicalsfor Sanitization ofProduce

ASTMWK9062

Guideline forEvaluation of ResidualEffectiveness of Antibacterial PersonalCleansing Products

1-5 Own searches

ASTMWK9378

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theFungus-Eliminating

Effectiveness ofHygienic Handwashand Handrub AgentsUsing the Fingerpadsof Adults

1-5 Own searches

Bechertet al.,NatureMedicine6, 1053-1056(2000)

A new method forscreening anti-infectivebiomaterials

1-5 The test is based on therelease of vital daughter cellsfrom the sample surface intothe surrounding. Theproliferation activity of thesedaughter cells, which areresponsible for infectiondevelopment, can be

monitored in a time course. Antimicrobial activity ismonitored by the time neededto reach a defined opticaldensity, which is dependent onthe number of releaseddaughter cells. Allmeasurements are performedin comparison to an untreatedcontrol (without antimicrobialadditive). The differencebetween the reference (A) andthe test sample (B) to reach

the threshold OD gives thedegree of antimicrobial activity.If all bacteria on the surface ofthe material are preventedfrom multiplying, no daughtercells are produced and the testobject is consideredbactericidal. Materials can alsobe antimicrobial, which meansthat not all cells on the testsurface are prevented fromgrowing. Some cells are ableto divide and release daughter

cells into the surroundings,which are then optically

Test institute



34

REFERENCE




registered in a so-calledgrowth curve. If survivingdaughter cells are grown undercontrolled conditions over 48 h(observation time), a higherturbidity and therefore a biggersignal is generated. At thesame time only vital andproliferative cells areaccounted for.

In particular antimicrobialsamples will release daughtercells into the surrounding.Hence, microbial growth is firstobserved noticeably later. Thisright-shift towards longer timesis indicative for theantimicrobial efficacy of thetested samples. The so-calledonset OD serves as aquantifiable parameter and isequivalent to the requirednumber of hours required for

the surviving daughter cells togrow to a predefined opticaldensity (OD = 0.2).

A material is defined to beantimicrobial only if theformation of at least 99.9%(which is equivalent to a netonset-OD of 6 hours and issimilar to a killing rate of 3log10 steps) of the daughtercells during the challenge timeis prevented in comparison

with the blank sample.

Marketed worldwide by CibaSpecialty Chemicals under thetradename NumetrikaTM.

BS6734:2004

General PurposeDisinfection Test

1-5 Mycobacterium fortuitum Manufacturer

CEN15883-5:2005

Washer-disinfectors -Part 5: Test soils andmethods fordemonstratingcleaning efficacy

1-5 Also ISO method. Acceptancecriteria are included, based onvisual inspection and/or amicrobiological end-point asstated for each method. Where

chemical detection of residualsoiling is required/sought,

Own searches



35

REFERENCE




methods can becomplemented by the specificdetermination of a residualcomponent of the applied testsoil.

EN1040:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of basicbactericidal activity of

chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics - Testmethod andrequirements (phase1)

1-5 Basic bacterial activity againstof a test material againstStaphylococcus aureus (ATCC6538) and Pseudomonasaeruginosa (ATCC 15442). Atest suspension of bacteria is

added to a prepared sample ofthe product under test. Themixture is maintained at 20 oC. At a specified contact timechosen from one of thefollowing: 1 , 5, 15 , 30 , 45 or60 minutes, an aliquot is taken.The bactericidal action of thisaliquot is immediatelyneutralised or suppressed by avalidated method. The methodof choice is dilution-neutralisation. If a suitable

neutraliser cannot be found,membrane filtration is used.The number of survivingbacteria in each sample isdetermined and the reductionin viable counts calculated.Acriterion for activity by this testmethod is that the test materialshould demonstrate at least a5-log reduction in viable countsof the test organisms in 60minutes.

Industryorganizaton

manufacturerCommunicationwith UK (HSE)

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

(updated)

EN

12353:2006

Chemical disinfectants

and antiseptics -Preservation of testorganisms used for thedetermination ofbactericidal,mycobactericidal,sporicidal andfungicidal activity

1-5 General guidance Industry

organizaton

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1275:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of basic

fungicidal or basicyeasticidal activity of

1-5 Basic fungicidal activity againstCandida albicans (ATCC10231) and Aspergillus niger(ATCC 16404). A testsuspension of yeast cells or

mould spores is added to aprepared sample of the

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer



36

REFERENCE




chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics - Testmethod andrequirements (phase1)

product under test. Themixture is maintained at 20 oC. At a specified contact timechosen from one of thefollowing 5, 15, 30 or 60minutes, an aliquot is taken;the fungicide action in thisportion is immediatelyneutralised or suppressed by avalidated method. The methodof choice is dilution-

neutralisation. If a suitableneutraliser cannot be found,membrane filtration is used.The number of surviving yeastcells or mould spores in eachsample is determined and thereduction in viable countscalculated.The criterion for activity by thistest is that the test materialshould demonstrate at least a4-log reduction in viable countsof the test organisms in 60

minutes.

Communicationwith UK (HSE)

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1276:1997

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used infood, industrial,domestic, andinstitutional areas -Test method and

requirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation .Efficacy determined by areduction in CFU.

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN12791:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Surgical handdisinfection - Testmethod andrequirement (phase

2/step 2)

1-5 Testing mainly bactericidalactivity; in vivo test; phase 2step 2

Industryorganizaton/Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PEEN Chemical disinfectants 1-5 Industry



37

REFERENCE




13610:2002

- Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of virucidalactivity againstbacteriophages ofchemical disinfectantsused in food andindustrial areas - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

organizaton

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN13624:2003

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of fungicidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants forinstruments used inthe medical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Industryorganizaton/manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN

13697:2001


and antiseptics -Quantitative non-porous surface test forthe evaluation ofbactericidal and/orfungicidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsused in food,industrial, domesticand institutional areas- Test method andrequirements withoutmechanical action

(phase 2/step2)

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation Method.

Efficacy measured by areduction in CFU.

Industry

organizaton

Manufacturers

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN13704:2002

Chemical disinfectants- Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of sporicidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants used infood, industrial,domestic and

institutional areas -Test method and

1-5 Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE



38

REFERENCE





EN13727:2003

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsfor instruments used inthe medical area - Test

method andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Efficacy determined by thereduction in CFU counts

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN14204:2004

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofmycobactericidal

activity of chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics used in theveterinary area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation Method.Effiacy measured by reductionin CFU.

Industryorganisation

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN14347:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics - Basicsporicidal activity -Test method andrequirements (phase1)

1-5 Basic sporicidal activity againstdormant spores of Bacillussubtilis (ATCC 6633) andBacillus cereus (ATCC 12826). A prepared sample of theproduct under test is added to

a test suspension of bacterialspores. The mixture ismaintained at 20 oC or anyother temperature to bedefined. At a specified contacttime chosen from one of thefollowing: 30, 60 and 120minutes, an aliquot portion istaken and the sporicidal aswell as sporistatic action in thisportion is neutralised. Themethod of choice is dilution-neutralisation. The number of

surviving bacterial spores isdetermined in parallel and the

Industryorganizaton

Manufactuer


TM II05

TNsG PE



39

REFERENCE




reduction in viable countscalculated. The effectivenessof neutralisation is controlled inthe test.The criterion for activity by thistest is that the test materialshould demonstrate at least a4-log reduction in viable countsof the test organisms in 120minutes.Medical areaVeterinary area, Food,

industrial, domestic andinstitutional hygiene

EN14348:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofmycobactericidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants in themedical area includinginstrumentdisinfectants - Test

methods andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Efficacy measured by areduction in CFU counts

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

EN14349:2007

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative surfacetest for the evaluationof bactericidal activityof chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics used inveterinary area onnon-porous surfaces

without mechanicalaction - Test methodand requirements(phase 2, step 2)

1-5 Non-porous surface test,bactericidal, for disinfectantsused in the veterinaryapplicationsDilution/Neutralisation Method.By one manufacturer, the testmaterial is deemed to havepassed the test and beefficacious if it demonstrates alog 4 or more reduction in

viable counts under theconditions defined in the test.Reduction in viable microbialcounts compared with watercontrols.

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN14476:2005+A1:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Virucidal quantitativesuspension test forchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inhuman medicine - Testmethod and



Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)



40

REFERENCE




EN14561:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative carriertest for the evaluationof bactericidal activityfor instruments used inthe medical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 2)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN

14562:2006


and antiseptics -Quantitative carriertest for the evaluationof fungicidal oryeasticidal activity forinstruments used inthe medical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 2)

1-5 Industry

organizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN14675:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative

suspension test for theevaluation of virucidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics used in theveterinary area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 1)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN14730:2000

Ophtalmic optics -contact lense careproducts -antimicrobial

preservative efficacytesting and guidanceon determining discardrate

1-5 Also ISO method. Own searches

prEN14885:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics - Application ofEuropean Standardsfor chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN1499:199

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -

1-5 Applied in medical area Industryorganizaton



41

REFERENCE




7 Hygienic handwash -Test method andrequirements (phase2/step 2)

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1500:1997

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Hygienic handrub -

Test method andrequirements (phase2/step 2)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1650:1997

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of fungicidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants and

antiseptics used infood, industrial,domestic, andinstitutional areas -Test method andrequirements (phase2, step 1)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN 1656: 2000

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofbactericidal activity of

chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inveterinary field - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2/step 1)

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation Method.Efficacy measured by areduction in CFU.

Manufacturers

Industryorganisation

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1657:200


1-5 By one manufacturer, theproduct was to be deemed to

Manufacturers



42

REFERENCE




5/AC:2007

Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation of fungicidalor yeasticidal activityof chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics used in theveterinary area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

have passed the test if itdemonstrated a 10E5logarithmic reduction inviability.

By one manufacturer areduction in viable microbialcounts is compared with watercontrols.The test material is deemed tohave passed the test and be

efficacious if it demonstrates alog 4 or more reduction inviable counts under theconditions defined in the test

Industryorganizaton

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

MAFF(1969)

Disinfectants for usespecifically against: a)anthrax, brucellosis,contagious bovinepleuro-pneumonia andglanders; b) For useagainst tuberculosis; c)For use against foot-and-mouth disease; d)

For use against fowlpest (Newcastledisease fowl plague).

1-5 TNsG PE

NF T72-230 August1988

Water-miscible,neutralizableantiseptics anddisinfectants used inliquid form.Determination ofsporicidal activity.Dilution-neutralizationmethod.

1-5 Manufacturer

NF T72-

281September 1986

Methods of airborne

disinfection ofsurfaces. Determiationof bactericidal,fongicidal andsporicidal activity.

1-5 TM II05 (Fr)

Notavailable

Assessment of thebiocide efficacy usingthree algal species. In-house method

1-5 Various concentrations ofproduct was mixed with algalsuspensions (ChlorellavulgarisNavicula pelliculosa

Anabaena flos-aquae) in glassconical flasks All flasks wereincubated and shaken in an

orbital shaker. Samples weretaken at 96h and the

Manufacturer



43

REFERENCE




chlorophyll a concentrationdetermined. Efficacy wasmeasured by determining theEC50 value obtained for algae.

Notavailable

Disinfectant forswimming pools forcontrol of bacteria,fungi and algae.Determination ofMinimum InhibitoryConcentration Against

Bacteria, Fungi, Algaeand Cyanobacteria (inhouse method)

1-5 Using a growth inhibition testmethod for recording MICvalues to test the efficacy ofthe product at various dilutedconcentrations. MIC value wasdetermined using microdilutiontechnique in microtiter plates

Tests were carried out inquadruplicate. The ppm levelof the product in the lastmicrotiter well demonstratingno growth was determined asthe MIC for the product againstthat microorganism.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Alaboratory studyinvolving disinfectionof untreated riverwater, as a surrogate

for a full field trial. (in-house methods)

1-5 Several concentrations of theproduct were added to riverwater and allowed to react for30 mins. Total counts andcoliforms were determined.Efficacy was determined

based on reduction in CFUcounts.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Fullscale field trial

1-5 A product was used to treatwaste water at 3concentrations under real fieldconditions involving a wastewater treatment plant; variableflow and bacterial load, andoperating temperatures.Efficacy was measured basedon a log removal of bacteriaafter 15 and 30 mins.

Manufacturer

Not

available

Disinfectant treatment

of waste water.Inactivation of entericmicro-organisms intertiary treatedmunicipal wastewaters (in-housemethods)

1-5 Experiments were conducted

to investigate in pilot scale thedisinfection efficiency againstenteric micro-organisms intertiary treatment waste watersand the effect of dose andcontact time on disinfectionefficiency. After incubationbacterial colonies werecounted and microbialnumbers calculated as cfu/100 ml.Efficacy was measured bypercentage reductions of

microorganisms after 8 and 18minutes contact time.

Manufacturer



44

REFERENCE




Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Pilotstudies to assess thedisinfectionperformance of on aphysicochemicalwastewater effluent.

1-5 A purpose built disinfection,continuous flow, Pilot Plantwas specially constructed andinstalled at a functioningwastewater treatment plant.Prior to installation thewastewater was treated onlyby chemically assistedsedimentation, makingdisinfection particularly difficult.

As part of this pilot study,

modifications to the Plant andprocess were explored andadopted on the basis ofexperience and experimentaldata using standardmethodologies. Disinfectionefficiency under a number ofconditions and wastewaterloads were explored. Methodfor recording faecal coliforms:

American Public Healthassociation; American WaterWorks Association and Water

Environment federation (1998)Standard Methods for theExamination of Water andWastewater 20th Ed.;Washington DC, USA; Method9222D. Method for recordingEnterococcus, coliphageClostridiumaccording to laboratorymethods. Efficacy wasdetermined by measured Logreductions (or removal) incounts. Colonies were counted

before and after disinfection.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Swimming pooldisinfectant:Residential spa fieldtest

1-5 A residential spa was used totest the efficacy of the productin typical field conditions. Themaintenance pattern used wasconsidered to be typical of the“average spa owner”, i.e.conforming to minimum andnot optimum use pattern andmaintenance procedures.Bacteriological analysis wasconducted on 150 sampleswere taken over the 90 day

test period. Efficacy wasdetermined by a reduction in

Manufacturer



45

REFERENCE




cfu/100ml.OECD(ENV/JM/BCID(2007)2)

Proposeddevelopment of anOECD GuidanceDocument forestablishing theefficacy of biocidesused in swimmingpools and spas

1-5 Own searches

Powerset al.

AppliedandEnvironmentalMicrobiology, 60:2316 –2323(1994)

Biocidal Efficacy of aFlocculating

Emergency WaterPurification Tablet.

1-5 Biocidal emergency waterpurification tablets were tested

for bactericidal, virucidal andcysticidal efficacy in water attemperatures ranging from 5 to25ºC to validate and verify theeffectiveness of the tablets forthe destruction and removal ofmicroorganisms. Counts ofsurviving organisms werecompared with the initialcounts to calculate the log-reduction. Replicate resultswere averaged

Manufacturer

prEN

13623


and antiseptics -Quantitativesuspension test for theevaluation ofbactericidal activityagainst Legionellapneumophila ofchemical disinfectantsfor aqueous systems -Test method andrequirements (phase2, step 1)

1-5 Own searches

prEN

14563


and antiseptics -Quantitative carriertest for the evaluationof mycobactericidal ortuberculocidal activityof chemicaldisinfectants used forinstruments in themedical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2, step 2)

1-5 Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

ASTM

E2562-07


for Quantification ofPseudomonas

1-5 +

12

This test method specifies the

operational parametersrequired to grow a repeatable

Own searches



46

REFERENCE




aeruginosa BiofilmGrown with HighShear and ContinuousFlow using CDCBiofilm Reactor

Pseudomonas aeruginosabiofilm under high shear (1).The resulting biofilm isrepresentative of generalizedsituations where biofilm existsunder high shear rather thanrepresentative of one particularenvironment. The biofilmgenerated in the CDC biofilmreactor is also suitable forefficacy testing. 3 This test

method describes how tosample and analyze biofilm forviable cells. Biofilm populationdensity is recorded as logcolony forming units persurface area. After the 48 hgrowth phase is complete, theuser may add the treatment insitu or harvest the couponsand treat them individually.This test method uses theCenters for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) biofilm

reactor. The CDC biofilmreactor is a continuouslystirred flow reactor with highwall shear. Although it wasoriginally designed to model apotable water system for theevaluation of Legionellapneumophila, the reactor isversatile and may also be usedfor growing and/orcharacterizing biofilm ofvarying species.

ASTM

D2574-06


for Resistance ofEmulsion Paints in theContainer to Attack byMicroorganisms

6 Own searches

ASTMD4783-01e1

Standard TestMethods forResistance of Adhesive Preparationsin Container to Attackby Bacteria, Yeast,and Fungi

6 Determination of theresistance of liquid adhesivepreparations to microbialattack in the container bychallenging adhesivespecimens with cultures ofbacteria, yeast, or fungi, andchecking for their ability toreturn to sterility.

These test methods returnqualitative results

TNsG on ProdEval



47

REFERENCE




ASTME1259-05

Standard Practice forEvaluation of Antimicrobials in LiquidFuels Boiling Below390°C

6 The procedure should be usedto evaluate the relative efficacyof microbicides in liquid fuelsboiling below 390°C. Theeffect of environmentalconditions, such as a variety offuel additives, metal surfaces,and climatology, are variablesthat can be included in specifictests using this protocol.

Own searches

ASTM

WK5097

Guideline For

Evaluating ThePotential For DeclineIn PlanktonicMicroorganismSusceptability To AntimicrobialCompounds:Healthcare Applications

6 This method uses an agar-

dilution procedure to determinethe Minimum InhibitoryConcentration (MIC) andsubsequently to screen for thedevelopment of decreasedsusceptibility for testformulations versus bacteria oryeast species. The inoculaused on the second, third,fourth, and fifth test cycles willbe prepared from the microbialgrowth present at the previousday’s end point;i.e., that agar-

dilution plate containing thehighest concentration of thetest formulation (lowestdilution) that allows microbialgrowth.

Own searches

Notavailable

Other in canpreservatives. In-house method basedon ‘AntimicrobialPreservativeEffectivenessChallenge Test’ and

DAB 10 guidelines

6 The method was conducted byinoculating mixed bacteria andmixed fungi into a interior paintformulation containing variousconcentrations of the activesubstance which was repeatedon a weekly basis. After 0, 7

14, 21 and 28 days samples ofthe formulations were placedin a preservative neutralizerand then plated. After plateincubation the number ofsurviving organisms wascompared to the control. Thecriteria for measuring goodpreservation efficacy was amicrobial count of <10 cfu/mlat day 7, 14 , 21 and 28 days

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Preservative fordetergents. In-house

method based on‘Antimicrobial

6 The method was conducted byinoculating mixed bacteria and

mixed fungi into a washing upliquid formulation containing

Manufacturer



48

REFERENCE




PreservativeEffectivenessChallenge Test’ andDAB 10 guidelines

various concentrations of theactive substance which wasrepeated on a weekly basis.

After 0, 7 14, 21 and 28 dayssamples of the formulationswere placed in a preservativeneutralizer and then plated.

After plate incubation thenumber of surviving organismswas compared to the control .The criteria for measuring

good preservation efficacy wasa microbial count of <10 cfu/mlat day 7, 14 , 21 and 28 days.

SABS1102(1987)

Bacterial efficacy ofbiocides used in water-based emulsion paints

6 Efficacy test for in canpreservatives in paints(emulsion) against bacteria.

TNsG on ProdEval

SM020(inhouse)

S&M Fako test 6 Preserving effect of chemicalpreservatives in watercontaining coatings, adhesivesand other water containingtechnical emulsions ordispersions (in can).Test batch: unpreserved

samples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts"Well preserved" if after 6w nomicrobial growth can beobserved.Corresponds to 2 years ofmicrobial stability.4 evaluation levels

Manufacturer

SM021

(inhouse)

S&M KOKO test 6 Preservatives in cosmetic

formulations, e g creams,shampoos etc (in can)Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts"Well preserved" if after 6w nomicrobial growth can beobserved.Corresponds to 30 months of

microbial stability.4 evaluation levels

Manufacturer



49

REFERENCE




SM026(inhouse)

S&M Betoko test:Determination of thepreserving effect ofchemical preservativesin concrete admixtures

6 Preserving effect of chemicalpreservatives in concreteadmixtures (in canpreservation).Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts

Free of growth during 4 weeks:"Well preserved"(4 evaluation levels)

Corresponds to 1 year ofmicrobiological stability

Manufacturer

SM029(inhouse)

S&M FeuTuKo test 6 Preservatives in wet tissues intheir original packaging.Inoculation of whole packagingand after 3w of incubation,pieces of tissue is placed onagar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,

Yeasts3d bacteria, 7d moulds. 4evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM036(inhouse)

S&M WiWako test 6 Preservation of fountainsolutions for offset printing.Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts12 cycles

4 evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM037(inhouse)

S&M TaBaKo test 6 Preservation of paint baths.Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts12 cycles. 4 evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM044(inhouse)

Determination of thepreserving effect ofchemical preservatives

in householdformulations

6 Preserving effect of chemicalpreservatives in householdformulations, e g softener,

washing up liquids, all purposecleaner (in can preservation).

Manufacturer



50

REFERENCE




Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,YeastsFree of growth during 6 weeks:"Well preserved". (4 evaluationlevels). Corresponds to 30months of microbiological

stabilityNF X41-520March1968

Protection. Testingmethod for resistanceof paints tomicroorganisms andtheir protective power.

6 +7

TNsG on ProdEvalTMII05

ASTMG21-96(2002)

Standard practice fordetermining resistanceof synthetic polymericmaterials to fungi

7 This practice coversdetermination of the effect offungi on the properties ofsynthetic polymeric materialsin the form of molded andfabricated articles, tubes, rods,sheets, and film materials.

Conditions favorable for attack,namely, a temperature of 2 to38°C (35 to 100°F) and arelative humidity of 60 to 100% need to be established.Expected effects includesurface attack, discoloration,loss of transmission (optical),and removal of susceptibleplasticizers, modifiers, andlubricants, resulting inincreased modulus (stiffness),changes in weight,

dimensions, and other physicalproperties, and deterioration ofelectrical properties such asinsulation resistance, dielectricconstant, power factor, anddielectric strength.Since attack by organismsinvolves a large element ofchance due to localaccelerations and inhibitions,the order of reproducibility maybe rather low. To ensure thatestimates of behavior are not

too optimistic, the greatestobserved degree of

Own searches



51

REFERENCE




deterioration should bereported.Conditioning of the specimens,such as exposure to leaching,weathering, heat treatment,etc., may have significanteffects on the resistance tofungi. Determination of theseeffects is not covered in thispractice.

ASTM

D3273-00(2005)


for Resistance toGrowth of Mold on theSurface of InteriorCoatings in anEnvironmentalChamber

7 This test method describes a

small environmental chamberand the conditions of operationto evaluate reproducibly in a 4-week period the relativeresistance of paint films tosurface mold fungi, mildewgrowth in a severe interiorenvironment. The apparatus isdesigned so it can be easilybuilt or obtained by anyinterested party and willduplicate results obtained in alarge tropical chamber.

An accelerated test fordetermining the resistance ofinterior coatings to moldgrowth; useful in estimatingthe performance of coatingsdesigned for use in interiorenvironments that promotemold growth and in evaluatingcompounds that may inhibitsuch growth and the aggregatelevels for their use.Used to evaluate thecomparative resistance of

interior coating to acceleratedmildew growth. Performance ata certain rating (in accordancewith Test Method D3274) doesnot imply any specific period oftime for a fungal free coating.However, a better ratedcoating nearly always performsbetter in actual end use. Thistest method is intended for theaccelerated evaluation of aninterior coatings' resistance tofungal defacement. Use of this

test method for evaluatingexterior coatings' performance

Own searches



52

REFERENCE




has not been validated, norhave the limitations for suchuse been determined. Anyaccelerated weathering(leaching, weathering machineexposure, etc.,) should bereported and should also bearreference to the fact that it isbeyond the current scope ofthis test method.Temperature and humidity

must be effectively controlledwithin the relatively narrowlimits specified in order for thechamber to functionreproducibly during the shorttest period. Severity and rateof mold growth on a film is afunction of the moisturecontent of both the film and thesubstrate. A relative humidityof 95 to 98 % at a temperatureof 32.5+ 1oC (90+ 2oF ) isnecessary for test panels to

develop rapidly and maintainan adequate moisture level tosupport mold growth.

ASTMD3456-86(2002)

Standard Practice forDetermining byExterior ExposureTests the Susceptibilityof Paint Films toMicrobiological Attack

7 This practice providesguidelines for determining thesusceptibility of paint films tomicrobiological attack onexterior exposure. The degreeto which microbiologicaldiscoloration occurs is theprimary concern. This practicecovers the preparation ofcoatings for testing, their

application on substrates, andthe arrangement of the coatedpanels on exterior test fencesto determine the degree ofmicrobiological attack that mayoccur on the surface of thecoatings over a period of time.This practice is intended toprovide guidelines for, and adiscussion of, the variousfactors critical in selection ofexterior coatings resistant todiscoloration or disfigurement

by algae and fungi.

Own searches

ASTM Standard Test 7 Tests the ability of adhesive Own searches



53

REFERENCE




D4300-01 Methods for Ability of Adhesive Films toSupport or Resist theGrowth of Fungi

films to inhibit or support thegrowth of selected fungalspecies growing on agar platesby providing means of testingthe films on two agarsubstrates, one whichpromotes microbial growth,and one which does not.constituents.

These test methods are not

appropriate for all adhesives.The activity of certain biocidesmay not be demonstrated bythese test methods as a resultof irreversible reaction withsome of the medium. As anexample, quaternaryammonium compounds areinactivated by agar. A testmethod is included for use withlow-viscosity adhesives alongwith an alternative method foruse with mastic-type

adhesives. ASTMD5589-97(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theResistance of PaintFilms and RelatedCoatings to AlgalDefacement

7 This test method covers anaccelerated method fordetermining the relativeresistance of a paint or coatingfilm to algal growth.This test method should not beused as a replacement forexterior exposure since manyother factors, only a few ofwhich are listed will affectthose results.

Own searches

ASTM

D5590-00(2005)


for Determining theResistance of PaintFilms and RelatedCoatings to FungalDefacement by Accelerated Four-Week Agar Plate Assay

7 This test method covers an

accelerated method fordetermining the relativeresistance of two or morepaints or coating films to fungalgrowth.This test method should not beused as a replacement forexterior exposure (that is,Practice D 3456) since manyother factors, only a few ofwhich are listed will affectthose results.Comparative evaluation of

different coating formulationsfor their relative performance

Own searches



54

REFERENCE




under a given set ofconditions. It does not implythat a coating that resistsgrowth under these conditionswill necessarily resist growth inthe actual application.

Round-robin testing of this testmethod versus exteriorexposure is planned.

ASTM

E1428-99(2004)


for Evaluating thePerformance of Antimicrobials in or onPolymeric Solids Against Staining byStreptoverticilliumreticulum (A Pink StainOrganism)

7 This test method provides a

technique for evaluatingantimicrobials in or onpolymeric solids againststaining by Streptoverticilliumreticulum, and should assist inthe prediction of performanceof treated articles under actualfield conditions. Conditioningof the specimens, such asexposure to leaching,weathering, and heattreatment, may havesignificant effects on

performance of antimicrobialsagainst staining. Determinationof these effects is not includedin this test method. This testmethod is also not suitable forevaluating dark-pigmented testsamples.

Own searches

ASTME2196-07

Standard Test Methodfor Quantification of aPseudomonasaeruginosa BiofilmGrown with Shear andContinuous Flow

Using a Rotating DiskReactor

7 This test method is used forgrowing a repeatablePseudomonas aeruginosabiofilm in a continuously stirredflow reactor. In addition, thetest method describes how to

sample and analyze biofilm forviable cells. In this testmethod, biofilm populationdensity is recorded as logcolony forming units persurface area.

Own searches

ASTMG29-96(2002)

Standard Practice forDetermining AlgalResistance of PlasticFilms

7 Determination of thesusceptibility of plastic films tothe attachment andproliferation of surface-growingalgae, produced in bodies ofwater, such as swimmingpools, artificial ponds, and

irrigation ditches that are linedwith plastic films.

Own searches



55

REFERENCE




Evaluating the degree andpermanency of protectionagainst surface growth ofalgae afforded by variousadditives incorporated in thefilm.

EN15457:2007

Paints and varnishes -Laboratory method fortesting the efficacy offilm preservatives in acoating against fungi

7 Manufacturer

EN15458:2007

Paints and varnishes -Laboratory method fortesting the efficacy offilm preservatives in acoating against algae

7 Own searches

ASTMD1006-93

StandardRecommendedPractice forConducting ExteriorExposure Tests ofPaints on Wood

8 Field test: aids in evaluatingthe performance of house andtrim paints to new, previouslyunpainted wood exposed tothe environment.Exposures in several locationswith different climates whichrepresent a broad range of

anticipated service conditionsare recommended and severalyears of repeat exposures areneeded to get an “average”test result for a given location.Solar radiation variesconsiderably as function oftime of year, and can causelarge differences in theapparent rate of degradation inmany polymers. Comparingresults for materials exposedfor short periods (less than

onee year) is notrecommended unlessmaterials are exposed at thesame time in the samelocation.

Own searches

CEN/TR15046:2005

Wood preservatives - Artificial weathering oftreated wood prior tobiological testing - UV-radiation and water-spraying procedure

8 Pretreatment procedure beforeefficacy testing

Own searches

CEN/TS12037:20

03

Wood preservatives -Field test method for

determining therelative protective

8 TM II05 (Fr)



56

REFERENCE




effectiveness of awood preservativeexposed out of groundcontact - Horizontallap-joint method

CTBA-BIO-E001

Field ageing test ontreated soils

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E002

Field ageing test ontreated masonry

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E003

Field test on baitsystem for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E004

Laboratory tests forbait system for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E005

Laboratory tests forbait system for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E006

Action of U.V. light onphysico-chemicalbarrier for termite

8 TM II05(Fr)

CTBA-

BIO-E007

Action of alcalin

conditions on physico-chemical barrier fortermite control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E008

Field ageing test onphysico-chemicalbarrier for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E009

Forced test on termitebait control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E010

Choice test on termitebait control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN113:1996/A1:2004

Wood preservatives -Test method fordetermining theprotectiveeffectiveness againstwood destroyingbasidiomycetes -Determination of thetoxic values

8 Laboratory test. Efficacycriteria based on weight loss ofuntreated specimen.

TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

Test institute

Manufacturer

EN117:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of toxic

8 TNsG on ProdEval



57

REFERENCE




values againstReticulitermes species(European termites)(Laboratory method)

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN118:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination ofpreventive actionagainst Reticulitermes

species (Europeantermites) (Laboratorymethod)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN12490:1998

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Preservative-treatedsolid wood -Determination of thepenetration andretention of creosote intreated wood

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN1390:2006

Wood preservatives -Determination of theeradicant actionagainst Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus)larvae - Laboratorymethod

8 TNsG Prod Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 152-1(1988)

Test methods for woodpreservatives -Laboratory method fordetermining thepreventive

effectiveness of apreservative treatmentagainst blue stain inservice - Part 1:Brushing procedure

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 152-2:1988/AC1:1989

Test methods for woodpreservatives -Laboratory method fordetermining theprotectiveeffectiveness of apreservative treatmentagainst blue stain in

service - Part 2: Application by

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines



58

REFERENCE




methods other thanbrushing

EN 20-1:1992

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotectiveeffectiveness againstLyctus Brunneus(Stephens) - Part 1: Application by surfacetreatment (laboratorymethod)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 20-2:1993 Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotectiveeffectiveness againstLyctus brunneus(Stephens) - Part 2: Application byimpregnation(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN252:1989/AC1:1989

Field test method fordetermining therelative protectiveeffectiveness of a

wood preservative inground contact

8 Field test, in ground contact TNsG on ProdEval

Test institute

NL guidance

UK guidelines

TM II05 (Fr)

EN

275:1992

Wood preservatives -

Determination of theprotectiveeffectiveness againstmarine borers

8 Marine field test, 5 year

minumum

TNsG on Prod

Eval

Test institute

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN Wood preservatives - 8 TNsG on Prod



59

REFERENCE




330:1993 Field test method fordetermining therelative protectiveeffectiveness of awood preservative foruse under a coatingand exposed out ofground contact: L-jointmethod

Eval

Test institute

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 350-1:1994

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Natural durability ofsolid wood - Part 1:Guide to the principlesof testing andclassification of thenatural durability ofwood

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN 350-2:1994

Durability of wood andwood-based products -

Natural durability ofsolid wood - Part 2:Guide to naturaldurability andtreatability of selectedwood species ofimportance in Europe

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN 351-1:2007

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Preservative-treatedsolid wood - Part 1:Classification ofpreservative

penetration andretention

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN 351-2:2007

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Preservative-treatedsolid wood - Part 2:Guidance on samplingfor the analysis ofpreservative-treatedwood

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN370:1993

Wood preservatives -Determination oferadicant efficacy in

preventing emergenceof Anobium punctatum

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)



60

REFERENCE




(De Geer) NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN460:1994

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Natural durability ofsolid wood - Guide tothe durabilityrequirements for wood

to be used in hazardclasses

8 TM II05 (Fr)

EN 46-1:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of thepreventive actionagainst Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus) -Part 1: Larvicidialeffect (Laboratorymethod)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 46-2:2006

Wood preservatives -Determination of the

preventive actionagainst Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus) -Part 2: Ovicidal effect(laboratory method)

8 TM II05 (De)

NL guidance

EN47:2005/ AC:2007

Wood preservatives -Determination of thetoxic values againstlarvae of Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus) -(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN48:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination oferadicant actionagainst larvae of Anobium punctatum(De Geer) (laboratorymethod)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 49-1:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective

effectiveness against Anobium punctatum

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)



61

REFERENCE




(De Geer) by egg-laying and larvalsurvival - Part 1: Application by surfacetreatment (Laboratorymethod)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 49-2:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotectiveeffectiveness against Anobium punctatum

(De Geer) by egg-laying and larvalsurvival - Part 2: Application byimpregnation(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN73:1988/ AC:1992

Wood preservatives - Accelerated ageing oftreated wood prior tobiological testing -Evaporative ageingprocedure


TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN84:1997

Wood preservatives - Accelerated ageing oftreated wood prior tobiological testing -Leaching procedure


TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN/TR

14734:2004

Durability of wood and

wood-based products -Determination oftreatability of timberspecies to beimpregnated withwood preservatives -Laboratory method

8 Own searches

EN/TR14839:2004

Wood preservatives -Determination of thepreventive efficacyagainst wooddestroyingbasidiomycetes fungi

8 Own searches

EN/TS12037:20


8 Field test, out of groundcontact

Test institute



63

REFERENCE




1571:2004

determining theeffectiveness of woodpreservatives and theirperformancerequirements

NF B50-100-4October2007

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Definition of useclasses - Part 4 :national declaration onthe situation of

biological agents

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF B50-105-3February2008

Durability of wood andwood based products -Preservative treatedsolid wood - Part 3 :wood preservationperformance andtreatment certificate - Adaptation to Francemetropolitan territoryand DOM

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF FDX40-501

November 2005

Protection - Termites -Buildings protection

against termiteinfestation

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-050September 1986

Wood preservatives.Technical grade borax.Specifications andtests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)


Wood preservatives.Boric acid.Specifications andtests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-054Septemb

er 1995

Wood preservatives.Technical gradepentachlorophenol.

Specificaitons andtests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)


Wood preservatives.Technical gradesodiumpentachlorophenate.Specifications andtests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)


Wood preservatives.Technical gradesodium pentaborate.Specifications andtests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-083/A1

Products for protectingwood surfaces -

8 TM II05



64

REFERENCE




November 1979

Method of testingresistance tomicroorganisms


Wood preservatives.Lasures. Naturalweathering test.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-521 July1968

Protection of wood.Testing methods forthe corrosive action ofwood protection

products on metals.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-541September 1994

Wood preservatives.Determination of theprotectiveeffectiveness againsttermites ofpreservative treatmentproducts designed forwalls, foundations andmasonry. Laboratorymethod.

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05

NF X41-547

December 1992

Wood preservatives.Determination of

longicide efficacy oftemporary woodprotectives for greensawn timber.Laboratory method.

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05

NF X41-548December 1992

Wood preservatives.Determination offongicide efficacy oftemporary woodprotectives for freshcut wood billets.Laboratory method.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-

555 August1982

Wood preservatives.

Determination of thetoxic values against{chaetomium}{globosum} kunze.Soft rotting agent.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-580 part1-10May 2006

Wood preservatives –Physicochemicaltesting

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-540November 1995

Wood preservatives.Termites.Determination of anti-termites action for

products used in liquidphase for ground

8 TM II05 (Fr)



65

REFERENCE




treatment (laboratorymethod).

NF XPX41-540November 1995

Wood preservatives.Termites.Determination of anti-termites action forproducts used in liquidphase for groundtreatment (laboratorymethod).

8 TNsG on ProdEval

NF XP

X41-542September 1995

Wood preservatives.

Anti-termite treatmentproduct for floors,walls, foundations andmasonry work. Accelerated ageingtest of treatedmaterials prior tobiological testing.Percolation test.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-549December 1999

Wood preservatives -Evaluation of fongicideefficacy of temporarywood protectives for

green sawn timber -Site method

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-549December 1999

Wood preservatives -Evaluation of fongicideefficacy of temporarywood protectives forgreen sawn timber -Site method

8 TNsG on ProdEval

NWPC1.4.1.1./70

NWPC Standard fortesting of woodpreservatives.Mycological test."Jordburk" method - A

soil block test withwood-rottingBasidiomycetes.

8 Test institute

NWPCStandard1.4.1.2./70

NWPC Standard fortesting of woodpreservatives.Mycological test."Mullåde" method - Asoil block test inunsterile soil.

8 Test institute

NWPCStandard

1.4.1.3./79

Mycological testing ofanti-stainpreservatives for

freshly sawn timber.The Miniboard

8 Test institute



66

REFERENCE




method. (Mykologiskprovning avträskyddsmedel motblånad och mögel pånysågat virke.Minibrädmetoden.)


Standard for testing ofwood preservativesMycological test. Fieldtest - A field test withstakes.

8 Test institute


Standard for testing ofwood preservativesMarine test - A testagainst marinewoodboring organismsin sea water.

8 Test institute

prEN 807rev

Wood preservatives -Determination of theeffectiveness againstsoft rotting micro-fungiand other soilinhabiting micro-organisms

8 Own searches

AATCC100 -1999

Antibacterial Finisheson Textile Materials:

Assessment of

9 Applied to textiles Manufacturer

AATCC147 -1998

Antibacterial Activity Assessment of TextileMaterials: ParallelStreak Method


AATCC30 - 1999

Antifungal Activity, Assessment on TextileMaterials:Mildew and RotResistance of TextileMaterials


ASTMD4576-01(2006)

Standard Test Methodfor Mold GrowthResistance of WetBlue

9 Determination of mold growthresistance of wet blue subjectto storage and shippingrequirements and intended foruse in leather manufacturing,assisting the prediction ofstorage time before moldingoccurs. This test method maynot be suitable to evaluatefungicides that are inactivatedby proteins, includingalkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides.

To allow use of this testmethod by any laboratory,



67

REFERENCE




flexibility has been permitted intimes, temperature, andhumidity of incubation,inoculum, hide sampling area,and choice of control. Thesemay be adjusted to fit localconditions but must bestandardized.Conclusions about moldgrowth resistance are drawnfrom the results by comparing

the test with a simultaneouslyrun control of knownresistance. Success or failureis determined by the amount ofmold growth relative to thecontrol.

The degree of correlationbetween this test andcommercial quantities of wetblue in storage or shipmentsituations, or both, has notbeen fully determined.

ASTME2149-01 Determining the Antimicrobial Activityof Immobilized Antimicrobial AgentsUnder DynamicContact Conditions

9 Evaluates the resistance ofnon-leaching antimicrobialtreated specimens to thegrowth of microbes underdynamic contact conditions.This test determines theantimicrobial activity of treatedspecimen by shaking samplesof surface bound materials in aconcentrated bacterialsuspension for a one hourcontact time or other contacttimes as specified by the

investigator. The suspension isserially diluted both before andafter contact and cultured. Thisdynamic shake flask test wasdeveloped for routine qualitycontrol and screening tests inorder to overcome difficulties(including ensuring contact ofinoculum to treated surface) inusing classical antimicrobialtest methods to evaluatesubstrate-boundantimicrobials. This test also

allows for the versatility oftesting contamination due to

Manufacturer,applied totextiles



68

REFERENCE




such things as hard water,proteins, blood, serum, variouschemicals, and othercontaminates orphysical/chemical stresses ormanipulations of thespecimens of interest.The number of viableorganisms in the suspension isdetermined and the percentreduction is calculated based

on initial counts or on retrievalsfrom appropriate untreatedcontrols. his method isintended for those surfaceshaving a percent reductionactivity of 50 % to 100 % forthe specified contact time.Surface antimicrobial activity isdetermined by comparingresults from the test sample tosimultaneously run controls.The presence of a leachingantimicrobial is both pre- and

post-determined by thepresence of a zone ofinhibition.

ASTME2180-07

Standard Test Methodfor Determining the Activity of Incorporated Antimicrobial Agent(s)In Polymeric orHydrophobic Materials

9 This test method is designedto evaluate (quantitatively) theantimicrobial effectiveness ofagents incorporated or boundinto or onto mainly flat (twodimensional) hydrophobic orpolymeric surfaces. Themethod focuses primarily onassessing antibacterial activity;

however, othermicroorganisms such as yeastand fungal conidia may betested using this method. Thevehicle for the inoculum is anagar slurry which reduces thesurface tension of the salineinoculum carrier and allowsformation of a "pseudo-biofilm," providing more evencontact of the inoculum withthe test surface. This testmethod facilitates the testing of

hydrophobic surfaces byutilizing cells held in an agar

Own searches



69

REFERENCE




slurry matrix.This method can confirm thepresence of antimicrobialactivity in plastics orhydrophobic surfaces andallows determination ofquantitative differences inantimicrobial activity betweenuntreated plastics or polymersand those with bound orincorporated low water-soluble

antimicrobial agents.Comparisons between thenumbers of survivors onpreservative-treated andcontrol hydrophobic surfacesmay also be made. This testmethod, as written, isinappropriate to determineefficacy against biofilm cells,which are different bothgenetically and metabolicallythan planktonic cells used inthis test. The procedure also

permits determination of"shelf-life" or long termdurability of an antimicrobialtreatment which may beachieved through testing bothnon-washed and washedsamples over a time span.

ASTME2471-05

Standard Test Methodfor Using Seeded-Agarfor the Screening Assessment of Antimicrobial ActivityIn Carpets

9 Rapid screening evaluating(qualitatively) the presence ofantimicrobial (bothantibacterial and antifungal)activity in or on the carpet facefiber or incorporated into the

backing structure of the carpet(or both). The methodsimulates actual useconditions that may occur oncarpets (for example, food andbeverage spills, soiling fromfoot traffic, prolonged moistureexposure) and provides ameans to screen for activityand durability of anantimicrobial treatment underconditions of organic loading.This test method provides for

the simultaneous assessmentof multiple carpet components

Own searches



70

REFERENCE




for antimicrobial activity.Carpets may be cleaned priorto testing in order to assessthe durability of theantimicrobial effect. Themethod can assess thedurability of the antimicrobialtreatments on new carpets,and on those repeatedlyshampooed or exposed to in-use conditions.

