Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Rapid efficacy testing of cattle footbath disinfectants by flow cytometry: a laboratory-validated screening method complementary to EN 1656.

Created on 16 Oct 2026

Authors

Lucie Langová, Petr Kouřil, Vladimír Zmrhal, Lenka Hromádková, Miroslav Macháček, Libor Kalhotka, Zdeněk Havlíček

Published in

Journal of veterinary research. Volume 70. Issue 3. Pages 519-528. Epub Jul 18, 2026.

Abstract

Disinfectants are essential for preventing infectious diseases in livestock, particularly in cattle footbath applications. Conventional culture-based methods for assessing bactericidal efficacy are reliable but time-consuming, leaving the need unmet for rapid laboratory-based screening approaches.
Thirteen commercially available cattle footbath disinfectants were evaluated using the EN 1656 dilution-neutralisation method and flow cytometry (FCM) with propidium iodide (PI) staining. A binary logistic regression model was developed to relate the proportion of PI+ cells to bactericidal efficacy.
Disinfectants containing iodine or iodide, organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium compounds, glutaraldehyde or alcohol showed high bactericidal efficacy, whereas those with zinc sulphate were ineffective. The predictive model demonstrated good performance (AUC = 0.787) and identified an optimal threshold of approximately 80% PI+ cells, yielding 85.47% sensitivity and 76.92% specificity. Agreement between FCM and the EN 1656 method was high, with 7.69% inconsistent classifications.
Flow cytometry represents a rapid and efficient laboratory-based screening method with the potential to complement culture-based approaches for evaluating bovine footbath disinfectant efficacy.

PMID:
42877816
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 16 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 16
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement