Skip to main content
ZCP – Z-Chitosan Products Germany

Insights · Biofilm

How can biofilm on surfaces be prevented?

6 min readUpdated October 2026

In short

Biofilm is easiest to prevent before it forms, at the stage when single cells attach to a surface. There are four strategies: preventing attachment, killing cells on contact, releasing an active substance and detaching adhering deposits. Which one fits depends on the material, service life, environment and regulatory route.

CDC biofilm reactor: glass vessel on a magnetic stirrer, eight rods with round coupons in growth medium, tubing
Illustrative image
CDC biofilm reactor, the standard apparatus for biofilm testing to ASTM E2562

Why the start matters.

A biofilm is a community of microorganisms living in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) [1]. The matrix holds the cells together and hinders the penetration of active substances. Cells in a biofilm are markedly more tolerant of antimicrobial agents than free-floating cells [2].

On implants and catheters, a race for the surface begins: host cells and bacteria compete for the same space [3, 4]. Proteins from blood, urine or tissue fluid often adsorb first. This conditioning film changes the surface before the first cells arrive.

Effective strategies therefore act as early as possible. The longer a product stays in use, the more important it is that the effect lasts for its entire service life. The Biofilm Time Machine on the Medical devices page shows how biofilm forms in five phases [5, 6].

Literature

View the Biofilm Time Machine

Four strategies against biofilm.

kills ↑ · does not kill ↓ Acts at: surface ← → surroundings
Model illustration

Combinations. Many developments combine two strategies, for example an anti-adhesive layer with a contact-active or releasing component [13].

What am I looking at?
  • Preventing attachment (anti-adhesive). The surface gives cells nothing to hold on to, for example through highly hydrated polymer brushes such as polyethylene glycol, zwitterionic layers or microstructures. Nothing is killed. Small defects or a protein film can cancel the effect over time [7, 8].
  • Contact killing. Firmly bound, mostly cationic groups disrupt the cell envelope of microorganisms that touch the surface [9]. No active substance is released. The effect reaches only as far as direct contact; dead cells and deposits can cover the active layer [10]. Fine nanostructures can also damage cells mechanically on contact [8].
  • Release killing. The material releases an active substance, such as silver ions, an antiseptic or an antibiotic, which also acts in the immediate surroundings. The reservoir is finite and the amount released falls over time [11]. The substance reaches fluids, tissue or wastewater, which has to be considered in assessment and approval.
  • Antifouling and detachment. Low-surface-energy surfaces, for example silicone-based ones, hold deposits so weakly that flow removes them (fouling release) [7]. Enzymatic approaches break down the matrix of an existing biofilm and release cells from it [12]. Both need shear forces or an active agent on site and do not kill by themselves.
  • Combinations. Many developments combine two strategies, for example an anti-adhesive layer with a contact-active or releasing component [13].
The four strategies compared
StrategyWhere it actsKillsStrengthLimitTypical test
Preventing attachmentsurfacenonothing consumed, nothing releaseddefects, protein filmadhesion assay, biofilm reactor (ASTM E2562)
Contact killingsurfaceyesno release into the surroundingsdirect contact only, covered by depositsISO 22196, ASTM E2149
Release killingsurface and surroundingsyesalso acts at a distancefinite reservoir, substance in the surroundingszone of inhibition test, ISO 22196
Antifouling, detachmentinterfacenoalso removes existing depositsneeds flow or an active agent on siteflow or reactor model

Five steps to the right strategy.

  1. 01

    Define the service life

    hours (single-use product), days to weeks (catheter) or years (component, surface).

  2. 02

    Describe the environment

    wet or dry, flowing or stagnant, nutrients, temperature.

  3. 03

    Define the contact

    skin, mucosa, blood, food or technical media only.

  4. 04

    Decide whether an active substance may leave the material. This determines whether contact or release systems are an option and shapes the regulatory route (Biocidal Products Regulation, MDR).

  5. 05

    Draw up a test plan

    one standard for surface activity and a biofilm model that resembles the application.

  6. 06

    Set the success criterion before testing, for example the required log reduction compared with untreated material.

How anti-biofilm performance is tested.