Half strength (nutrient andagar) tryptic soy agar is usedas the inoculum vehicle forbacteria and half strengthpotato dextrose agar as theinoculum vehicle for moldconidia. Use of half strengthagars may reduce undueneutralization of anantimicrobial due to excessiveorganic load.This test methodsimultaneously evaluates (both

visual and stereo-microscopic)antimicrobial activity both atthe fiber layer and at theprimary backing layer ofcarpet.

ASTMWK16397

Revision of E2180-01Standard Test Methodfor Determining the Activity of Incorporated Antimicrobial Agent(s)In Polymeric orHydrophobic Materials

9 Evaluates (quantitatively) theantimicrobial effectiveness ofagents incorporated or boundinto or onto mainly flat (twodimensional) hydrophobic orpolymeric surfaces. Themethod focuses primarily on

assessing antibacterial activity;however, othermicroorganisms such as yeastand fungal conidia may betested using this method.Thismethod can confirm thepresence of antimicrobialactivity in plastics orhydrophobic surfaces. Thevehicle for the inoculum is anagar slurry which reduces thesurface tension of the salineinoculum carrier and allows

formation of a "pseudo-biofilm," providing more even

Manufacturer(updated),applied totextiles.



71

REFERENCE




contact of the inoculum withthe test surface.The method allowsdetermination of quantitativedifferences in antimicrobialactivity between untreatedplastics or polymers and thosewith bound or incorporated lowwater-soluble antimicrobialagents. Comparisons betweenthe numbers of survivors on

preservative-treated andcontrol hydrophobic surfacesmay also be made. Theprocedure also permitsdetermination of "shelf-life" orlong term stability of anantimicrobial treatment whichmay be achieved throughtesting both non-washed andwashed samples over a timespan.

ASTMWK4757

Standard Test Methodfor the Assessment of

Antimicrobial ActivityIn Carpets; Seeded- Agar Overlay Screen

9 Designed to evaluate(qualitatively) the presence

and effectiveness ofantimicrobial preservatives inor on carpets. This method canbe used to evaluate both theantibacterial and antifungalactivityThis method is useful forassessing the durability of theantimicrobial treatmentsbecause it can be performedon both new carpets and thosethat have been repeatedlyshampooed or exposed to in-

use conditions.This method utilizes eithertryptic soy agar as theinoculum vehicle for bacteriaor potato dextrose agar as theinoculum vehicle for moldconidia. . Full complimentagars can be used to mimichigh soil or organic loads oncarpets or partial nutrientcomplement agars can beused to mimic lightly soiledconditions on carpet. This

method allows for thesimultaneous evaluation (both

Own searches



72

REFERENCE




visual and stereo-microscopic)of antimicrobial activity both atthe fiber layer and at theprimary backing layer ofcarpet.

BS6085:1992

Determination of theresistance of textilesto microbiologicaldeterioration

9 Manufacturer

EN ISO11721-

1:2001

Textiles -Determination of the

resistance of cellulose-containing textiles tomicro-organisms - Soilburial test - Part 1: Assessment of rot-retardant finishing(ISO 11721-1:2001)

9 Manufacturer

EN ISO11721-2:2003

Textiles -Determination of theresistance of cellulose-containing textiles tomicro-organisms - Soilburial test - Part 2:

Identification of long-term resistance of a rotretardant finish (ISO11721:2003)

9 Own searches

EN ISO20645:2004

Textile fabrics -Determination ofantibacterial activity - Agar diffusion platetest (ISO 20645:2004)

9 Manufacturer

EN ISO20743:2007

Textiles -Determination ofantibacterial activity ofantibacterial finished

products (ISO20743:2007)

9 Applied to textiles

Reference material: nontreated polyester

Manufacturer

Laboratory

JIS L1902:2002

Testing forantibacterial activityand efficacyon textile products

9 Antimicrobial activity.Reference material: e.g. nontreated polyester.

Test institute

Manufacturer

JIS Z2801:

2000

Antimicrobial Products – Test for antimicrobialactivity

and efficacy


Test institute

JIS Z Methods of test for 9 Applied to textiles Manufacturer



73

REFERENCE




2911:1992 (PT9)

fungus resistance

NF X41-513 August1961

Protection of plastics.Part 1. Testing methodfor resistance ofingredients tomicroorganisms.

9 TM II05

NF X41-515March

1962

Protection of theplastic materials - Part3: Test method of the

resistance of materialsand apparatus tomicroorganisms

9 TM II05

NF XPG39-010May 2000

Properties of textiles -Textiles and polymericsurfaces havingantibacterial properties- Characterisation andmeasurement ofantibacterial activity

9 Manufacturer

OECD(ENV/JM/BCID(200

7)5)

Guidance documenton the evaluation ofthe efficacy of

antimicrobial treatedarticles with claims forexternal effects

9 Own searches

SN 195920 -1994

Determination of the Antibacterial Activity, Agar Diffusion PlateTest


SN 195921 -1994

Determination of the Antimycotic Activity Agar Diffusion PlateTest


SN 195924 -

1983

Determination of theantibacterial activity,

germ count method


ASTMWK8681

Standard Test Methodfor Resistance to MoldGrowth on InteriorCoated BuildingProducts in anEnvironmentalChamber

10 This test method can be usedto evaluate the comparativeresistance of coated buildingproducts to accelerated moldgrowth. Performance at acertain rating does not implyany specific period of time fora mold free surface. However,a better rated panel would beexpected to perform better inactual end use. An environmental chamber

and the conditions of operationto evaluate in a 4-week period

Own searches



74

REFERENCE




the relative resistance ofcoated building products tosurface mold growth in acontrolled interior environmentis described. The apparatus isdesigned so it can be easilybuilt or obtained by anyinterested party.

ASTMWK14960

Test Method forStandard Test Methodfor the Resistance of

Mold Growth onUncoated InteriorBuilding Products in anEnvironmentalChamber.

10 This test method can be usedto evaluate the comparativeresistance of uncoated building

products to accelerated moldgrowth. The apparatus(environmental chamber) isdesigned so it can be easilybuilt or obtained by anyinterested party.4-week evaluation period.Relative resistance ofuncoated interior buildingproducts to surface moldgrowth in a controlled interiorenvironment is evaluated, butperformance at a certain rating

does not imply any specificperiod of time for a mold freesurface.

Own searches

BS 3900 Methods of test forpaints. Part G6.

Assessment ofresistance to fungalgrowth. BSI London,UK

10 Provides only a methodologyfor production of a test surfacefor exposure by inoculationwith mold growth. The testtherefore has to be modified tobe used as a test method forassessing interior surfacebiocides.

TNsG Prod Eval

UK guidelines

ENV12404:19

97


Assessment of theeffectiveness of amasonry fungicide toprevent growth intowood of Dry RotSerpula lacrymans(Schumacher ex Fries)S.F. Gray - Laboratorymethod

10 Simulated use test TNsG Prod Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

OECD(ENV/JM/BCID(2007)3)

Update on work tovalidate efficacymethods forantimicrobials used on

hard surfaces

10 Own searches

SM022 Determining the 10 Resistance of masonry Manufacturer



75

REFERENCE




(inhouse)

resistance to fungalgrowth

coatings to fungal growth.Test substrate: Masonrycoatings on paperTest germ: Aspergillus nigerand Penicillum funiculosum"Sufficiently finished againstfungal growth" if max 1%growth.5 evaluation levels.

SM022a(in

house)

Determining theresistance to fungal

growth

10 Resistance of masonrycoatings to fungal growth.

Test substrate: Masonrycoatings on paperTest germ: Aspergillus nigerand Penicillum funiculosum"Sufficiently finished againstfungal growth" if max 1%growth.5 evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM023(inhouse)

Determining theresistance to algalgrowth

10 Resistance of masonrycoatings to algal attack.Test substrate: masonrycoatings on paper.Test germ: Scenedesmus

vacuolatus.No algal growth on the testpieces after 2 weeks:"Effectively protected againstalgal growth" (4 evaluation levels)

Manufacturer

ASTME645-07

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy ofMicrobicides Used inCooling WaterSystems

11 Efficacy of microbicides(algicides, bactericides, andfungicides), evaluated usingsimulated or real cooling towerwater against (1) microbesfrom cooling water, (2)microbes in microbiological

deposits (biofilms) fromoperating cooling systems, or(3) microorganisms known tocontaminate cooling watersystems, or a combinationthereof. Choice of enumeratingmethod may vary, e g pourplate, spread plate, MPNtechniques etc. Testconcentrations also vary butare usually between 1 and 50mg/l. Exposure time varieswith mode of action but

includes 3h contact time. Forbacteria 48 h incubation, fungi

Manufacturer



76

REFERENCE




48h-7d, for algae 5-14d.Even if using cooling waterand deposits/biofilm obtainedfrom the field, laboratoryresults may not be totallypredictive of microbicidaleffectiveness in the field (dueto e g variability inenvironmental factors). Ifsolvents are added, a solventcontrol is included. If initial

count in cooling water controlsamples are <10E5 bact/ml (or<10E3 CFU/ml fungi or algae),the test is invalid. In addition,the viable counts of fungi/algaein the control must at least beequal to the numbers at time 0.The untreated control shouldshow a stable population withno more than 0.5 log increaseor decrease in growth duringthe test perod. Results areexpressed as “Log reduction in

number of microorganisms ateach biocide concentration”:log (initial count ofmicroorganisms of the controlsample) – log (number ofmicroorganisms detected at agiven biocide concentrationafter a specific contact time). If1 log reduction: corresponds to90% kill, if 2 log reductioncorresponds to 99% kill, 3 logreduction to 99.9% kill.

Not

available

Field trial in a Plant

recirculating coolingsystem

11 The antimicrobial effectiveness

of biocide was determined bymonitoring chemical andphysical cooling watercharacteristics, microbiologicalparameters such as viablecounts of bacteria, fungi andalgae, and operational andengineering parameters of thetested cooling system

Analysis methods used formicrobial counting were from:Standard methods for theExamination of Water and

Waste Water (APHA 1992),and in-house Laboratory

Manufacturer



77

REFERENCE




SOPs. Efficacy wasdetermined by a reduction inmicrobial counts

SM019(inhouse)

S&M Boko test 11 Preservation of water dilutedcoolants.Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculated andstreaked on agar plates.Test germ: bacteria, moulds,

Yeasts4 evaluation levels. 12 cycles.

Manufacturer

ASTME723-07

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of Antimicrobials asPreservatives for Aqueous-BasedProducts Used in thePaper Industry(Bacterial Spoilage)

11 or12?

Laboratory test method is usedto determine the efficacy of anantimicrobial for preventingbacterial spoilage of in-processpigment suspensions, dyesolutions, pulp slurries, starchsolutions, polymers, sizingagents, latex emulsions, andother aqueous-based materialsused in the paper industry frombacterial spoilage. Test

organisms may vary butshould lie above 10E6 CFU/ml.Bacterial numbers in thesample are determined atvariable time periods andcompared to a control with nobactericide. Material to bepreserved is used assubstrate, but for somematerials nutrients may beadded. Results are expressedas % kill: [(control plate count-test plate count)/ control plate

count]x100 at each samplingtime.


ASTME875-00(2005)

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of FungalControl Agents asPreservatives for Aqueous-BasedProducts Used in thePaper Industry

11 or12?

Laboratory method thatdetermines if a fungal controlagent is effective to preservepigment suspensions, dyesolutions, pulp slurries, starchsolutions, polymers, sizingagents, latex emulsions, andother specific aqueous-basedmaterials to prevent spoilageof in-process aqueous-basedproducts used in the paper

industry. Will also preventspore germination. Plates are




78

REFERENCE




incubated for 7d or until controlplates shos sufficient growthfor rating. The exposure timeshould correspond to the realtime desired, often 6w.Separate evaluations shouldbe made on a representativetype for each specific class ofproduct to be preserved.Growth is determined byvisible signs of deterioration in

the sample and by obtainingfungal numbers and comparingthem to a sample withoutfungal control agents. A properlevel of fungal control agentprevents deterioration andreduces and keeps organismsto an acceptable level in thetest material, which isdetermined by the tester oruser. Often a scale from 0 to 4(heavy growth).

ASTM

WK17314

Test Method for

Evaluating the Efficacyof a LiquidMicrobiocide againstBiofilm Bacteria

12 A procedure for testing the

efficacy of a liquid microbicideagainst biofilm grown oncoupons removed from biofilmreactors standardized to growa repeatable biofilm, such asthe CDC Biofilm Reactor(ASTM Method E 2562) orRotating Disk Biofilm Reactor(ASTM Method E 2196). Thepreparation of the liquidmicrobicide and exposure timeare completed according tomanufacturer’s instructions for

use. The liquid microbicide istested at room temperatureunder static conditions. Biofilmpopulation density is recordedas log10 colony forming unitsper surface area. Efficacy isdetermined by calculating thelog reduction in viable cells.The microbicide is tested at itsuse dilution for therecommended time.

Own searches

ASTME1427-

00e1

Standard Guide forSelecting Test

Methods to Determinethe Effectiveness of

12 The purpose of this guide is toinform the investigator of

methods that can be used forbiofilm formation and

Own searches



80

REFERENCE




evaluating microbicideperformance.Relative bioresistance isdetermined by challengingmetalworking fluids with abiological inoculum that mayeither be characterized(comprised of one or moreknown biological cultures) oruncharacterized (comprised ofbiologically contaminated

metalworking fluid or one ormore unidentified isolates fromdeteriorated metalworkingfluid). Challenged fluidbioresistance is defined interms of resistance to biomassincrease, viable cell recoveryincrease, chemical propertychange, physical propertychange or some combinationthereof.This practice is applicable toantimicrobial agents that are

incorporated into either themetalworking fluid concentrateor end-use dilution. It is alsoapplicable to metalworkingfluids that are formulated usingnon-microbicidal, inherentlybioresistant components.The results of tests completedin accordance with thispractice should be used only tocompare the relativeperformance of products ormicrobicide treatments

included in a test series.Results should not beconstrued as predicting actualfield performance.

ASTME979-91(2004)

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation of Antimicrobial Agentsas Preservatives forInvert Emulsion andOther WaterContaining HydraulicFluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

ASTM

WK8252

New Standard Test

Method forDetermining

13 Determines the relative

bioresistance of aqueousmetalworking fluids towards

Own searches



81

REFERENCE




Resistance of Aqueous MetalworkingFluids towards Non-Tuberculous,EnvironmentalMycobacteria

non-tuberculous (NTM), rapidlygrowing( RGM), environmentalmycobacteria by challengingthem with a mycobacterialinoculum isolated from actualspoiled metalworking fluid fieldsamples from the user/s site.In order to simulate fieldconditions, another challengeinoculum consisting of amixture of common

metalworking fluid spoilagemicroorganisms originatingfrom actual MWF field samplesis also used.

IBRG(draftMWF)(1993)

A StandardizedScreening Method forDetermining theBioresistance of andEvaluating Biocides in

Aqueous MetalWorking Fluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

Notavailable

Challenge Testing inMetal Working

Emulsion (in-houselaboratory study)

13 The purpose of the methodwas to determine the efficacy

of preservatives againstbacterial and fungalcontamination in MetalWorking Fluids (MWF).The method was conducted byinoculating once a week during10 weeks mixed bacteria andoptionally mixed fungi intowater based MWF emulsionscontaining various amounts ofthe test substance diluted in3% synthetic oil. After eachweek a sample of the emulsion

was plated. After plateincubation the number ofsurviving organisms wascompared to the control Thecriteria for measuring goodpreservation efficacy was amicrobial count of <10 cfu/mlafter 10 inoculations for allmicroorganisms.

Manufacturer

Rawlinson andShennan,1987.

A recirculating test rigfor the investigation ofmetal-working fluidspoilage. In Industrial

microbiological testing.Edited by Hopton and

13 TNsG on ProdEval



82

REFERENCE




Hill, BlackwellScientific Publications,Oxford. ISBN 0 63201793 7. pp 227-231

RENAULTD551721(1987)

Evaluation of theBiostability of AqueousMetal Working Fluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

SABS1435-1987

South African standardspecification forbiocides for use in

emulsions of aqueousmetal working fluid andaqueous hydraulicfluid.

13 TNsG on ProdEval

UK MOD91-70issue(1990)

Cutting fluid, soluble,biostable joint servicedesignation ZX-9

13 TNsG on ProdEval

BBA 9 -3.1

Richtlinie für diePrüfung vonNagetierbekämpfungsmitteln gegenHausmaüse

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

BBA 9 -3.2

Richtlinie für diePrüfung vonNagetierbekämpfungsmitteln gegenWanderratten

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

CEB(1981)

Laboratory testmethod to evaluate theefficacy of rodenticidal

products in rats

14 Laboratory test method TMII Fr

CEB(1981)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy ofrodenticidal productsagainst rats underpractical conditions

14 TMII Fr

EPA/OPPProtocolNumber:1.201

Standard Norway Ratand Roof Rat

Anticoagulant LiquidBait Laboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as liquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPP Standard House 14 Anticoagulant rodenticide test TNsG on Prod



83

REFERENCE




ProtocolNumber:1.202

Mouse AnticoagulantLiquid Bait LaboratoryTest Method

against House mouse appliedas liquid bait

Eval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



Anticoagulant Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard HouseMouse AnticoagulantDry Bait LaboratoryTest Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst House mouse appliedas Dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat

Anticoagulant TrackingPowder Efficacy

Laboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Tracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat AcuteLiquid Bait LaboratoryTest Method

14 Acute rodenticide test againstNorway rat/Roof rat applied asLiquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPPProtocolNumber:

1.208

Standard HouseMouse Acute LiquidBait Laboratory Test

Method

14 Acute rodenticide test againstHouse mouse applied asLiquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat AcuteDry Bait LaboratoryTest Method

14 Acute rodenticide test againstNorway rat/Roof rat applied asDry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPPProtocol

Number:1.210

Standard HouseMouse Acute Dry Bait


14 Acute rodenticide test againstHouse mouse applied as Dry

bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance



84

REFERENCE




UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat AcuteTracking PowderEfficacy LaboratoryTest Method

14 Acute rodenticide test againstNorway rat/Roof rat applied asTracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPP


Standard House

Mouse AnticoagulantTracking PowderEfficacy LaboratoryTest Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide test

against House mouse appliedas Tracking powder

TNsG on Prod

Eval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



Anticoagulant WaxBlock and Wax PelletLaboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Wax block and waxpellet

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard HouseMouse AnticoagulantWax Block and WaxPellet Laboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst House mouse appliedas Wax block and wax pellet

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



AnticoagulantPlacepack Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Placepark dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard HouseMouse AnticoagulantPlacepack PenetrationLaboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst House mouse appliedas Placepark penetration

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard Norway Ratand Roof Rat AcutePlacepack PenetrationLaboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide test againstNorway rat/Roof rat applied asPlacepark penetration

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



85

REFERENCE





Standard HouseMouse AcutePlacepack Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide test againstHouse mouse applied asPlacepark dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Proposed Norway Rat AnticoagulantTechnical andConcentrated Dry Bait


14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst Norway rat applied asTechnical and concentrateddry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Proposed Norway Rat Acute Technical andConcentrated Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide test againstNorway rat applied asTechnical and concentrateddry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


1.225

Proposed HouseMouse AnticoagulantTechnical and

Concentrated Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticide testagainst House mouse, appliedas Technical and

concentrated dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Proposed HouseMouse AcuteTechnical andConcentrated Dry BaitLaboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide test againstHouse mouse applied asTechnical and concentrateddry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPPProtocol

Number:1.227

Proposed HouseMouse Acute Tracking

Powder EfficacyLaboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide test againstHouse mouse applied as

Tracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/169(2

Field rodents(Microtus, Arvicola)

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/114(2)

Field tests againstsynanthropic rodents(Mus musculus, Rattusnorvegicus, R. rattus)

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP

Laboratory and fieldtests for the evaluation

14 NL guidance



86

REFERENCE




1/97(2) of rodenticidal dusts TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/113(2)

Laboratory tests forevaluation of thetoxicity andacceptability ofrodenticides androdenticidepreparations

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

Test institute

EPPOPP1/197(1)

Non-target effects ofrodenticides

14NL guidance

EPPOPP1/200(1)

Rodent repellentsagainst debarking oftrees

14 Own search

EPPOPP1/199(1)

Rodent seedrepellents

14 Own search

EPPOPP1/198(1)

Testing rodents forresistance toanticoagulantrodenticides

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPO(1982)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation ofrodenticides N°1.

Laboratory tests forevaluation of thetoxicity andacceptability ofrodenticides androdenticidepreparations

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

EPPO(1982)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation ofrodenticides. Fieldtests againstsynanthropic rodents(Mus musculus, Rattus

norvegicus, rattusrattus)

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

EPPO(1986)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation ofrodenticides.Laboratory and fieldtests for the evaluationof rodenticidal dusts.

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

US EPA96-5 Avian Toxicants

15 TNsG on ProdEval

US EPA96-7

Avian Frightening Agents

15 TNsG on ProdEval

ASTMD4131-84

Standard practice forsampling fish withRotenone

17 Adaptable to both lotic andlentic situations in littoral andlimnetic areas.




87

REFERENCE




(2005)

ASTME729-96(2007)

Standard guide forconducting acutetoxicity tests on testmaterials with fishes,macroinvertebratesand amphibians

17 2 to 8-day exposures,depending on the species.Static, renewal, or flow-throughprocedures.Usually reported as LC50 orEC50.


ASTMWK6845[revisionof E

1241-98 (2004)]

Standard guide forconducting early life-stage toxicity test withfishes

17 A flow through test, beginningbefore hatch and ending afterhatch. 28 to 120-day(depending on species)

continuous exposure.


EPA 72-5 Life-cycle test of fish

17 Communicationwith UK (HSE)

EPA 72-7

Simulated or actualfield testing for aquaticorganisms


OECD203(1992) Fish, Acute toxicity test


OECD204

(1984)

Fish, Prolongedtoxicity test: 14-day

study


US EPA72-1

Acute toxicity test forfreshwater fish


US EPA96-2 Fish control agents


810.3000(1999)

GeneralConsiderations forEfficacy of InvertebrateControl Agents

18 General guide Manufacturer

UK guidelines

AATCC194-2006

Assesment of the Anti-House Dust MitePropertiesof Textiles under Long-Term Test Conditions


ASTME1517-99(2006)

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theEffectiveness ofLiquid, Gel, Cream, orShampoo Insecticides Against Human LouseOVA

18 Determines the effectivenessof ovicidal materials in liquid,gel, cream, or shampoo formagainst the ova (that is, eggsor nits) of the human louse,Pediculus humanus.This test method consists offive replicates for a statistical

Own searches



88

REFERENCE




comparison of formulations.

ASTME652-91(2003)

Standard Test Methodfor Nonresidual LiquidHouseholdInsecticides AgainstFlying Insects

18 Determines the relativeefficiency of household andindustrial-use, contactinsecticides dissolved in baseoils and applied in sprayformulations. It is developed totest insecticides againsthouse flies (Musca domestica,L), but test data may also beadequate to support label

claims for the use of theproducts against mosquitoes,gnats, flying moths, wasps,and certain other small flyinginsects. Not designed tomeasure the residual action ofthe spray formulation.

Own searches

ASTME653-91(2003)

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness of Aerosol andPressurized SpaceSpray Insecticides Against Flying Insects

18 The test determines therelative efficacy of aerosol andpressurized space sprayinsecticide formulationsagainst house flies (Muscadomestica, L) strains and, with

modifications in dosage, otherflying insects. Test dataobtained by this test methodmay also be adequate tosupport label claims for theuse of the product againstmosquitoes, gnats, flyingmoths, wasps, and certainother small flying insects.This test method is notdesigned to measure theresidual activity.The test may be conducted

using approximately 100house flies per test (smallgroup) or 500 flies per test(large group). Selectedreference standards are theOfficial Test Aerosol II (OTA II)for oil based aerosol productsand Tentative Official AqueousPressurized Spray (TOAPS)for water based aerosolproducts. Aerosol testknockdowns: % down of totalflies at 5, 10, 15 minutes after

application. Aerosol test knockdown mortality: dead knocked

UK guidelines



89

REFERENCE




down x100/total flies. Thesenumbers should on average beequal to, greater than or nomore than 5% points below thecorresponding numbers of thereference in order to meet thestandard. No statement onprecision or bias, only whetherconformance to criteria forsuccess specified in theprocedure.

ASTME654-96(2003)

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness of Aerosol andPressurized SprayInsecticides AgainstCockroaches

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects: cockroachesDetermines the relativeefficiency of aerosol andpressurised spray formulationsagainst cockroaches, but testdata by this test method mayalso be adequate to supportclaims for use of the product tocontrol the exposed oraccessible stages of silverfish,ants, centipedes, spiders, andcertain stored product pests.

Applied as direct sprays for 30s. on last instar nymphs.Observation period: 48h. Thetest is not designed tomeasure the residual action.Ten groups with 20 organismsin each. The test is run inconjunction with the OfficialTest Aerosol II (OTA II) (orTentative Official AqueousPressurized Spray (TOAPS)as the standard basis ofcomparison. The mortality after

24h should be between 50 and75% when testing with theOTA. The test specimens meetthe standard if average %dead and moribound is equalto, above or within 10% pointsless than average % dead ofthe OTA series after 48h.Precision or bias is notspecified, only states whetherconforms to efficacy criteria.

UK guidelines

ASTME938-05

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness of

Liquid, Gel, or CreamInsecticides Against

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects: human louse.

Only gels or creams thatliquefy at 32°C (90°F) can be

Own searches



90

REFERENCE




Adult Human Lice tested).Five replicates, for a statisticalcomparison of formulations.

BS 4172-1:1999

Hand-held pressurizedaerosol dispensersagainst houseflies.Specification forinsecticidalperformance

18 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

BS 4172-

2:1999

Hand-held pressurized

aerosol dispensersagainst houseflies.Method fordetermination ofinsecticidalperformance

18 TNsG on Prod

Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

CEB 107(1985)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacityof insecticidal productsfor the control of stableflies in premises forthe rearing of domesticanimals under

practical conditions

18

CEB 135(1987)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy ofinsecticidal or miticidalproducts fortreatments of storagepremises of productsfor animals or plants

18 Surface treatments of storagepremises of products

TM II05 (Fr)

CEB135bis(1996)

Laboratory testmethod to evaluate theefficacy of insecticidalproducts in premisesfor the storage,

industrial processingand sale of productsfrom animals or plants

18 Space treatments TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 159(1992)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy ofinsecticidal productsfor the control ofcockroaches inbuildings underpractical conditions

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 196(1997)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy ofinsecticidal bait

products againstcommon species

18 TM II05 (Fr)



91

REFERENCE




CEB 213(1999)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy ofa fumigant for insectcontrol in premises forthe storage,processing andproduction of food

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 224(2001)

Trial method toevaluate the efficacy offumigants for insectcontrol in stored

products

18 TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/204(1)

Laboratory testing ofplant protectionproducts against insectand mite pests ofstored plant products

18 UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/202(1)

Space and structuraltreatments of storerooms

18 TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

EPPOBulletin,15 Pages

1-119,Paris(1983)

The EPPO Conferenceon Fumigation, Paris,1983

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

EPPO,Paris(1982)

EPPORecommendations onfumigation standards(2nd Edition)

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelinesISO3998:1977

Textiles -Determination ofresistance to certaininsect pests

18 Applicable to all textilescontaining animal fibres in anyproportion. Conditionedvoracity control specimens andtest specimens of known massare placed in contact with

selected larvae for 14 days.The loss in mass of allspecimens and the condition ofthe test larvae are ascertainedto assess the resistance ofeach test specimen.

TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

MS 1004part 1(2002)

Specification formosquito vapourisingmat: part 1: physicaland chemicalrequirements (firstrevision)

18 Manufacturer

MS 1004

part 2(2002)

Specification for

mosquito vapourisingmat: part 2: method for

18 Manufacturer



92

REFERENCE




evaluation of biologicalefficacy - glasschamber method (firstrevision)

MS 1004part 3(2002)

Specification formosquito vapourisingmat: part 3: method forevaluation of biologicalefficacy - glasscylinder method

18 Manufacturer

MS 1004

part 4(2002)

Specification for

mosquito vapourisingmat: part 4: method forevaluation of biologicalefficacy - peet gradymethod

18 Manufacturer

MS 1008(1986)

Method fordetermination ofdelivery rate of aerosoldispenser

18 Manufacturer

MS 1255(1992)

Specification forhousehold insecticidalresidual spray aerosol

18 Manufacturer

MS 1257

(1992)

Specification for

household insecticidalspace spray aerosol

18 Manufacturer

MS 1364(1994)

Method fordetermination ofbrimful capacity ofaerosol cans

18 Manufacturer

MS 1398part 1(1996)

Specification formosquito electric liquidvaporizer: Part 1:physical and chemicalrequirement

18 Manufacturer

MS 1398part 2

(1996)

Specification formosquito electric liquid

vapourizer: part 2:method for evaluationof biological efficacy -glass chamber method

18 Manufacturer

MS 1398part 3(1996)

Specification formosquito electric liquidvapourizer: part 3:method for evaluationof biological efficacy -glass cylinder method

18 Manufacturer

MS 1497(2000)

Methods of biologicalevaluation of theefficacy of repellent -bioassay method formosquito repellent on

18 Manufacturer



94

REFERENCE




the station (active, inactive andbaited) being noted on aninspection form. When activitywas found in a station, baitwas placed in the station.The thin wood strips of thebaiting station were fansprayed with product solutionusing a compressed airsprayer. Product was mixed inthe acetone such that when

the solution was applied to thestrips, various concentrationsof product were imparted tothe wood strips .A tumbletechnique was employed toprevent uneven concentrationsof active ingredient in thesawdust matrix. Efficacy wasmeasured by elimination oftermite infestation

Notavailable

In house LaboratoryStudy of the Efficacyagainst Reticulitennes

fIavipes

18 Formulation, applied as aresidual spray, was assessedfor efficacy against

cockroaches (Blatta orientalis,Blatella germanica andPeriplaneta americana) underlaboratory conditions. Thespray deposits were assessedat intervals up to 24 weekspost application. Efficacy of theformulation at each interval, interms of knockdown andmortality, was evaluated over aperiod of 96 hours posttreatment applicationEfficacy was measured when

all termites in a container haddied, the length of time ofconsumption by the termites ofthe treated sawdust wasrecorded

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Insecticidal activity ofan oil based aerosolagainst Germancockroach, Blattellagermanica (in-houselaboratory study)

18 10 German cockroaches(Blattella germanica) werereleased into a plasticcontainer within a glasscylinder and the aerosol wassprayed into the cylinder.Knocked down insects werecounted at intervals up to 20

minutes.

Manufacturer

Not Insecticidal efficacy of 18 6 adult American cockroaches Manufacturer



95

REFERENCE




available an oil based aerosolagainst Americancockroach, Periplaneta

Americana

(Periplaneta Americana) werereleased into plastic containerwhich was placed in the centreat the bottom of the glasscylinder and 1013mg ofaerosol was sprayed into thecylinder and was then coveredby a glass lid. Knocked downinsects were counted atintervals up to 20 minutes.

Not

available

Insecticidal efficacy of

an oil-based aerosolagainst Housefly,Musca domestica.

18 100 houseflies were released

into a Peet-Grady chamberand aerosol was sprayed intothe chamber. Knocked downinsects were counted atintervals up to 20 minutes.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Insecticidal efficacy ofan oil-based aerosolagainst mosquito,Culex pipiens pallens

18 50 mosquitoes (Culex pipienspallens) were released into aPeet-Grady chamber andaerosol was sprayed into thechamber. Knocked downinsects were counted atintervals up to 20 minutes.The chamber was then

ventilated by an exhaust fanand all insects weretransferred to a clean recoverycontainer with diet and waterwithin 20 minutes

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Insecticide primarily forthe control of termites:Laboratory Studyagainst ReticulitennesfIavipes

18 Various concentrations ofproduct were impregnated in asawdust matrix readilyconsumed by termites. Productwas incorporated into thesawdust by placing each batchof solution and one batch ofsawdust in the mixing bowl of

a Kitchenaid Model K5SSmixer. One untreated batch ofsawdust served as a control.Sterile sand and distilled waterwas mixed to form amoistened sand substrate tosustain the termites as theyfed upon the samples.Eight replications of eachconcentration plus the controlwere tested. Termite activitywas observed in each of thecontainers for four days.

Efficacy was measured byelimination of termite

Manufacturer



96

REFERENCE




infestation.

Notavailable

Laboratory studies toassess productsapplied as directsprays for efficacyagainst a range ofcrawling insects

18 Product was applied as adirect spray, was assessed forefficacy against cockroaches(Blatta orientalis, Blatellagermanica and Periplanetaamericana) under laboratoryconditions. Efficacy criteriabased on mortality andknocked down insects

Manufacturer

OPPTS

810.3100

Soil treatments for

imported fire ants

18 Own searches

OPPTS810.3200

Livestock, poultry, fur-and wool-bearinganimal treatments

18 Own searches

OPPTS810.3300

Treatments to controlpests of humans andpets

18 UK guidelines

OPPTS810.3400

Mosquito, black fly,and biting midge (sandfly) treatments

18 Test of insecticides againstflying insects: MosquitoBlack FlyBiting Midge (Sand Fly)

UK guidelines

OPPTS

810.3500

Premises treatments 18 General guideline Manufacturer

UK guidelines

OPPTS810.3800

Methods for efficacytesting of termite baits

18 Own searches

SABS233 1

st

rev

Pesticides: Biologicalevaluation of mists andfogs - first revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS303

Pesticides – Rearingand handling of thehuman body louse(Pediculus humanushumanus L.) - first

revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS332

Pesticides – Rearingand handling of thecommon clothes moth(Tineola bisseliellaHummel) - secondrevision

18 Manufacturer

SABS458

Pesticides – Rearingand handling of theGerman cockroach(Blatella germanica(L.)) - second revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS576 Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation ofinsecticidal oil-based

18 Manufacturer



97

REFERENCE




space spray in low-pressurizeddispensers - firstrevision

SABS583

Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of thecontact efficacy ofliquid residualinsecticides - firstrevision

18 Manufacturer

SABS

6136(2003)

Pesticides – Biological

evaluation of materialsthat release aninsetticide uponheating

18 Manufacturer

SABS689 3

rd

ed (2002)

Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of knock-down and killingproprieties of liquidand aerosolformulation (al postodi Standard methodsSABS Method 8689-first revision)

18 Manufacturer

SABS690(DRAFT)

Pesticides: biologicalevaluation of theproprerties of solid flybaits - DRAFT

18 Manufacturer

SABS807

Methods for testinginsecticides againstflying and crawlinginsects.

18 TNsG on ProdEval

Manufacturer

UK guidelines

SABS899

(1987)

Insecticidal spacespray in pressurized

dispensers

18 Manufacturer

US AATCCTechnicalManualMethod24 (1992)

Test method fortextiles to determineresistance to insects(e.g. moths, carpetbeetles)

18 Efficacy test against larvae TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

USCSMA

AerosolGuide7 thEdition,

pages129-134

Test method foraerosol space spraysagainst flying insects

18 Test of insecticides againstflying insects:

TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer



98

REFERENCE




(1981)

USCSMA

AerosolGuide7 thEdition,pages135-139(1991)

Test method forpressurised sprayproducts againstcockroaches

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects: cockroaches

TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Verwey &

Sosa,2007

Liquid Electric test

method

18 For testing pyrethroids (draft

method) and natural actives(Pyrethrum extract) onmosquitoues (knockdown).Efficacy criteria: "effectiveagainst mosquitoes for Xhours". Knockdown ismeasured repeatedly for 2hand mortality after 24h.Control (no treatment)knockdown: maximum 10%.2-4 chamber replicates, 50organisms in each. Mean andStandard Deviations for each

time calculated as well asKT50 and KT80 (Mean time to50% and 80% knockdownrespectively).

Manufacturer

WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2003.5

Space sprayapplication ofinsecticides for vectorand public health pestcontrol – apractitioner’s guide

18 Brief description of the maintypes of space sprayequipment as well as theoperational guidelines forspace spray application ofinsecticides.

TM II05 (Fr)

WHO/VBC/75.593(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility or

resistance ofcockroaches toinsecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.212(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of mosquitolarvae to insectdevelopment inhibitors

18 TNsG on ProdEval

WHO/VBC/81.805

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adult

mosquitoes toorganochlorine,

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines



99

REFERENCE




organophosphate andcarbamateinsecticides, -establishment of thebaseline.

WHO/VBC/81.806

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultmosquitoes toorganochlorine,

organophosphate andcarbamate insecticides- diagnostic test

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.807(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of mosquitolarvae to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.808(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of body orheadlice to

insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

WHO/VBC/81.809(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultbed-bugs toinsecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.810(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultblackflies, sandfliesand biting midges to

insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.811(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of blackflylarvae to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.812(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of mosquitolarvae to insectdevelopment inhibitors

18 UK guidelines

WHO/VB

C/81.813(1981)

Instructions for

determining thesusceptibility or

18 TNsG on Prod

Eval



100

REFERENCE




resistance ofhouseflies, tsetse flies,stableflies, blowfliesetc. to insecticides

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.814(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultticks to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.815

(1981)

Instructions fordetermining the

susceptibility orresistance of fleas toinsecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/203(1)

Admixture of plantprotection products tostored plant productsto control insects andmites

18 +20

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/201(1)

Fumigants to controlinsect and mite pestsof stored plantproducts

18 +20

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

ASTM

E939-94(2006)


of Field TestingTopical Applications ofCompounds asRepellents forMedically Importantand Pest Arthropods(Including Insects,Ticks, and Mites):Mosquitoes

19 Evaluates the repellency of

promising compounds thathave undergone primarylaboratory studies andapproved for skin applicationfor secondary testing.The method is designed for thestudy of mosquito repellents,but can be modified todetermine the repellency ofcandidate compounds for otherflying insects that attackhumans.

Own search

ASTM

E951-94(2006)

Standard Test

Methods forLaboratory Testing ofNon-CommercialMosquito RepellentFormulations On theSkin

19 Can be used to test the

efficacy of repellentcompounds that can be dilutedwith ethanol, acetone etc. Bothbiological effectiveness andpersistence of the repellentcan be assessed.ED50 and ED95 aredetermined for comparativeand practical purposesrespectively. Precision of thetest can be evaluated (confidintervals).

Own search

Dautel H,

Hilker M,Kahl O,

Verwendung von

Dodecansäure alsZeckenrepellent

19 Dossier



101

REFERENCE




Siems K,2001.

(Patentschrift).

Fradin &Day, July2002N Engl JMed vol347 vol13-18

Comparative efficacyof insect repellentsagainst mosquito bites

19 Human subjects: Arm in cagestudies (15 volunteers, 10mosquitoues (Aedes aegypti)in each cage. Endpoint:elapsed time to first bite.Category of protection A-H(significantly different meancomplete protection time;

ANOVA & Tukey's). No need

to recalculate the results to"real condition" (simulate realcondition)

Dossier

Hummel,E.,Kleeberg,H. 1997.in:Practiceorientated resultson useand

production ofNeem-Ingredients andPheromones V.Proceedings of the5thworkshop, Wetzlar,Germany,

January22-25,1996

Effect of the neemextract formulationneemazal-t/s on thegreen pea aphidacyrthosiphon pisum inthe laboratory (1995),in: Practice orientatedresults on use andproduction of Neem-Ingredients and

Pheromones V

19 Dossier

Notavailable

Repellency of TwoFormulations against

Ants (in-houselaboratory study)

19 Vinyl floor tiles were sprayedwith the repellent solution andplaced in cages. A foodattractant was placed in thecentre of each tile. Thenumber of ants crossing eachtile was counted at 30 and 60minutes after tiles were placedinto cages. Data for 30 and 60min was combined and

averaged. Repellency wasalso measured the day after

Manufacturer



102

REFERENCE




the fourth consecutiveapplication. Sufficientrepellency was defined as>65%.

Notavailable

Repellency of Twoproduct formulationsagainst the GermanCockroach (in-houselaboratory study)

19 The cockroaches had a choiceof two shelters, one treatedwith the product and oneuntreated. Repellency after 1,3, 7 and 14 days wasrecorded. Percent repellencywas calculated. Sufficient

repellency was defined as>65%, excellent repellencywas defined as >85%.

Manufacturer

OPPTS810.3700“publicdraft”

Insect Repellents ForHuman Skin andOutdoor Premises

19 Own search

SABS695

Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of theefficacy of mosquitorepellents - firstrevision

19 Manufacturer

US EPA

GuidelineOPPTS810.3700(1999)

Insect repellents for

human skin andoutdoor premises

19 UK guidelines

AS1580.481.5(1994)

Durability andresistance to fouling -Marine underwaterpaint systems

21 Simulated field test TM II05

ASTMD3623-78a(2004)

Standard Method forTesting AntifoulingPanels in ShallowSubmergence

21 Simulated field raft test,screening test in shallowmarine environments A standard antifouling panel ofknown performance serves as

a control. SubcommitteeD01.45 has a revised ratingprocedure now beingevaluated by round robin.

TNsG PE

TM II 05

UK guidelines

ASTMD4939-89(2007)

Standard Test Methodfor Subjecting Marine Antifouling Coating toBiofouling and FluidShear Forces inNatural Seawater

21 Simulated field test.Determination of antifoulingperformance and reduction ofthickness of marine antifoulingcoatings by erosion or underspecified conditions ofhydrodynamic shear stress inseawater alternated with staticexposure in seawater.

An antifouling coating systemof known performance is

TM II05



103

REFERENCE




included to serve as a controlin antifouling studies.

ASTMD5479-94(2007)

Standard Practice forTesting BiofoulingResistance of MarineCoatings PartiallyImmersed

21 Testing in-situ partialimmersion exposure. A negative control (non toxicsurface) is applied and shouldshow heavy fouling accretionfor the test to be valid.

TM II05

ASTMD5618-94(2005)

Standard Test Methodfor Measurement ofBarnacle Adhesion

Strength in Shear

21 Screening test, measuringbarnacle adhesion in shear tosurfaces exposed in the

marine environment. Surfaceswith known barnacle adhesionstrengths are included to serveas controls.

TM II05

ASTMD6990-05

Standard Practice forEvaluating BiofoulingResistance andPhysical Performanceof Marine CoatingSystems

21 Guidance to a panel inspectorfor quantitative and consistentevaluation of coatingperformance from test panelscoated with marine antifoulingcoating systems.

TM II05

CEPE Antifouling

WorkingGroup1993

Antifouling coatings -methods for thegeneration of efficacy

data

21 Simulated field raft test TNsG PE

TM II05

UK guidelines

EN ISO10253:2006

Water quality - Marinealgal growth inhibitiontest with Skeletonemacostatum andPhaeodactylumtricornutum (ISO10253:2006)

21 Growth inhibition test TM II05



104

Table 2. Overview of efficacy test references, in order of reference.

REFERE

NCE

TITLE PT SHORT TEST

DESCRIPTION (IF TESTMETHOD AVAILABLE ORINFORMATIONPROVIDED FROMELSEWHERE)

TYPE OF

REFERENCESOURCE

AATCC100 -1999

Antibacterial Finisheson Textile Materials:

Assessment of


AATCC147 -1998

Antibacterial Activity Assessment of TextileMaterials: ParallelStreak Method


AATCC194-2006

Assesment of the Anti-

House Dust MitePropertiesof Textiles under Long-Term Test Conditions


AATCC30 - 1999

Antifungal Activity, Assessment on TextileMaterials:Mildew and RotResistance of TextileMaterials


Alleman,J.E.,Etzel,

J.E.,Gendron,D., Kirsch,E.J.,Conley,J., Fidelle,T., Handy,F., andHildebrandt, M. 42

nd

PurdueIndustrialWasteConference, May1987,519-524

Comparative Evaluationof Alternative Halogen-based Disinfection

Strategies

1-5 Microorganisms wereexposed to a mixture ofbiocide in solution for 4 or

16 minutes. Thepercentage survival wasassessed under variousconditions such as high orlow nitrogen (asammonium), high pH or lowtemperatures.

Manufacturer

AmericanPublicHealth

Association, 16thEdition,1985

Standard Methods forthe Examination ofWater and Wastewater(SMEWW).

1-5 A swimming pool trial wasperformed over a threemonth period todemonstrate thedisinfection efficacy of theproduct. Water sampleswere collected for microbialanalysis. Water and, airtemperature, number ofbathers (at the time whensamples were taken and

Manufacturer



105

REFERENCE

TITLE PT SHORT TESTDESCRIPTION (IF TESTMETHOD AVAILABLE ORINFORMATIONPROVIDED FROMELSEWHERE)


total bathers for the day),eye and skin irritation andwater clarity were alsomeasured.Criteria for effective controlwas determined as follows:The state of California,Department of HealthServices requirement forpool water is;

Bacteriological quality ofwater in the swimming poolshall be such that not morethan two consecutivesamples, taken when thepool is in use shall:1. Contain more than 200bacteria per ml, asdetermined by the standardplate count; or2. Contain a total coliformorganism count of 2.2 orgreater per 100 ml of

sample3. Chemical quality of waterin the pool shall not causeirritation of eyes or skin ofthe bathers, or have otherobjectionable physiologicaleffects on bathers.

AOAC(Association ofOfficial

AnalyticalChemists)

officialmethod965.13

“Disinfectant (water) forSwimming Pools”official method of

Analysis, 16th Edition,1995

1-5 Manufacturer

AS1580.481.5(1994)

Durability andresistance to fouling -Marine underwater paintsystems

21 Simulated field test TM II05

ASTMG21-96(2002)

Standard practice fordetermining resistanceof synthetic polymericmaterials to fungi

7 This practice coversdetermination of the effectof fungi on the properties ofsynthetic polymericmaterials in the form ofmolded and fabricated

articles, tubes, rods,sheets, and film materials.

Own searches



107

REFERENCE



(Bacterial Spoilage) starch solutions, polymers,sizing agents, latexemulsions, and otheraqueous-based materialsused in the paper industryfrom bacterial spoilage.Test organisms may varybut should lie above 10E6CFU/ml.Bacterial numbers in the

sample are determined atvariable time periods andcompared to a control withno bactericide. Material tobe preserved is used assubstrate, but for somematerials nutrients may beadded. Results areexpressed as % kill:[(control plate count-testplate count)/ control platecount]x100 at eachsampling time.

ASTME875-00(2005)

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of FungalControl Agents asPreservatives for Aqueous-BasedProducts Used in thePaper Industry

11 or12? Laboratory method thatdetermines if a fungalcontrol agent is effective topreserve pigmentsuspensions, dye solutions,pulp slurries, starchsolutions, polymers, sizingagents, latex emulsions,and other specific aqueous-based materials to preventspoilage of in-processaqueous-based productsused in the paper industry.

Will also prevent sporegermination. Plates areincubated for 7d or untilcontrol plates shossufficient growth for rating.The exposure time shouldcorrespond to the real timedesired, often 6w.Separate evaluationsshould be made on arepresentative type foreach specific class ofproduct to be preserved.

Growth is determined byvisible signs of




108

REFERENCE



deterioration in the sampleand by obtaining fungalnumbers and comparingthem to a sample withoutfungal control agents. Aproper level of fungalcontrol agent preventsdeterioration and reducesand keeps organisms to anacceptable level in the test

material, which isdetermined by the tester oruser. Often a scale from 0to 4 (heavy growth).

ASTME645-07

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy ofMicrobicides Used inCooling Water Systems

11 Efficacy of microbicides(algicides, bactericides,and fungicides), evaluatedusing simulated or realcooling tower water against(1) microbes from coolingwater, (2) microbes inmicrobiological deposits(biofilms) from operating

cooling systems, or (3)microorganisms known tocontaminate cooling watersystems, or a combinationthereof. Choice ofenumerating method mayvary, e g pour plate, spreadplate, MPN techniques etc.Test concentrations alsovary but are usuallybetween 1 and 50 mg/l.Exposure time varies withmode of action but includes

3h contact time. Forbacteria 48 h incubation,fungi 48h-7d, for algae 5-14d.Even if using cooling waterand deposits/biofilmobtained from the field,laboratory results may notbe totally predictive ofmicrobicidal effectivenessin the field (due to e gvariability in environmentalfactors). If solvents are

added, a solvent control isincluded. If initial count in

Manufacturer



109

REFERENCE



cooling water controlsamples are <10E5 bact/ml(or <10E3 CFU/ml fungi oralgae), the test is invalid. Inaddition, the viable countsof fungi/algae in the controlmust at least be equal tothe numbers at time 0. Theuntreated control shouldshow a stable population

with no more than 0.5 logincrease or decrease ingrowth during the testperod. Results areexpressed as “Logreduction in number ofmicroorganisms at eachbiocide concentration”: log(initial count ofmicroorganisms of thecontrol sample) – log(number of microorganismsdetected at a given biocide

concentration after aspecific contact time). If 1log reduction: correspondsto 90% kill, if 2 logreduction corresponds to99% kill, 3 log reduction to99.9% kill.

ASTMD2574-06

Standard Test Methodfor Resistance ofEmulsion Paints in theContainer to Attack byMicroorganisms

6 Own searches

ASTM

WK8681


for Resistance to MoldGrowth on InteriorCoated BuildingProducts in anEnvironmental Chamber

10 This test method can be

used to evaluate thecomparative resistance ofcoated building products toaccelerated mold growth.Performance at a certainrating does not imply anyspecific period of time for amold free surface.However, a better ratedpanel would be expected toperform better in actual enduse. An environmental chamber

and the conditions ofoperation to evaluate in a

Own searches



110

REFERENCE



4-week period the relativeresistance of coatedbuilding products to surfacemold growth in a controlledinterior environment isdescribed. The apparatusis designed so it can beeasily built or obtained byany interested party.

ASTM

WK 17314

Test Method for

Evaluating the Efficacyof a Liquid Microbiocideagainst Biofilm Bacteria

12 A procedure for testing the

efficacy of a liquidmicrobicide against biofilmgrown on couponsremoved from biofilmreactors standardized togrow a repeatable biofilm,such as the CDC BiofilmReactor (ASTM Method E2562) or Rotating DiskBiofilm Reactor (ASTMMethod E 2196). Thepreparation of the liquidmicrobicide and exposure

time are completedaccording tomanufacturer’s instructionsfor use. The liquidmicrobicide is tested atroom temperature understatic conditions. Biofilmpopulation density isrecorded as log10 colonyforming units per surfacearea. Efficacy isdetermined by calculatingthe log reduction in viable

cells.The microbicide is tested atits use dilution for therecommended time.

Own searches

ASTMWK14960

Test Method forStandard Test Methodfor the Resistance ofMold Growth onUncoated InteriorBuilding Products in anEnvironmentalChamber.

10 This test method can beused to evaluate thecomparative resistance ofuncoated building productsto accelerated mold growth.The apparatus(environmental chamber) isdesigned so it can be easilybuilt or obtained by any

interested party.4-week evaluation period.

Own searches



111

REFERENCE



Relative resistance ofuncoated interior buildingproducts to surface moldgrowth in a controlledinterior environment isevaluated, but performanceat a certain rating does notimply any specific period oftime for a mold freesurface.

ASTME1517-99(2006)

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theEffectiveness of Liquid,Gel, Cream, orShampoo Insecticides Against Human LouseOVA

18 Determines theeffectiveness of ovicidalmaterials in liquid, gel,cream, or shampoo formagainst the ova (that is,eggs or nits) of the humanlouse, Pediculus humanus.This test method consistsof five replicates for astatistical comparison offormulations.

Own searches

ASTMD1006-93

StandardRecommended Practice

for Conducting ExteriorExposure Tests ofPaints on Wood

8 Field test: aids inevaluating the performance

of house and trim paints tonew, previously unpaintedwood exposed to theenvironment.Exposures in severallocations with differentclimates which represent abroad range of anticipatedservice conditions arerecommended and severalyears of repeat exposuresare needed to get an“average” test result for a

given location. Solarradiation variesconsiderably as function oftime of year, and can causelarge differences in theapparent rate ofdegradation in manypolymers. Comparingresults for materialsexposed for short periods(less than onee year) is notrecommended unlessmaterials are exposed at

the same time in the samelocation.

Own searches



112

REFERENCE



ASTMD3273-00(2005)

Standard Test Methodfor Resistance toGrowth of Mold on theSurface of InteriorCoatings in anEnvironmental Chamber

7 This test method describesa small environmentalchamber and the conditionsof operation to evaluatereproducibly in a 4-weekperiod the relativeresistance of paint films tosurface mold fungi, mildewgrowth in a severe interiorenvironment. The

apparatus is designed so itcan be easily built orobtained by any interestedparty and will duplicateresults obtained in a largetropical chamber. An accelerated test fordetermining the resistanceof interior coatings to moldgrowth; useful inestimating the performanceof coatings designed foruse in interior environments

that promote mold growthand in evaluatingcompounds that may inhibitsuch growth and theaggregate levels for theiruse.Used to evaluate thecomparative resistance ofinterior coating toaccelerated mildew growth.Performance at a certainrating (in accordance withTest Method D3274) does

not imply any specificperiod of time for a fungalfree coating. However, abetter rated coating nearlyalways performs better inactual end use. This testmethod is intended for theaccelerated evaluation ofan interior coatings'resistance to fungaldefacement. Use of thistest method for evaluatingexterior coatings'

performance has not beenvalidated, nor have the

Own searches



113

REFERENCE



limitations for such usebeen determined. Anyaccelerated weathering(leaching, weatheringmachine exposure, etc.,)should be reported andshould also bear referenceto the fact that it is beyondthe current scope of thistest method.

Temperature and humiditymust be effectivelycontrolled within therelatively narrow limitsspecified in order for thechamber to functionreproducibly during theshort test period. Severityand rate of mold growth ona film is a function of themoisture content of boththe film and the substrate. A relative humidity of 95 to

98 % at a temperature of32.5+ 1oC (90+ 2oF ) isnecessary for test panels todevelop rapidly andmaintain an adequatemoisture level to supportmold growth.

ASTMD3456-86(2002)

Standard Practice forDetermining by ExteriorExposure Tests theSusceptibility of PaintFilms to Microbiological Attack

7 This practice providesguidelines for determiningthe susceptibility of paintfilms to microbiologicalattack on exteriorexposure. The degree to

which microbiologicaldiscoloration occurs is theprimary concern. Thispractice covers thepreparation of coatings fortesting, their application onsubstrates, and thearrangement of the coatedpanels on exterior testfences to determine thedegree of microbiologicalattack that may occur onthe surface of the coatings

over a period of time.This practice is intended to

Own searches



115

REFERENCE



shipping requirements andintended for use in leathermanufacturing, assistingthe prediction of storagetime before molding occurs.This test method may notbe suitable to evaluatefungicides that areinactivated by proteins,including

alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides.To allow use of this testmethod by any laboratory,flexibility has beenpermitted in times,temperature, and humidityof incubation, inoculum,hide sampling area, andchoice of control. Thesemay be adjusted to fit localconditions but must bestandardized.

Conclusions about moldgrowth resistance aredrawn from the results bycomparing the test with asimultaneously run controlof known resistance.Success or failure isdetermined by the amountof mold growth relative tothe control.

The degree of correlationbetween this test and

commercial quantities ofwet blue in storage orshipment situations, orboth, has not been fullydetermined.

ASTMD4783-01e1

Standard Test Methodsfor Resistance of Adhesive Preparationsin Container to Attackby Bacteria, Yeast, andFungi

6 Determination of theresistance of liquidadhesive preparations tomicrobial attack in thecontainer by challengingadhesive specimens withcultures of bacteria, yeast,or fungi, and checking for

their ability to return tosterility.

TNsG on ProdEval



116

REFERENCE



These test methods returnqualitative results

ASTMD4939-89(2007)

Standard Test Methodfor Subjecting Marine Antifouling Coating toBiofouling and FluidShear Forces in NaturalSeawater

21 Simulated field test.Determination of antifoulingperformance and reductionof thickness of marineantifouling coatings byerosion or under specifiedconditions of hydrodynamicshear stress in seawater

alternated with staticexposure in seawater. An antifouling coatingsystem of knownperformance is included toserve as a control inantifouling studies.

TM II05

ASTMD5479-94(2007)

Standard Practice forTesting BiofoulingResistance of MarineCoatings PartiallyImmersed

21 Testing in-situ partialimmersion exposure. A negative control (nontoxic surface) is appliedand should show heavyfouling accretion for the test

to be valid.

TM II05

ASTMD5589-97(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theResistance of PaintFilms and RelatedCoatings to AlgalDefacement

7 This test method covers anaccelerated method fordetermining the relativeresistance of a paint orcoating film to algal growth.This test method should notbe used as a replacementfor exterior exposure sincemany other factors, only afew of which are listed willaffect those results.

Own searches

ASTM

D5590-00(2005)


for Determining theResistance of PaintFilms and RelatedCoatings to FungalDefacement by Accelerated Four-Week Agar Plate Assay

7 This test method covers an

accelerated method fordetermining the relativeresistance of two or morepaints or coating films tofungal growth.This test method should notbe used as a replacementfor exterior exposure (thatis, Practice D 3456) sincemany other factors, only afew of which are listed willaffect those results.Comparative evaluation of

different coatingformulations for their

Own searches



117

REFERENCE



relative performance undera given set of conditions. Itdoes not imply that acoating that resists growthunder these conditions willnecessarily resist growth inthe actual application.

Round-robin testing of thistest method versus exterior

exposure is planned. ASTMD5618-94(2005)

Standard Test Methodfor Measurement ofBarnacle AdhesionStrength in Shear

21 Screening test, measuringbarnacle adhesion in shearto surfaces exposed in themarine environment.Surfaces with knownbarnacle adhesionstrengths are included toserve as controls.

TM II05

ASTMD6990-05

Standard Practice forEvaluating BiofoulingResistance andPhysical Performance

of Marine CoatingSystems

21 Guidance to a panelinspector for quantitativeand consistent evaluationof coating performance

from test panels coatedwith marine antifoulingcoating systems.

TM II05

ASTME1052-96(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents Against Viruses inSuspension

1-5 Laboratory suspension testthat determines theeffectiveness ofantimicrobial solutionsagainst designatedprototype viruses. Theeffective antimicrobialconcentration should bedetermined using cellcultures as the host system

for specific viruses. Forspecial applications ofvirucides, such asinactivation of viruses incontaminated liquid wastes,and as a first stage indetermining virucidalpotential of liquid chemicalgermicides, liquid handsoaps, OTC topicals orother skin products.

Manufacturer

ASTM

E1053-97(2002)


for Efficacy of Virucidal Agents Intended for

1-5 Laboratory test method.

Evaluates the virucidalefficacy of liquid, aerosol,

Manufacturer



118

REFERENCE



InanimateEnvironmental Surfaces

or trigger sprayantimicrobial solutions oninanimate nonporousenvironmental surfaces,against designatedprototype viruses. Theeffective antimicrobialconcentration should bedetermined utilizing cellcultures as the host system

for specific viruses. Efficacyis measured by apercentage reduction intiter.

ASTME1054-02

Standard Test Methodsfor Evaluation ofInactivators of Antimicrobial Agents

1-5 Effectiveness ofprocedures and agents forinactivating (neutralizing,quenching) themicrobiocidal properties ofantimicrobial agents and toensure that no componentsof the neutralizingprocedures and agents,

themselves, exert aninhibitory effect onmicroorganisms targetedfor recovery.

Own searches

ASTME1115-02

Test Method forEvaluation of SurgicalHand ScrubFormulations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1153-03

Standard Test Methodfor Efficacy of SanitizersRecommended forInanimate Non-FoodContact Surfaces

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1173-01e1

Standard Test Methodof a Evaluation of aPreoperative,Precatheterization, orPreinjection SkinPreparations

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1174-06

Test Method forEvaluation of theEffectiveness of HealthCare PersonnelHandwash Formulations

1-5 Own searches

ASTM

E1259-05

Standard Practice for

Evaluation of Antimicrobials in Liquid

6 The procedure should be

used to evaluate therelative efficacy of

Own searches



119

REFERENCE



Fuels Boiling Below390°C

microbicides in liquid fuelsboiling below 390°C. Theeffect of environmentalconditions, such as avariety of fuel additives,metal surfaces, andclimatology, are variablesthat can be included inspecific tests using thisprotocol.

ASTME1327-07 Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation of Antimicrobial HandwashFormulations byUtilizing FingernailRegions

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1427-00e1

Standard Guide forSelecting Test Methodsto Determine theEffectiveness of Antimicrobial Agentsand Other Chemicalsfor the Prevention,

Inactivation andRemoval of Biofilm

12 The purpose of this guide isto inform the investigator ofmethods that can be usedfor biofilm formation andmeasurement, allowingdevelopment of testprocedures for determining

the effectiveness ofchemical treatments forprevention, inactivation,and removal of unwantedbiofilm. This guide is not anexhaustive survey of biofilmmethods.

Own searches

ASTME1428-99(2004)

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluating thePerformance of Antimicrobials in or onPolymeric Solids Against Staining by

Streptoverticilliumreticulum (A Pink StainOrganism)

7 This test method provides atechnique for evaluatingantimicrobials in or onpolymeric solids againststaining byStreptoverticillium

reticulum, and shouldassist in the prediction ofperformance of treatedarticles under actual fieldconditions. Conditioning ofthe specimens, such asexposure to leaching,weathering, and heattreatment, may havesignificant effects onperformance ofantimicrobials againststaining. Determination of

these effects is notincluded in this test

Own searches



120

REFERENCE



method. This test method isalso not suitable forevaluating dark-pigmentedtest samples.

ASTME1482-04

Standard Test Methodfor Neutralization ofVirucidal Agents inVirucidal EfficacyEvaluations

1-5 Own searches

ASTM

E1589-05


for Evaluation of First Aid Antiseptic DrugProducts

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1766-95(2002)

Standard Test Methodfor Determination ofEffectiveness ofSterilization Processesfor Reusable MedicalDevices

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1837-96(2002)

Standard Test Methodto Determine Efficacy ofDisinfection Processesfor Reusable Medical

Devices (Simulated UseTest)

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1838-02

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theVirus-EliminatingEffectiveness of LiquidHygienic Handwash andHandrub Agents Usingthe Fingerpads of AdultVolunteers

1-5 Own searches

ASTME1839-07

Standard test methodfor efficacy of slimicidesfor the paper industry –

bacterial and fungalslime

12 A procedure to evaluate theefficacy of slimicides for thecontrol of bacterial and

fungal slimes in paper millsystems and theircounterparts. This testmethod is run in acid,alkaline, or acid andalkaline conditions todetermine the efficacy ofthe slime control agent.The test conditions may bemodified to reflect intendeduse patterns in typicalpaper mill systems,including use of actual

paper mill furnish. Efficacybased on a % reduction on


Manufacturer



121

REFERENCE



CFU.

ASTME1882-05

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation of AntimicrobialFormulations by the Agar Patch Technique

1-5 This test methoddetermines the antibacterialactivity and persistence oftest formulations, asmeasured by the inhibitionof a test organism on anagar surface exposed totest sites on human skintreated with the

formulations. Thisprocedure can be used toevaluate formulationscontaining ingredientsintended to inhibit growth ofbacteria on intact skin andmeasures the difference,post-product-exposure,between numbers ofbacterial colonies on activetest formulation plates andnumbers on control plates,expressed as percent

inhibition.This procedure may alsobe used to test forpersistence of activity, as afunction of time elapsedbetween application ofactive test formulation andapplication of active testplates. Because noprocedure for neutralizationof the antimicrobial actionof active ingredients can beincluded in the test, the

agar patch method islimited to the extent thatresults expressed aspercent inhibition do notdifferentiate betweenbacteriostatic andbacteriocidal effects and,hence, must not beportrayed as “reductions.”

Own searches

ASTME1883-02

Standard Test Methodfor Assessment of an Antibacterial HandwashProduct by Multiple

Basin Wash Technique

1-5 Own searches

ASTM Standard Guide for ? Own searches



123

REFERENCE



CFU after the mandatorydrying of the inoculum. Thistest method is designed tohave survivors and also tobe used with aperformance standard. Thesurviving microorganismson each test carrier arecompared to the mean ofno less than three control

carriers to determine if theperformance standard hasbeen met. To allow properstatistical evaluation ofresults, the size of the testinoculum should besufficiently large to takeinto account both theperformance standard andthe experimental variationin the results.

ASTME2149-01

Determining the Antimicrobial Activity of

Immobilized Antimicrobial AgentsUnder Dynamic ContactConditions

9 Evaluates the resistance ofnon-leaching antimicrobial

treated specimens to thegrowth of microbes underdynamic contact conditions.This test determines theantimicrobial activity oftreated specimen byshaking samples of surfacebound materials in aconcentrated bacterialsuspension for a one hourcontact time or othercontact times as specifiedby the investigator. The

suspension is seriallydiluted both before andafter contact and cultured.This dynamic shake flasktest was developed forroutine quality control andscreening tests in order toovercome difficulties(including ensuring contactof inoculum to treatedsurface) in using classicalantimicrobial test methodsto evaluate substrate-

bound antimicrobials. Thistest also allows for the

Manufacturer,applied to textiles



124

REFERENCE



versatility of testingcontamination due to suchthings as hard water,proteins, blood, serum,various chemicals, andother contaminates orphysical/chemical stressesor manipulations of thespecimens of interest.The number of viable

organisms in thesuspension is determinedand the percent reductionis calculated based oninitial counts or onretrievals from appropriateuntreated controls. hismethod is intended forthose surfaces having apercent reduction activity of50 % to 100 % for thespecified contact time.Surface antimicrobial

activity is determined bycomparing results from thetest sample tosimultaneously runcontrols. The presence of aleaching antimicrobial isboth pre- and post-determined by thepresence of a zone ofinhibition.

ASTME2180-07

Standard Test Methodfor Determining the

Activity of Incorporated Antimicrobial Agent(s)In Polymeric orHydrophobic Materials

9 This test method isdesigned to evaluate

(quantitatively) theantimicrobial effectivenessof agents incorporated orbound into or onto mainlyflat (two dimensional)hydrophobic or polymericsurfaces. The methodfocuses primarily onassessing antibacterialactivity; however, othermicroorganisms such asyeast and fungal conidiamay be tested using this

method. The vehicle for theinoculum is an agar slurry

Own searches



125

REFERENCE



which reduces the surfacetension of the salineinoculum carrier and allowsformation of a "pseudo-biofilm," providing moreeven contact of theinoculum with the testsurface. This test methodfacilitates the testing ofhydrophobic surfaces by

utilizing cells held in anagar slurry matrix.This method can confirmthe presence ofantimicrobial activity inplastics or hydrophobicsurfaces and allowsdetermination ofquantitative differences inantimicrobial activitybetween untreated plasticsor polymers and those withbound or incorporated low

water-soluble antimicrobialagents. Comparisonsbetween the numbers ofsurvivors on preservative-treated and controlhydrophobic surfaces mayalso be made. This testmethod, as written, isinappropriate to determineefficacy against biofilmcells, which are differentboth genetically andmetabolically than

planktonic cells used in thistest. The procedure alsopermits determination of"shelf-life" or long termdurability of anantimicrobial treatmentwhich may be achievedthrough testing both non-washed and washedsamples over a time span.

ASTME2196-07

Standard Test Methodfor Quantification of aPseudomonas

aeruginosa BiofilmGrown with Shear and

7 This test method is used forgrowing a repeatablePseudomonas aeruginosa

biofilm in a continuouslystirred flow reactor. In

Own searches



127

REFERENCE



both, for determining theneed for microbicideaddition prior to or duringfluid use in metalworkingsystems and for evaluatingmicrobicide performance.Relative bioresistance isdetermined by challengingmetalworking fluids with abiological inoculum that

may either becharacterized (comprisedof one or more knownbiological cultures) oruncharacterized(comprised of biologicallycontaminated metalworkingfluid or one or moreunidentified isolates fromdeteriorated metalworkingfluid). Challenged fluidbioresistance is defined interms of resistance to

biomass increase, viablecell recovery increase,chemical property change,physical property change orsome combination thereof.This practice is applicableto antimicrobial agents thatare incorporated into eitherthe metalworking fluidconcentrate or end-usedilution. It is also applicableto metalworking fluids thatare formulated using non-

microbicidal, inherentlybioresistant components.The results of testscompleted in accordancewith this practice should beused only to compare therelative performance ofproducts or microbicidetreatments included in atest series. Results shouldnot be construed aspredicting actual fieldperformance.

ASTME2276-

Standard Test Methodfor Determining the

1-5 Own searches



128

REFERENCE



03e1 Bacteria-EliminatingEffectiveness ofHygienic Handwash andHandrub Agents Usingthe Fingerpads of AdultSubjects

ASTME2314-03

Standard Test Methodfor Determination ofEffectiveness ofCleaning Processes for

Reusable MedicalInstruments Using aMicrobiologic Method(Simulated Use Test)

1-5 Own searches

ASTME2315-03

Standard Guide for Assessment of Antimicrobial ActivityUsing a Time-KillProcedure

1-5 This guide coversexamples of a basicmethod to measure thechanges of a population ofaerobic microorganismswithin a specified samplingtime when tested againstantimicrobial test materials

in vitro. Several options fororganism selection andgrowth, inoculumpreparation, sampling timesand temperatures areprovided. Antimicrobialactivity of specificmaterials, as measured bythis technique, may varysignificantly on variablesselected.

Own searches

ASTME2361-04

Standard Guide forTesting Leave-On

Products Using In-SituMethods

1-5 This guide covers testmethods and sampling

procedure options forleave-on products (such asalcohol hand rubs andlotions containingantimicrobial ingredients)for consumer and hospitalpersonnel. These productsare distinguished fromconventional washing andscrubbing preparations inthat they do not rely on therinsing, physical removal,and antimicrobial action in

determining theireffectiveness. Although

Own searches



130

REFERENCE



prior to testing in order toassess the durability of theantimicrobial effect. Themethod can assess thedurability of theantimicrobial treatments onnew carpets, and on thoserepeatedly shampooed orexposed to in-useconditions.

Half strength (nutrient andagar) tryptic soy agar isused as the inoculumvehicle for bacteria and halfstrength potato dextroseagar as the inoculumvehicle for mold conidia.Use of half strength agarsmay reduce undueneutralization of anantimicrobial due toexcessive organic load.This test method

simultaneously evaluates(both visual and stereo-microscopic) antimicrobialactivity both at the fiberlayer and at the primarybacking layer of carpet.

ASTME2562-07

Standard Test Methodfor Quantification ofPseudomonasaeruginosa BiofilmGrown with High Shearand Continuous Flow

using CDC BiofilmReactor

1-5 +12

This test method specifiesthe operational parametersrequired to grow arepeatable Pseudomonasaeruginosa biofilm underhigh shear (1). The

resulting biofilm isrepresentative ofgeneralized situationswhere biofilm exists underhigh shear rather thanrepresentative of oneparticular environment. Thebiofilm generated in theCDC biofilm reactor is alsosuitable for efficacy testing.3 This test methoddescribes how to sampleand analyze biofilm for

viable cells. Biofilmpopulation density is

Own searches



131

REFERENCE



recorded as log colonyforming units per surfacearea. After the 48 h growthphase is complete, the usermay add the treatment insitu or harvest the couponsand treat them individually.This test method uses theCenters for DiseaseControl and Prevention

(CDC) biofilm reactor. TheCDC biofilm reactor is acontinuously stirred flowreactor with high wallshear. Although it wasoriginally designed tomodel a potable watersystem for the evaluation ofLegionella pneumophila,the reactor is versatile andmay also be used forgrowing and/orcharacterizing biofilm of

varying species. ASTME640-06

Standard Test Methodfor Preservatives inWater-ContainingCosmetics

1-5 This test method should beused to determine if apreservative orpreservative system hasapplication for thepreservation of water-miscible cosmetic products.It sets minimalrequirements forpreservative performancein model formulations.

Own searches

ASTM

E652-91(2003)


for Nonresidual LiquidHousehold Insecticides Against Flying Insects


efficiency of household andindustrial-use, contactinsecticides dissolved inbase oils and applied inspray formulations. It isdeveloped to testinsecticides against houseflies (Musca domestica, L),but test data may also beadequate to support labelclaims for the use of theproducts againstmosquitoes, gnats, flying

moths, wasps, and certainother small flying insects.

Own searches



132

REFERENCE



Not designed to measurethe residual action of thespray formulation.

ASTME653-91(2003)

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness of Aerosol andPressurized SpaceSpray Insecticides Against Flying Insects

18 The test determines therelative efficacy of aerosoland pressurized spacespray insecticideformulations against houseflies (Musca domestica, L)strains and, with

modifications in dosage,other flying insects. Testdata obtained by this testmethod may also beadequate to support labelclaims for the use of theproduct againstmosquitoes, gnats, flyingmoths, wasps, and certainother small flying insects.This test method is notdesigned to measure theresidual activity.

The test may be conductedusing approximately 100house flies per test (smallgroup) or 500 flies per test(large group). Selectedreference standards are theOfficial Test Aerosol II(OTA II) for oil basedaerosol products andTentative Official AqueousPressurized Spray(TOAPS) for water basedaerosol products. Aerosol

test knockdowns: % downof total flies at 5, 10, 15minutes after application. Aerosol test knock downmortality: dead knockeddown x100/total flies.These numbers should onaverage be equal to,greater than or no morethan 5% points below thecorresponding numbers ofthe reference in order tomeet the standard. No

statement on precision orbias, only whether

UK guidelines



133

REFERENCE



conformance to criteria forsuccess specified in theprocedure.

ASTME654-96(2003)

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness of Aerosol andPressurized SprayInsecticides AgainstCockroaches

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects:cockroaches Determinesthe relative efficiency ofaerosol and pressurisedspray formulations againstcockroaches, but test data

by this test method mayalso be adequate tosupport claims for use ofthe product to control theexposed or accessiblestages of silverfish, ants,centipedes, spiders, andcertain stored productpests. Applied as directsprays for 30 s. on lastinstar nymphs. Observationperiod: 48h. The test is notdesigned to measure the

residual action.Ten groups with 20organisms in each. The testis run in conjunction withthe Official Test Aerosol II(OTA II) (or TentativeOfficial AqueousPressurized Spray(TOAPS) as the standardbasis of comparison. Themortality after 24h shouldbe between 50 and 75%when testing with the OTA.

The test specimens meetthe standard if average %dead and moribound isequal to, above or within10% points less thanaverage % dead of theOTA series after 48h.Precision or bias is notspecified, only stateswhether conforms toefficacy criteria.

UK guidelines

ASTM

E729-96(2007)

Standard guide forconducting acute

toxicity tests on testmaterials with fishes,

17 2 to 8-day exposures,depending on the species.

Static, renewal, or flow-through procedures.




134

REFERENCE



macroinvertebrates andamphibians

Usually reported as LC50or EC50.

ASTME938-05

Standard Test Methodfor Effectiveness ofLiquid, Gel, or CreamInsecticides Against Adult Human Lice

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects: humanlouse. Only gels or creamsthat liquefy at 32°C (90°F)can be tested).Five replicates, for astatistical comparison offormulations.

Own searches

ASTME939-94(2006)

Standard Test Methodof Field Testing Topical Applications ofCompounds asRepellents for MedicallyImportant and Pest Arthropods (IncludingInsects, Ticks, andMites): Mosquitoes

19 Evaluates the repellency ofpromising compounds thathave undergone primarylaboratory studies andapproved for skinapplication for secondarytesting.The method is designed forthe study of mosquitorepellents, but can bemodified to determine therepellency of candidatecompounds for other flying

insects that attack humans.

Own search

ASTME951-94(2006)

Standard Test Methodsfor Laboratory Testingof Non-CommercialMosquito RepellentFormulations On theSkin

19 Can be used to test theefficacy of repellentcompounds that can bediluted with ethanol,acetone etc. Both biologicaleffectiveness andpersistence of the repellentcan be assessed.ED50 and ED95 aredetermined for comparativeand practical purposesrespectively. Precision of

the test can be evaluated(confid intervals).

Own search

ASTME979-91(2004)

Standard Test Methodfor Evaluation of Antimicrobial Agents asPreservatives for InvertEmulsion and OtherWater ContainingHydraulic Fluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

ASTMG160-03

Standard Practice forEvaluating MicrobialSusceptibility ofNonmetallic Materials

by Laboratory SoilBurial

8-10?

A wide variety of propertiesmay be affected bymicrobial attack dependingon material or item

characteristic. Standardmethods (where available)

Own searches



135

REFERENCE



should be used for eachdifferent property to beevaluated. This practicedoes not attempt toenumerate all of thepossible properties ofinterest nor specify themost appropriate test forthose properties. Testmethods must, however, be

appropriate to the materialbeing tested. Evaluation ofa nonmetallic material'smicrobiologicalsusceptibility when incontact with the naturalenvironment of the soil andis intended for use onmaterial test specimensthat are approximately 2cm (3/4 in.) thick and 100cm2 (20 in2) or less. It isrecommended that this

practice be combined withappropriate environmentalexposures (for example,sunlight simulatingweathering devices, thehydrolytic effects ofextended aqueous contact,or extraneous nutrients) orfabrication into articles (forexample, adhesive bondingof seams) which maypromote microbiologicalsusceptibility during the

service life of material.Microbiologicalsusceptibility may bereflected by a number ofchanges including staining,weight loss, or reduction intensile or flexural strength.This practice may beapplied to articles that donot spend the majority oftheir service life in soil.

ASTMG29-

96(2002)

Standard Practice forDetermining Algal

Resistance of PlasticFilms

7 Determination of thesusceptibility of plastic films

to the attachment andproliferation of surface-

Own searches



136

REFERENCE



growing algae, produced inbodies of water, such asswimming pools, artificialponds, and irrigationditches that are lined withplastic films.Evaluating the degree andpermanency of protectionagainst surface growth ofalgae afforded by various

additives incorporated inthe film.

ASTMWK12880

Standard Guide forEvaluation of CleanRoom Disinfectants

1-5 Own searches

ASTMWK14214

Revision of E1839-96(2002) Standard TestMethod for Efficacy ofSlimicides for the PaperIndustry--Bacterial andFungal Slime

12 Efficacy of slimicides forthe control of bacterial andfungal slimes in paper millsystems and theircounterparts.

Own searches

ASTMWK15324

Test Method forDetermining the Time-

Kill Kinetics Of AntimicrobialCompounds

? This test method assessesthe microbicidal activity of

antimicrobial materials,whereby the survival oforganisms exposed to awater miscible antimicrobialagent is determined as afunction of time. Theprimary purpose of thismethod is to provide a setof standardized conditionsand test organisms tofacilitate comparativeassessments ofantimicrobial materials

miscible in aqueoussystems.

Own searches

ASTMWK16397

Revision of E2180-01Standard Test Methodfor Determining the Activity of Incorporated Antimicrobial Agent(s)In Polymeric orHydrophobic Materials

9 Evaluates (quantitatively)the antimicrobialeffectiveness of agentsincorporated or bound intoor onto mainly flat (twodimensional) hydrophobicor polymeric surfaces. Themethod focuses primarilyon assessing antibacterialactivity; however, othermicroorganisms such as

yeast and fungal conidiamay be tested using this

Manufacturer(updated),applied totextiles.



137

REFERENCE



method.This method canconfirm the presence ofantimicrobial activity inplastics or hydrophobicsurfaces. The vehicle forthe inoculum is an agarslurry which reduces thesurface tension of thesaline inoculum carrier andallows formation of a

"pseudo-biofilm," providingmore even contact of theinoculum with the testsurface.The method allowsdetermination ofquantitative differences inantimicrobial activitybetween untreated plasticsor polymers and those withbound or incorporated lowwater-soluble antimicrobialagents. Comparisons

between the numbers ofsurvivors on preservative-treated and controlhydrophobic surfaces mayalso be made. Theprocedure also permitsdetermination of "shelf-life"or long term stability of anantimicrobial treatmentwhich may be achievedthrough testing both non-washed and washedsamples over a time span.

ASTMWK4751 Standard Guide forSelecting Test Methodsto Determine theEfficacy of Antimicrobial Agents and OtherChemicals forSanitization of Produce

1-5 Own searches

ASTMWK4757

Standard Test Methodfor the Assessment of Antimicrobial Activity InCarpets; Seeded-AgarOverlay Screen

9 Designed to evaluate(qualitatively) the presenceand effectiveness ofantimicrobial preservativesin or on carpets. This

method can be used toevaluate both the

Own searches



138

REFERENCE



antibacterial and antifungalactivityThis method is useful forassessing the durability ofthe antimicrobial treatmentsbecause it can beperformed on both newcarpets and those thathave been repeatedlyshampooed or exposed to

in-use conditions.This method utilizes eithertryptic soy agar as theinoculum vehicle forbacteria or potato dextroseagar as the inoculumvehicle for mold conidia. .Full compliment agars canbe used to mimic high soilor organic loads on carpetsor partial nutrientcomplement agars can beused to mimic lightly soiled

conditions on carpet. Thismethod allows for thesimultaneous evaluation(both visual and stereo-microscopic) ofantimicrobial activity both atthe fiber layer and at theprimary backing layer ofcarpet.

ASTMWK5097

Guideline ForEvaluating ThePotential For Decline InPlanktonic

MicroorganismSusceptability To AntimicrobialCompounds: Healthcare Applications

6 This method uses an agar-dilution procedure todetermine the MinimumInhibitory Concentration

(MIC) and subsequently toscreen for the developmentof decreased susceptibilityfor test formulations versusbacteria or yeast species.The inocula used on thesecond, third, fourth, andfifth test cycles will beprepared from the microbialgrowth present at theprevious day’s endpoint;i.e., that agar-dilutionplate containing the highest

concentration of the testformulation (lowest dilution)

Own searches



139

REFERENCE



that allows microbialgrowth.

ASTMWK6845[revisionof E 1241-98 (2004)]

Standard guide forconducting early life-stage toxicity test withfishes

17 A flow through test,beginning before hatch andending after hatch. 28 to120-day (depending onspecies) continuousexposure.


ASTM

WK8252

New Standard Test

Method for DeterminingResistance of AqueousMetalworking Fluidstowards Non-Tuberculous,EnvironmentalMycobacteria


bioresistance of aqueousmetalworking fluids towardsnon-tuberculous (NTM),rapidly growing( RGM),environmentalmycobacteria bychallenging them with amycobacterial inoculumisolated from actual spoiledmetalworking fluid fieldsamples from the user/ssite.In order to simulate field

conditions, anotherchallenge inoculumconsisting of a mixture ofcommon metalworking fluidspoilage microorganismsoriginating from actualMWF field samples is alsoused.

Own searches

ASTMWK9062

Guideline for Evaluationof ResidualEffectiveness of Antibacterial PersonalCleansing Products

1-5 Own searches

ASTMWK9378

Standard Test Methodfor Determining theFungus-EliminatingEffectiveness ofHygienic Handwash andHandrub Agents Usingthe Fingerpads of Adults

1-5 Own searches

BBA 9 -3.1

Richtlinie für diePrüfung vonNagetierbekämpfungsmitteln gegen Hausmaüse

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer



140

REFERENCE



BBA 9 -3.2

Richtlinie für diePrüfung vonNagetierbekämpfungsmitteln gegenWanderratten

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

Bechert etal., NatureMedicine

6, 1053-1056(2000)

A new method forscreening anti-infectivebiomaterials

1-5 The test is based on therelease of vital daughtercells from the sample

surface into thesurrounding. Theproliferation activity ofthese daughter cells, whichare responsible for infectiondevelopment, can bemonitored in a time course.

Antimicrobial activity ismonitored by the timeneeded to reach a definedoptical density, which isdependent on the numberof released daughter cells.

All measurements areperformed in comparison toan untreated control(without antimicrobialadditive). The differencebetween the reference (A)and the test sample (B) toreach the threshold ODgives the degree ofantimicrobial activity. If allbacteria on the surface ofthe material are preventedfrom multiplying, no

daughter cells areproduced and the testobject is consideredbactericidal. Materials canalso be antimicrobial, whichmeans that not all cells onthe test surface areprevented from growing.Some cells are able todivide and releasedaughter cells into thesurroundings, which arethen optically registered in

a so-called growth curve. Ifsurviving daughter cells are

Test institute



141

REFERENCE



grown under controlledconditions over 48 h(observation time), a higherturbidity and therefore abigger signal is generated.

At the same time only vitaland proliferative cells areaccounted for.

In particular antimicrobial

samples will releasedaughter cells into thesurrounding. Hence,microbial growth is firstobserved noticeably later.This right-shift towardslonger times is indicativefor the antimicrobialefficacy of the testedsamples. The so-calledonset OD serves as aquantifiable parameter andis equivalent to the required

number of hours requiredfor the surviving daughtercells to grow to apredefined optical density(OD = 0.2).

A material is defined to beantimicrobial only if theformation of at least 99.9%(which is equivalent to anet onset-OD of 6 hoursand is similar to a killingrate of 3 log10 steps) of the

daughter cells during thechallenge time is preventedin comparison with theblank sample.

Marketed worldwide byCiba Specialty Chemicalsunder the tradenameNumetrikaTM.

BS6734:2004

General PurposeDisinfection Test

1-5 Mycobacterium fortuitum Manufacturer

BS 3900 Methods of test for

paints. Part G6. Assessment of

10 Provides only a

methodology for productionof a test surface for

TNsG Prod Eval

UK guidelines



142

REFERENCE



resistance to fungalgrowth. BSI London, UK

exposure by inoculationwith mold growth. The testtherefore has to bemodified to be used as atest method for assessinginterior surface biocides.

BS 4172-1:1999

Hand-held pressurizedaerosol dispensersagainst houseflies.Specification for

insecticidal performance

18 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

BS 4172-2:1999

Hand-held pressurizedaerosol dispensersagainst houseflies.Method fordetermination ofinsecticidal performance

18 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

BS6085:199

2

Determination of theresistance of textilesto microbiological

deterioration

9 Manufacturer

CEB(1981)

Laboratory test methodto evaluate the efficacyof rodenticidal productsin rats

14 Laboratory test method TMII Fr

CEB(1981)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy ofrodenticidal productsagainst rats underpractical conditions

14 TMII Fr

CEB 107(1985)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacity of

insecticidal products forthe control of stable fliesin premises for therearing of domesticanimals under practicalconditions

18

CEB 135(1987)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy ofinsecticidal or miticidalproducts for treatmentsof storage premises ofproducts for animals orplants

18 Surface treatments ofstorage premises ofproducts

TM II05 (Fr)

CEB135bis

Laboratory test methodto evaluate the efficacy

18 Space treatments TM II05 (Fr)



143

REFERENCE



(1996) of insecticidal productsin premises for thestorage, industrialprocessing and sale ofproducts from animalsor plants

CEB 159(1992)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy ofinsecticidal products forthe control of

cockroaches inbuildings under practicalconditions

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 196(1997)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy ofinsecticidal baitproducts againstcommon species

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 213(1999)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy of afumigant for insectcontrol in premises forthe storage, processing

and production of food

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEB 224(2001)

Trial method to evaluatethe efficacy of fumigantsfor insect control instored products

18 TM II05 (Fr)

CEN15883-5:2005

Washer-disinfectors -Part 5: Test soils andmethods fordemonstrating cleaningefficacy

1-5 Also ISO method. Acceptance criteria areincluded, based on visualinspection and/or amicrobiological end-pointas stated for each method.Where chemical detectionof residual soiling is

required/sought, methodscan be complemented bythe specific determinationof a residual component ofthe applied test soil.

Own searches

CEN/TR15046:2005

Wood preservatives - Artificial weathering oftreated wood prior tobiological testing - UV-radiation and water-spraying procedure

8 Pretreatment procedurebefore efficacy testing

Own searches

CEN/TS12037:20

03


determining the relativeprotective effectiveness

8 TM II05 (Fr)



144

REFERENCE



of a wood preservativeexposed out of groundcontact - Horizontal lap- joint method

CEPE AntifoulingWorkingGroup1993

Antifouling coatings -methods for thegeneration of efficacydata

21 Simulated field raft test TNsG PE

TM II05

UK guidelines

CTBA-BIO-E 001 Field ageing test ontreated soils 8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 002

Field ageing test ontreated masonry

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 003

Field test on bait systemfor termite control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 004

Laboratory tests for baitsystem for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 005

Laboratory tests for baitsystem for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-

BIO-E 006

Action of U.V. light on

physico-chemicalbarrier for termite

8 TM II05(Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 007

Action of alcalinconditions on physico-chemical barrier fortermite control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 008

Field ageing test onphysico-chemicalbarrier for termitecontrol

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 009

Forced test on termitebait control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

CTBA-BIO-E 010

Choice test on termitebait control

8 TM II05 (Fr)

Dautel H,Hilker M,Kahl O,Siems K,2001.

Verwendung vonDodecansäure alsZeckenrepellent(Patentschrift).

19 Dossier

EEC:1988 Algal inhibition test

12 Used in the process of oilrecovery


EN1040:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation of

basic bactericidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants and

1-5 Basic bacterial activityagainst of a test materialagainst Staphylococcusaureus (ATCC 6538) and

Pseudomonas aeruginosa(ATCC 15442). A testsuspension of bacteria is

Industryorganizaton

manufacturer




145

REFERENCE



antiseptics - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 1)

added to a preparedsample of the productunder test. The mixture ismaintained at 20 oC. At aspecified contact timechosen from one of thefollowing: 1 , 5, 15 , 30 , 45or 60 minutes, an aliquot istaken. The bactericidalaction of this aliquot is

immediately neutralised orsuppressed by a validatedmethod. The method ofchoice is dilution-neutralisation. If a suitableneutraliser cannot befound, membrane filtrationis used. The number ofsurviving bacteria in eachsample is determined andthe reduction in viablecounts calculated.Acriterion for activity by this

test method is that the testmaterial shoulddemonstrate at least a 5-log reduction in viablecounts of the testorganisms in 60 minutes.

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

(updated)

EN113:1996/ A1:2004

Wood preservatives -Test method fordetermining theprotective effectivenessagainst wood destroyingbasidiomycetes -Determination of the

toxic values

8 Laboratory test. Efficacycriteria based on weightloss of untreated specimen.

TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

Test institute

Manufacturer

EN117:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of toxicvalues againstReticulitermes species(European termites)(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines



147

REFERENCE



mould spores in eachsample is determined andthe reduction in viablecounts calculated.The criterion for activity bythis test is that the testmaterial shoulddemonstrate at least a 4-log reduction in viablecounts of the test

organisms in 60 minutes.EN1276:1997

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used infood, industrial,domestic, andinstitutional areas - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,

step 1)

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation .Efficacy determined by areduction in CFU.

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN12791:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Surgical handdisinfection - Testmethod andrequirement (phase

2/step 2)

1-5 Testing mainly bactericidalactivity; in vivo test; phase2 step 2

Industryorganizaton/Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PEEN13610:2002

Chemical disinfectants -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofvirucidal activity againstbacteriophages ofchemical disinfectantsused in food andindustrial areas - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)


TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN

13624:2003


and antiseptics -Quantitative suspension

1-5 Industry

organizaton/manufacturer



148

REFERENCE



test for the evaluation offungicidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsfor instruments used inthe medical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN13697:20

01


Quantitative non-poroussurface test for theevaluation ofbactericidal and/orfungicidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsused in food, industrial,domestic andinstitutional areas - Testmethod andrequirements withoutmechanical action(phase 2/step2)

1-5 Dilution/NeutralisationMethod. Efficacy measured

by a reduction in CFU.

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturers

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN13704:2002

Chemical disinfectants -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofsporicidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsused in food, industrial,domestic andinstitutional areas - Testmethod and

requirements (phase 2,step 1)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN13727:2003

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsfor instruments used inthe medical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)

1-5 Efficacy determined by thereduction in CFU counts

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)



150

REFERENCE



in the test.The criterion for activity bythis test is that the testmaterial shoulddemonstrate at least a 4-log reduction in viablecounts of the testorganisms in 120minutes.Medical areaVeterinary area, Food,

industrial, domestic andinstitutional hygiene

EN14348:2005

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofmycobactericidal activityof chemicaldisinfectants in themedical area includinginstrument disinfectants- Test methods andrequirements (phase 2,

step 1)

1-5 Efficacy measured by areduction in CFU counts

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

EN14349:2007

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative surface testfor the evaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inveterinary area on non-porous surfaces withoutmechanical action -Test method andrequirements (phase 2,

step 2)

1-5 Non-porous surface test,bactericidal, fordisinfectants used in theveterinary applicationsDilution/NeutralisationMethod. By onemanufacturer, the testmaterial is deemed to havepassed the test and beefficacious if itdemonstrates a log 4 ormore reduction in viable

counts under the conditionsdefined in the test.Reduction in viablemicrobial counts comparedwith water controls.

Industryorganizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN14476:2005+A1:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Virucidal quantitativesuspension test forchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inhuman medicine - Testmethod and



Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)



151

REFERENCE



EN14561:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative carrier testfor the evaluation ofbactericidal activity forinstruments used in themedical area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 2)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN14562:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative carrier testfor the evaluation offungicidal or yeasticidalactivity for instrumentsused in the medicalarea - Test method andrequirements (phase 2,step 2)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN14675:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspension

test for the evaluation ofvirucidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inthe veterinary area -Test method andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

EN14730:2000

Ophtalmic optics -contact lense careproducts - antimicrobialpreservative efficacytesting and guidance on

determining discard rate

1-5 Also ISO method. Own searches

EN1499:1997

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Hygienic handwash -Test method andrequirements (phase2/step 2)


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1500:199

7


Hygienic handrub - Testmethod and


Manufacturer



152

REFERENCE



requirements (phase2/step 2) TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN 152-1(1988)

Test methods for woodpreservatives -Laboratory method fordetermining thepreventive effectiveness

of a preservativetreatment against bluestain in service - Part 1:Brushing procedure

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 152-2:1988/AC1:1989

Test methods for woodpreservatives -Laboratory method fordetermining theprotective effectivenessof a preservativetreatment against bluestain in service - Part 2:

Application by methodsother than brushing

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN15457:2007

Paints and varnishes -Laboratory method fortesting the efficacy offilm preservatives in acoating against fungi

7 Manufacturer

EN15458:2007

Paints and varnishes -Laboratory method fortesting the efficacy offilm preservatives in acoating against algae

7 Own searches

EN

1650:1997


and antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation offungicidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used infood, industrial,domestic, andinstitutional areas - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)

1-5 Industry

organizaton

Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN 1656 :

2000


and antiseptics -Quantitative suspension

1-5 Dilution/Neutralisation

Method. Efficacy measuredby a reduction in CFU.

Manufacturers



153

REFERENCE



test for the evaluation ofbactericidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsand antiseptics used inveterinary field - Testmethod andrequirements (phase2/step 1)

Industry

organisation

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN1657:2005/AC:2007

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation offungicidal or yeasticidalactivity of chemicaldisinfectants and

antiseptics used in theveterinary area - Testmethod andrequirements (phase 2,step 1)

1-5 By one manufacturer, theproduct was to be deemedto have passed the test if itdemonstrated a 10E5logarithmic reduction inviability.

By one manufacturer areduction in viablemicrobial counts iscompared with watercontrols.The test material isdeemed to have passedthe test and be efficaciousif it demonstrates a log 4 ormore reduction in viablecounts under the conditionsdefined in the test

Manufacturers

Industryorganizaton

TM II05 (Fr)

TNsG PE

EN 20-

1:1992

Wood preservatives -

Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst LyctusBrunneus (Stephens) -Part 1: Application bysurface treatment(laboratory method)

8 TNsG on Prod

Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 20-2:1993

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst Lyctusbrunneus (Stephens) -

Part 2: Application byimpregnation

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance



154

REFERENCE



(Laboratory method) UK guidelines

EN252:1989/ AC1:1989

Field test method fordetermining the relativeprotective effectivenessof a wood preservativein ground contact

8 Field test, in ground contact TNsG on ProdEval

Test institute

NL guidance

UK guidelines

TM II05 (Fr)

EN275:1992

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst marine borers

8 Marine field test, 5 yearminumum

TNsG on ProdEval

Test institute

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN330:1993

Wood preservatives -Field test method fordetermining the relative

protective effectivenessof a wood preservativefor use under a coatingand exposed out ofground contact: L-jointmethod

8 TNsG on ProdEval

Test institute

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 350-1:1994


Natural durability ofsolid wood - Part 1:

8 TM II05 (Fr)



156

REFERENCE



bajulus (Linnaeus) -Part 1: Larvicidial effect(Laboratory method)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 46-2:2006

Wood preservatives -Determination of thepreventive actionagainst Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus) -

Part 2: Ovicidal effect(laboratory method)

8 TM II05 (De)

NL guidance

EN47:2005/AC:2007

Wood preservatives -Determination of thetoxic values againstlarvae of Hylotrupesbajulus (Linnaeus) -(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN48:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of

eradicant action againstlarvae of Anobiumpunctatum (De Geer)(laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 49-1:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst Anobiumpunctatum (De Geer) byegg-laying and larval

survival - Part 1: Application by surfacetreatment (Laboratorymethod)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN 49-2:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst Anobiumpunctatum (De Geer) byegg-laying and larvalsurvival - Part 2: Application byimpregnation

(Laboratory method)

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr+De)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN Wood preservatives - 8 Pretreatment procedure TNsG on Prod



157

REFERENCE



73:1988/AC:1992

Accelerated ageing oftreated wood prior tobiological testing -Evaporative ageingprocedure

before efficacy testing Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN84:1997

Wood preservatives - Accelerated ageing of

treated wood prior tobiological testing -Leaching procedure

8 Pretreatment procedurebefore efficacy testing

TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EN ISO10253:2006

Water quality - Marinealgal growth inhibitiontest with Skeletonemacostatum andPhaeodactylum

tricornutum (ISO10253:2006)

21 Growth inhibition test TM II05

EN ISO11721-1:2001

Textiles - Determinationof the resistance ofcellulose-containingtextiles to micro-organisms - Soil burialtest - Part 1: Assessment of rot-retardant finishing (ISO11721-1:2001)

9 Manufacturer

EN ISO11721-

2:2003

Textiles - Determinationof the resistance of

cellulose-containingtextiles to micro-organisms - Soil burialtest - Part 2:Identification of long-term resistance of a rotretardant finish (ISO11721:2003)

9 Own searches

EN ISO20645:2004

Textile fabrics -Determination ofantibacterial activity - Agar diffusion plate test(ISO 20645:2004)

9 Manufacturer

EN ISO20743:20

Textiles - Determinationof antibacterial activity




158

REFERENCE



07 of antibacterial finishedproducts (ISO20743:2007)

Reference material: nontreated polyester

Laboratory

EN/TR14734:2004

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Determination oftreatability of timberspecies to beimpregnated with woodpreservatives -

Laboratory method

8 Own searches

EN/TR14839:2004

Wood preservatives -Determination of thepreventive efficacyagainst wood destroyingbasidiomycetes fungi

8 Own searches

EN/TS12037:2003

Wood preservatives -Field test method fordetermining the relativeprotective effectivenessof a wood preservativeexposed out of groundcontact - Horizontal lap-

joint method

8 Field test, out of groundcontact

Test institute

UK guidelines

EN/TS15082:2005

Wood preservatives -Determination of thepreventive effectivenessagainst sapstain fungiand mould fungi onfreshly sawn timber -Field test

8 Own searches

EN/TS15397:2006

Wood preservatives -Method for naturalpreconditioning out ofground contact oftreated wood

specimens prior tobiological laboratory test

8 Own searches

ENV12038:2002

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Wood-based panels -Method of test fordetermining theresistance againstwood-destroyingbasidiomycetes

8 TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

ENV12404:1997

Durability of wood andwood-based products - Assessment of the

effectiveness of amasonry fungicide to

10 Simulated use test TNsG Prod Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines



159

REFERENCE



prevent growth intowood of Dry RotSerpula lacrymans(Schumacher ex Fries)S.F. Gray - Laboratorymethod

ENV807:2001

Wood preservatives -Determination of theeffectiveness againstsoft rotting micro-fungi

and other soil inhabitingmicro-organisms

8 Laboratory test TM II05 (Fr)

Test institute

NL guidance

UK guidelines

ENV839:2002

Wood preservatives -Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst wood destroyingbasidiomycetes - Application by surfacetreatment

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA 72-5 Life-cycle test of fish17 Communication

with UK (HSE)

EPA 72-7

Simulated or actual fieldtesting for aquaticorganisms




Anticoagulant LiquidBait Laboratory TestMethod

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against Norwayrat/Roof rat applied asliquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


1.202

Standard House Mouse Anticoagulant LiquidBait Laboratory Test

Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against House mouseapplied as liquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



Anticoagulant Dry BaitLaboratory Test Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against Norwayrat/Roof rat applied as drybait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPA/OPPProtocol

Number:1.204

Standard House Mouse Anticoagulant Dry Bait

Laboratory Test Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against House mouse

applied as Dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance



160

REFERENCE



UK guidelines



Anticoagulant TrackingPowder EfficacyLaboratory Test Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against Norwayrat/Roof rat applied asTracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat AcuteLiquid Bait LaboratoryTest Method

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Liquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard House Mouse Acute Liquid BaitLaboratory Test Method

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst House mouseapplied as Liquid bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat Acute DryBait Laboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard House Mouse Acute Dry BaitLaboratory Test Method

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst House mouseapplied as Dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard NorwayRat/Roof Rat AcuteTracking PowderEfficacy Laboratory TestMethod

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst Norway rat/Roof ratapplied as Tracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Standard House Mouse Anticoagulant TrackingPowder EfficacyLaboratory Test Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against House mouseapplied as Tracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines



162

REFERENCE




Acute Technical andConcentrated Dry BaitLaboratory Test Method

against Norway rat appliedas Technical andconcentrated dry bait

Eval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Proposed House Mouse Anticoagulant Technicaland Concentrated DryBait Laboratory Test

Method

14 Anticoagulant rodenticidetest against House mouse,applied as Technical andconcentrated dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


Proposed House Mouse Acute Technical andConcentrated Dry BaitLaboratory Test Method

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst House mouseapplied as Technical andconcentrated dry bait

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines


1.227

Proposed House Mouse Acute Tracking PowderEfficacy Laboratory Test

Method

14 Acute rodenticide testagainst House mouseapplied as Tracking powder

TNsG on ProdEval

NL guidance

UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/203(1)

Admixture of plantprotection products tostored plant products tocontrol insects andmites

18 +20

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/194(2)(1995)

Blue-Stain fungi ofSoftwood

8 Own searches

EPPOPP1/169(2

Field rodents (Microtus, Arvicola)

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/114(2)

Field tests againstsynanthropic rodents(Mus musculus, Rattusnorvegicus, R. rattus)

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPOPP1/201(1)

Fumigants to controlinsect and mite pests ofstored plant products

18 +20

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/97(2)

Laboratory and fieldtests for the evaluationof rodenticidal dusts

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPO Laboratory testing of 18 UK guidelines



163

REFERENCE



PP1/204(1)

plant protectionproducts against insectand mite pests of storedplant products

EPPOPP1/113(2)

Laboratory tests forevaluation of the toxicityand acceptability ofrodenticides androdenticide preparations

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

Test institute

EPPO

PP1/197(1) Non-target effects ofrodenticides

14

NL guidance

EPPOPP1/200(1)

Rodent repellentsagainst debarking oftrees

14 Own search

EPPOPP1/199(1) Rodent seed repellents

14 Own search

EPPOPP1/202(1)

Space and structuraltreatments of storerooms

18 TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

EPPOPP1/198(1)

Testing rodents for

resistance toanticoagulantrodenticides

14 NL guidance

TM II05 (Fr)

EPPO(1982)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation ofrodenticides N°1.Laboratory tests forevaluation of the toxicityand acceptability ofrodenticides androdenticide preparations

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

EPPO(1982)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation of

rodenticides. Field testsagainst synanthropicrodents (Mus musculus,Rattus norvegicus,rattus rattus)

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

EPPO(1986)

Guidelines for thebiological evaluation ofrodenticides. Laboratoryand field tests for theevaluation ofrodenticidal dusts.

14 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

EPPOBulletin,15 Pages1-119,

The EPPO Conferenceon Fumigation, Paris,1983

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines



164

REFERENCE



Paris(1983)

EPPO,Paris(1982)

EPPORecommendations onfumigation standards(2nd Edition)

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Fradin &Day, July2002N Engl J

Med vol347 vol13-18

Comparative efficacy ofinsect repellents againstmosquito bites

19 Human subjects: Arm incage studies (15volunteers, 10 mosquitoues(Aedes aegypti) in each

cage. Endpoint: elapsedtime to first bite. Categoryof protection A-H(significantly different meancomplete protection time;

ANOVA & Tukey's). Noneed to recalculate theresults to "real condition"(simulate real condition)

Dossier

Hummel,E.,Kleeberg,H. 1997.

in:Practiceorientatedresults onuse andproductionof Neem-Ingredients andPheromones V.Proceedings of the

5thworkshop,Wetzlar,Germany,January22-25,1996

Effect of the neemextract formulationneemazal-t/s on thegreen pea aphid

acyrthosiphon pisum inthe laboratory (1995),in: Practice orientatedresults on use andproduction of Neem-Ingredients andPheromones V

19 Dossier

IBRG(draftMWF)(1993)

A StandardizedScreening Method forDetermining theBioresistance of andEvaluating Biocides in

Aqueous Metal Working

Fluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

ISO Textiles - Determination 18 Applicable to all textiles TNsG on Prod



165

REFERENCE



3998:1977

of resistance to certaininsect pests

containing animal fibres inany proportion. Conditionedvoracity control specimensand test specimens ofknown mass are placed incontact with selected larvaefor 14 days. The loss inmass of all specimens andthe condition of the testlarvae are ascertained to

assess the resistance ofeach test specimen.

Eval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

JIS K1571:2004

Test methods fordetermining theeffectiveness of woodpreservatives and theirperformancerequirements

8 Own searches

JIS L1902:2002

Testing for antibacterialactivity and efficacyon textile products

9 Antimicrobial activity.Reference material: e.g.non treated polyester.

Test institute

Manufacturer

JIS Z2801:2000

Antimicrobial Products –Test for antimicrobialactivityand efficacy


Test institute

JIS Z2911:1992 (PT9)

Methods of test forfungus resistance


MAFF(1969)

Disinfectants for usespecifically against: a)

anthrax, brucellosis,contagious bovinepleuro-pneumonia andglanders; b) For useagainst tuberculosis; c)For use against foot-and-mouth disease; d)For use against fowlpest (Newcastledisease fowl plague).

1-5 TNsG PE

MS 1004part 1(2002)

Specification formosquito vapourisingmat: part 1: physical

and chemicalrequirements (first

18 Manufacturer



167

REFERENCE



efficacy of repellent -bioassay method formosquito repellent onhuman skin

MS 23part 1(1998)

Specification formosquito coils: Part 1:physical and chemicalrequirements (thirdrevision)

18 Manufacturer

MS 23

part 2(1996)

Specification for

mosquito coils: Part 1:method for evaluation ofbiological efficacy -glass chamber method(first revision)

18 Manufacturer

MS 23part 3(1998)

Specification formosquito coils: Part 1:method for evaluation ofbiological efficacy - peetgrady method

18 Manufacturer

NF B50-100-4October

2007

Durability of wood andwood-based products -Definition of use classes

- Part 4 : nationaldeclaration on thesituation of biologicalagents

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF B50-105-3February2008

Durability of wood andwood based products -Preservative treatedsolid wood - Part 3 :wood preservationperformance andtreatment certificate - Adaptation to Francemetropolitan territory

and DOM

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF FDX40-501November2005

Protection - Termites -Buildings protectionagainst termiteinfestation

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF G39-011 April2001

Properties of textiles -Textiles and polymericmaterials havingantiacarien properties -Characterisation andmeasurement ofantiacarien activity

18 Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-

050Septembe

Wood preservatives.

Technical grade borax.Specifications and tests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)



168

REFERENCE



r 1986


Wood preservatives.Boric acid.Specifications and tests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)


Wood preservatives.Technical gradepentachlorophenol.Specificaitons and tests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-

061September 1995

Wood preservatives.

Technical grade sodiumpentachlorophenate.Specifications and tests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)


Wood preservatives.Technical grade sodiumpentaborate.Specifications and tests.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-083/A1November1979

Products for protectingwood surfaces - Methodof testing resistance tomicroorganisms

8 TM II05

NF T72-086

September 1991

Wood preservatives.Lasures. Natural

weathering test.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-230 August1988

Water-miscible,neutralizable antisepticsand disinfectants usedin liquid form.Determination ofsporicidal activity.Dilution-neutralizationmethod.

1-5 Manufacturer

NF T72-281Septembe

r 1986

Methods of airbornedisinfection of surfaces.Determiation of

bactericidal, fongicidaland sporicidal activity.

1-5 TM II05 (Fr)

NF T72-320March1977

Insecticides for flyinginsects. Insecticidedistributed underpressure ("aerosol"type). Determination ofthe efficiency rating.

18 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05 (Fr)

UK guidelines

NF T72-321March1977

Insecticides for flyinginsects. Permanentinsecticide distributor.Determination of theefficiency rating and theregularity rating.

18 TM II05 (Fr)



169

REFERENCE



NF X41-513 August1961

Protection of plastics.Part 1. Testing methodfor resistance ofingredients tomicroorganisms.

9 TM II05

NF X41-515March1962

Protection of the plasticmaterials - Part 3: Testmethod of theresistance of materialsand apparatus to

microorganisms

9 TM II05

NF X41-516January1980

Protection of textiles.Protection againstcertain insect pests.Methods of testing.

18 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-520March1968

Protection. Testingmethod for resistance ofpaints tomicroorganisms andtheir protective power.

6 +7

TNsG on ProdEvalTMII05

NF X41-521 July1968

Protection of wood.Testing methods for thecorrosive action of wood

protection products onmetals.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-541September 1994

Wood preservatives.Determination of theprotective effectivenessagainst termites ofpreservative treatmentproducts designed forwalls, foundations andmasonry. Laboratorymethod.

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05

NF X41-547

December1992

Wood preservatives.Determination of

longicide efficacy oftemporary woodprotectives for greensawn timber. Laboratorymethod.

8 TNsG on ProdEval

TM II05

NF X41-548December1992

Wood preservatives.Determination offongicide efficacy oftemporary woodprotectives for fresh cutwood billets. Laboratorymethod.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF X41-

555 August

Wood preservatives.

Determination of thetoxic values against

8 TM II05 (Fr)



170

REFERENCE



1982 {chaetomium}{globosum} kunze. Softrotting agent.

NF X41-580 part1-10May 2006

Wood preservatives –Physicochemical testing

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPG39-010May 2000

Properties of textiles -Textiles and polymericsurfaces having

antibacterial properties -Characterisation andmeasurement ofantibacterial activity

9 Manufacturer

NF XPX41-540November1995

Wood preservatives.Termites. Determinationof anti-termites actionfor products used inliquid phase for groundtreatment (laboratorymethod).

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-540

November1995

Wood preservatives.Termites. Determination

of anti-termites actionfor products used inliquid phase for groundtreatment (laboratorymethod).

8 TNsG on ProdEval

NF XPX41-542September 1995

Wood preservatives. Anti-termite treatmentproduct for floors, walls,foundations andmasonry work. Accelerated ageing testof treated materialsprior to biological

testing. Percolation test.

8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-549December1999


8 TM II05 (Fr)

NF XPX41-549December1999


8 TNsG on ProdEval

Notavailable

Assessment of thebiocide efficacy using

1-5 Various concentrations ofproduct was mixed with

Manufacturer



171

REFERENCE



three algal species. In-house method

algal suspensions(Chlorella vulgarisNavicula pelliculosa

Anabaena flos-aquae) inglass conical flasks Allflasks were incubated andshaken in an orbital shaker.Samples were taken at 96hand the chlorophyll aconcentration determined.

Efficacy was measured bydetermining the EC50value obtained for algae.

Notavailable

Challenge Testing inMetal Working Emulsion(in-house laboratorystudy)

13 The purpose of the methodwas to determine theefficacy of preservativesagainst bacterial and fungalcontamination in MetalWorking Fluids (MWF).The method was conductedby inoculating once a weekduring 10 weeks mixedbacteria and optionally

mixed fungi into waterbased MWF emulsionscontaining various amountsof the test substancediluted in 3% synthetic oil.

After each week a sampleof the emulsion was plated.

After plate incubation thenumber of survivingorganisms was comparedto the control The criteriafor measuring goodpreservation efficacy was a

microbial count of <10cfu/ml after 10 inoculationsfor all microorganisms.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant forswimming pools forcontrol of bacteria, fungiand algae.Determination ofMinimum InhibitoryConcentration AgainstBacteria, Fungi, Algaeand Cyanobacteria (inhouse method)

1-5 Using a growth inhibitiontest method for recordingMIC values to test theefficacy of the product atvarious dilutedconcentrations. MIC valuewas determined usingmicrodilution technique inmicrotiter platesTests were carried out in

quadruplicate. The ppmlevel of the product in the

Manufacturer



172

REFERENCE



last microtiter welldemonstrating no growthwas determined as the MICfor the product against thatmicroorganism.

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Alaboratory studyinvolving disinfection ofuntreated river water, as

a surrogate for a fullfield trial. (in-housemethods)

1-5 Several concentrations ofthe product were added toriver water and allowed toreact for 30 mins. Totalcounts and coliforms were

determined. Efficacy wasdetermined based onreduction in CFU counts.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Fullscale field trial

1-5 A product was used to treatwaste water at 3concentrations under realfield conditions involving awaste water treatmentplant; variable flow andbacterial load, andoperating temperatures.Efficacy was measuredbased on a log removal of

bacteria after 15 and 30mins.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water.Inactivation of entericmicro-organisms intertiary treatedmunicipal waste waters(in-house methods)

1-5 Experiments wereconducted to investigate inpilot scale the disinfectionefficiency against entericmicro-organisms in tertiarytreatment waste waters andthe effect of dose andcontact time on disinfectionefficiency. After incubationbacterial colonies werecounted and microbial

numbers calculated as cfu/100 ml.Efficacy was measured bypercentage reductions ofmicroorganisms after 8 and18 minutes contact time.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Disinfectant treatmentof waste water. Pilotstudies to assess thedisinfectionperformance of on aphysicochemicalwastewater effluent.

1-5 A purpose built disinfection,continuous flow, Pilot Plantwas specially constructedand installed at afunctioning wastewatertreatment plant. Prior toinstallation the wastewater

was treated only bychemically assisted

Manufacturer



173

REFERENCE



sedimentation, makingdisinfection particularlydifficult. As part of this pilotstudy, modifications to thePlant and process wereexplored and adopted onthe basis of experience andexperimental data usingstandard methodologies.Disinfection efficiency

under a number ofconditions and wastewaterloads were explored.Method for recordingfaecal coliforms: AmericanPublic Health association;

American Water Works Association and WaterEnvironment federation(1998) Standard Methodsfor the Examination ofWater and Wastewater20th Ed.; Washington DC,

USA; Method 9222D.Method for recordingEnterococcus, coliphageClostridiumaccording to laboratorymethods. Efficacy wasdetermined by measuredLog reductions (or removal)in counts. Colonies werecounted before and afterdisinfection.

Notavailable

Field Evaluation of in aTermite Control Baiting

System

18 Structures in this studywere supplied by

cooperating pest controlcompanies. A number ofthe structures had beenidentified as "problemhouses" by the pest controloperator.Stations were inspected atapproximately monthly(when active), and bi-monthly (when not active)intervals for termite activity,with the condition of thestation (active, inactive and

baited) being noted on aninspection form. When

Manufacturer



174

REFERENCE



activity was found in astation, bait was placed inthe station.The thin wood strips of thebaiting station were fansprayed with productsolution using acompressed air sprayer.Product was mixed in theacetone such that when the

solution was applied to thestrips, variousconcentrations of productwere imparted to the woodstrips .A tumble techniquewas employed to preventuneven concentrations ofactive ingredient in thesawdust matrix. Efficacywas measured byelimination of termiteinfestation

Not

available

Field trial in a Plant

recirculating coolingsystem

11 The antimicrobial

effectiveness of biocidewas determined bymonitoring chemical andphysical cooling watercharacteristics,microbiological parameterssuch as viable counts ofbacteria, fungi and algae,and operational andengineering parameters ofthe tested cooling system

Analysis methods used formicrobial counting were

from:Standard methods for theExamination of Water andWaste Water (APHA 1992),and in-house LaboratorySOPs. Efficacy wasdetermined by a reductionin microbial counts

Manufacturer

Notavailable

In house LaboratoryStudy of the Efficacyagainst ReticulitennesfIavipes

18 Formulation, applied as aresidual spray, wasassessed for efficacyagainst cockroaches (Blattaorientalis, Blatella

germanica and Periplanetaamericana) under

Manufacturer



176

REFERENCE



Knocked down insectswere counted at intervalsup to 20 minutes. Thechamber was thenventilated by an exhaustfan and all insects weretransferred to a cleanrecovery container with dietand water within 20minutes

Notavailable Insecticide primarily forthe control of termites:Laboratory Studyagainst ReticulitennesfIavipes

18 Various concentrations ofproduct were impregnatedin a sawdust matrix readilyconsumed by termites.Product was incorporatedinto the sawdust by placingeach batch of solution andone batch of sawdust in themixing bowl of a KitchenaidModel K5SS mixer. Oneuntreated batch of sawdustserved as a control.Sterile sand and distilled

water was mixed to form amoistened sand substrateto sustain the termites asthey fed upon the samples.Eight replications of eachconcentration plus thecontrol were tested.Termite activity wasobserved in each of thecontainers for four days.Efficacy was measured byelimination of termiteinfestation.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Laboratory studies toassess products appliedas direct sprays forefficacy against a rangeof crawling insects

18 Product was applied as adirect spray, was assessedfor efficacy againstcockroaches (Blattaorientalis, Blatellagermanica and Periplanetaamericana) underlaboratory conditions.Efficacy criteria based onmortality and knockeddown insects

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Other in canpreservatives. In-house

method based on‘Antimicrobial

6 The method was conductedby inoculating mixed

bacteria and mixed fungiinto a interior paint

Manufacturer



178

REFERENCE



measured the day after thefourth consecutiveapplication. Sufficientrepellency was defined as>65%.

Notavailable

Repellency of Twoproduct formulationsagainst the GermanCockroach (in-houselaboratory study)

19 The cockroaches had achoice of two shelters, onetreated with the productand one untreated.Repellency after 1, 3, 7

and 14 days was recorded.Percent repellency wascalculated. Sufficientrepellency was defined as>65%, excellent repellencywas defined as >85%.

Manufacturer

Notavailable

Swimming pooldisinfectant:Residential spa fieldtest

1-5 A residential spa was usedto test the efficacy of theproduct in typical fieldconditions. Themaintenance pattern usedwas considered to betypical of the “average spa

owner”, i.e. conforming tominimum and not optimumuse pattern andmaintenance procedures.Bacteriological analysiswas conducted on 150samples were taken overthe 90 day test period.Efficacy was determined bya reduction in cfu/100ml.

Manufacturer

NWPC1.4.1.1./70

NWPC Standard fortesting of woodpreservatives.

Mycological test."Jordburk" method - Asoil block test withwood-rottingBasidiomycetes.

8 Test institute


NWPC Standard fortesting of woodpreservatives.Mycological test."Mullåde" method - Asoil block test inunsterile soil.

8 Test institute

NWPC

Standard1.4.1.3./7

Mycological testing of

anti-stain preservativesfor freshly sawn timber.

8 Test institute



179

REFERENCE



9 The Miniboard method.(Mykologisk provning avträskyddsmedel motblånad och mögel pånysågat virke.Minibrädmetoden.)


1

Standard for testing ofwood preservativesMycological test. Fieldtest - A field test with

stakes.

8 Test institute


Standard for testing ofwood preservativesMarine test - A testagainst marinewoodboring organismsin sea water.

8 Test institute


Proposed developmentof an OECD GuidanceDocument forestablishing the efficacyof biocides used inswimming pools and

spas

1-5 Own searches


Update on work tovalidate efficacymethods forantimicrobials used onhard surfaces

10 Own searches


Guidance document onthe evaluation of theefficacy of antimicrobialtreated articles withclaims for externaleffects

9 Own searches

OECD

203(1992) Fish, Acute toxicity test

17 Communication

with UK (HSE)

OECD204(1984)

Fish, Prolonged toxicitytest: 14-day study


OPPTS810.3000(1999)

General Considerationsfor Efficacy ofInvertebrate Control Agents

18 General guide Manufacturer

UK guidelines



180

REFERENCE



OPPTS810.3100

Soil treatments forimported fire ants

18 Own searches

OPPTS810.3200

Livestock, poultry, fur-and wool-bearinganimal treatments

18 Own searches

OPPTS810.3300

Treatments to controlpests of humans andpets

18 UK guidelines

OPPTS

810.3400

Mosquito, black fly, and

biting midge (sand fly)treatments

18 Test of insecticides against

flying insects: MosquitoBlack FlyBiting Midge (Sand Fly)

UK guidelines

OPPTS810.3500

Premises treatments 18 General guideline Manufacturer

UK guidelines

OPPTS810.3700“publicdraft”

Insect Repellents ForHuman Skin andOutdoor Premises

19 Own search

OPPTS810.3800

Methods for efficacytesting of termite baits

18 Own searches

Powers etal. AppliedandEnvironmentalMicrobiology, 60:2316 –2323(1994)

Biocidal Efficacy of aFlocculating EmergencyWater PurificationTablet.

1-5 Biocidal emergency waterpurification tablets weretested for bactericidal,virucidal and cysticidalefficacy in water attemperatures ranging from5 to 25ºC to validate andverify the effectiveness ofthe tablets for thedestruction and removal ofmicroorganisms. Counts ofsurviving organisms werecompared with the initial

counts to calculate the log-reduction. Replicateresults were averaged

Manufacturer

prEN13623

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative suspensiontest for the evaluation ofbactericidal activityagainst Legionellapneumophila ofchemical disinfectantsfor aqueous systems -Test method and


1-5 Own searches



181

REFERENCE



prEN14563

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics -Quantitative carrier testfor the evaluation ofmycobactericidal ortuberculocidal activity ofchemical disinfectantsused for instruments inthe medical area - Testmethod and


1-5 Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

prEN14885:2006

Chemical disinfectantsand antiseptics - Application of EuropeanStandards for chemicaldisinfectants andantiseptics


Manufacturer

TM II05 (Fr)

prEN 807rev

Wood preservatives -Determination of the

effectiveness againstsoft rotting micro-fungiand other soil inhabitingmicro-organisms

8 Own searches

RawlinsonandShennan,1987.

A recirculating test rigfor the investigation ofmetal-working fluidspoilage. In Industrialmicrobiological testing.Edited by Hopton andHill, Blackwell ScientificPublications, Oxford.ISBN 0 632 01793 7. pp

227-231

13 TNsG on ProdEval

RENAULTD551721(1987)

Evaluation of theBiostability of AqueousMetal Working Fluids

13 TNsG on ProdEval

ReportEPS1/RM/25EnvironmentCanada.1992

Biological Test Method:Growth Inhibition TestUsing the Freshwater

Alga Selenastrumcapriconutum

12 Efficacy test against Alga:Selenastrum capriconutum

Used in the process of oilrecovery


SABS1102

(1987)

Bacterial efficacy ofbiocides used in water-

based emulsion paints

6 Efficacy test for in canpreservatives in paints

(emulsion) against bacteria.

TNsG on ProdEval

SABS South African standard 13 TNsG on Prod



182

REFERENCE



1435-1987

specification forbiocides for use inemulsions of aqueousmetal working fluid andaqueous hydraulic fluid.

Eval

SABS 2331

st rev

Pesticides: Biologicalevaluation of mists andfogs - first revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS 303 Pesticides – Rearingand handling of the

human body louse(Pediculus humanushumanus L.) - firstrevision

18 Manufacturer

SABS 332 Pesticides – Rearingand handling of thecommon clothes moth(Tineola bisseliellaHummel) - secondrevision

18 Manufacturer

SABS 458 Pesticides – Rearingand handling of theGerman cockroach

(Blatella germanica (L.))- second revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS 576 Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation ofinsecticidal oil-basedspace spray in low-pressurized dispensers- first revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS 583 Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of thecontact efficacy of liquidresidual insecticides -first revision

18 Manufacturer

SABS6136(2003)

Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of materialsthat release aninsetticide upon heating

18 Manufacturer

SABS 6893

rd ed

(2002)

Pesticides – Biologicalevaluation of knock-down and killingproprieties of liquid andaerosol formulation (alposto di Standardmethods SABS Method8689-first revision)

18 Manufacturer

SABS 690(DRAFT)

Pesticides: biologicalevaluation of theproprerties of solid fly

18 Manufacturer



184

REFERENCE



shampoos etc (in can)Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculatedand streaked on agarplates.Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,Yeasts"Well preserved" if after 6w

no microbial growth can beobserved.Corresponds to 30 monthsof microbial stability.4 evaluation levels

SM022 (inhouse)

Determining theresistance to fungalgrowth

10 Resistance of masonrycoatings to fungal growth.Test substrate: Masonrycoatings on paperTest germ: Aspergillusniger and Penicillumfuniculosum"Sufficiently finished

against fungal growth" ifmax 1% growth.5 evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM022a(in house)

Determining theresistance to fungalgrowth

10 Resistance of masonrycoatings to fungal growth.Test substrate: Masonrycoatings on paperTest germ: Aspergillusniger and Penicillumfuniculosum"Sufficiently finishedagainst fungal growth" ifmax 1% growth.

5 evaluation levels.

Manufacturer

SM023 (inhouse)

Determining theresistance to algalgrowth

10 Resistance of masonrycoatings to algal attack.Test substrate: masonrycoatings on paper.Test germ: Scenedesmusvacuolatus.No algal growth on the testpieces after 2 weeks:"Effectively protectedagainst algal growth" (4 evaluation levels)

Manufacturer

SM026 (in

house)

S&M Betoko test:

Determination of thepreserving effect of

6 Preserving effect of

chemical preservatives inconcrete admixtures (in can

Manufacturer



186

REFERENCE



chemical preservativesin householdformulations

household formulations, e gsoftener, washing upliquids, all purpose cleaner(in can preservation).Test batch: unpreservedsamples with differentconcentrations of testpreservatives, inoculatedand streaked on agarplates.

Test germ: G+, G-, Moulds,YeastsFree of growth during 6weeks: "Well preserved". (4evaluation levels).Corresponds to 30 monthsof microbiological stability

SN 195920 -1994

Determination of the Antibacterial Activity, Agar Diffusion PlateTest


SN 195

921 -1994

Determination of the Antimycotic Activity

Agar Diffusion PlateTest


SN 195924 -1983

Determination of theantibacterial activity,germ count method


UK MOD91-70issue(1990)

Cutting fluid, soluble,biostable joint servicedesignation ZX-9

13 TNsG on ProdEval

US AATCCTechnicalManual

Method24 (1992)

Test method for textilesto determine resistanceto insects (e.g. moths,carpet beetles)

18 Efficacy test against larvae TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

US CSMA AerosolGuide7 thEdition,pages129-134(1981)

Test method for aerosolspace sprays againstflying insects

18 Test of insecticides againstflying insects:

TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Manufacturer

US CSMA AerosolGuide

7 thEdition,

Test method forpressurised sprayproducts against

cockroaches

18 Test of insecticides againstcrawling insects:cockroaches

TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines



187

REFERENCE



pages135-139(1991)

US EPA72-1

Acute toxicity test forfreshwater fish


US EPA96-2 Fish control agents


US EPA96-5 Avian Toxicants

15 TNsG on ProdEval

US EPA

96-7

Avian Frightening

Agents

15 TNsG on Prod

EvalUS EPAGuidelineOPPTS810.3700(1999)

Insect repellents forhuman skin and outdoorpremises

19 UK guidelines

Verwey &Sosa,2007

Liquid Electric testmethod

18 For testing pyrethroids(draft method) and naturalactives (Pyrethrum extract)on mosquitoues(knockdown). Efficacycriteria: "effective againstmosquitoes for X hours".

Knockdown is measuredrepeatedly for 2h andmortality after 24h. Control(no treatment) knockdown:maximum 10%. 2-4chamber replicates, 50organisms in each. Meanand Standard Deviationsfor each time calculated aswell as KT50 and KT80(Mean time to 50% and80% knockdownrespectively).

Manufacturer

WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2003.5

Space spray applicationof insecticides for vectorand public health pestcontrol – a practitioner’sguide

18 Brief description of themain types of space sprayequipment as well as theoperational guidelines forspace spray application ofinsecticides.

TM II05 (Fr)

WHO/VBC/75.593(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance ofcockroaches toinsecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.212(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility or

18 TNsG on ProdEval



188

REFERENCE



resistance of mosquitolarvae to insectdevelopment inhibitors

WHO/VBC/81.805

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultmosquitoes toorganochlorine,organophosphate and

carbamate insecticides,- establishment of thebaseline.

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.806

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultmosquitoes toorganochlorine,organophosphate andcarbamate insecticides -diagnostic test

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VB

C/81.807(1981)

Instructions for

determining thesusceptibility orresistance of mosquitolarvae to insecticides

18 TNsG on Prod

Eval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.808(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of body orheadlice to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

WHO/VBC/81.809(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adult bed-

bugs to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.810(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adultblackflies, sandflies andbiting midges toinsecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.811(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of blackflylarvae to insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.812

Instructions fordetermining the

18 UK guidelines



REFERENCE



(1981) susceptibility orresistance of mosquitolarvae to insectdevelopment inhibitors

WHO/VBC/81.813(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of houseflies,tsetse flies, stableflies,blowflies etc. to

insecticides

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

WHO/VBC/81.814(1981)

Instructions fordetermining thesusceptibility orresistance of adult ticks

18 TNsG on ProdEval

UK guidelines

Efficacy testing of biocidal products - overview of available tests_ASW_FBE_080305_final (1).pdf

Documents

Transcript of Efficacy testing of biocidal products - overview of available tests_ASW_FBE_080305_final (1).pdf