ISO 22196 measures the antibacterial activity of a surface after 24 hours under a cover film at 35 °C and at least 90 % relative humidity [15]. The test shows killing or growth inhibition; it does not model a biofilm.

Biofilm has its own models. In the CDC biofilm reactor to ASTM E2562-22, a Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm (ATCC 700888) grows on coupons for 48 hours under high shear. The result is reported as log₁₀ CFU per unit area [14].

Since 2023, plastics and other non-porous surfaces have had a standard of their own. ISO 4768 grows a Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm (ATCC 35984) on the sample for 48 hours at 35 °C, stains it with crystal violet and compares the absorbance with untreated material. Textiles and photocatalytic materials are excluded [16].

ISO 22196:2011 · ISO 4768:2023 · ASTM E2562-22

Test standards explained

Four common mistakes in anti-biofilm claims.

  • Using a result from a 24-hour surface test as a biofilm claim. Killing under a film is not the same as a grown biofilm.
  • Testing only one organism although several occur in the application, such as Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria or yeasts.
  • Testing only fresh material. Ageing, cleaning, sterilisation or contact with body fluids can change the surface.
  • Testing without a conditioning film. In protein, serum or urine solution a surface behaves differently from pure buffer.

For your product

What this means for your product.

For catheters, tubing and other medical devices that remain in place, the chosen strategy determines the test plan and the regulatory route. Z-Chitosan combines a cationic biopolymer with plant extracts; whether it acts through contact, release or both in a given material is tested for each material.

Check feasibility

FAQ

Frequently asked.

Your question isn’t here? Ask the assistant or the team.

Can a surface prevent biofilm completely?

Laboratory tests show that surfaces can markedly reduce or delay colonisation. In use, protein films, flow, nutrients and service life also play a part. A robust statement therefore names the organism, standard, time point and conditions. Without these details, a performance claim cannot be assessed.

What is the difference between anti-adhesive and antimicrobial?

An anti-adhesive surface stops cells from attaching but does not kill them. An antimicrobial surface kills microorganisms or inhibits their growth, either on contact or through a released substance. The two approaches can be combined, for example in a two-layer coating. Each needs its own suitable test method.

Is an ISO 22196 test enough to show anti-biofilm performance?

No. ISO 22196 measures the antibacterial activity of a surface over 24 hours at 35 °C and at least 90 % relative humidity. Biofilm forms under different conditions, often in liquid and under flow. A biofilm claim also needs a biofilm model, such as ISO 4768 or the CDC biofilm reactor to ASTM E2562.

Author
ZCP editorial team
Status
October 2026 · Research as of 26 September 2026
Reading time
6 min
Sources16
  1. Flemming H.-C., Wingender J. (2010): The biofilm matrix. Nature Reviews Microbiology 8(9):623–633. DOI 10.1038/nrmicro2415
  2. Mah T.-F. C., O'Toole G. A. (2001): Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends in Microbiology 9(1):34–39. DOI 10.1016/S0966-842X(00)01913-2
  3. Gristina A. G. (1987): Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 237(4822):1588–1595. DOI 10.1126/science.3629258
  4. Busscher H. J., van der Mei H. C., Subbiahdoss G. et al. (2012): Biomaterial-associated infection: locating the finish line in the race for the surface. Science Translational Medicine 4(153):153rv10. DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004528
  5. Stoodley P., Sauer K., Davies D. G., Costerton J. W. (2002): Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annual Review of Microbiology 56:187–209. DOI 10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.160705
  6. Sauer K., Stoodley P., Goeres D. M. et al. (2022): The biofilm life cycle: expanding the conceptual model of biofilm formation. Nature Reviews Microbiology 20:608–620. DOI 10.1038/s41579-022-00767-0
  7. Banerjee I., Pangule R. C., Kane R. S. (2011): Antifouling coatings: recent developments in the design of surfaces that prevent fouling by proteins, bacteria, and marine organisms. Advanced Materials 23(6):690–718. DOI 10.1002/adma.201001215
  8. Hasan J., Crawford R. J., Ivanova E. P. (2013): Antibacterial surfaces: the quest for a new generation of biomaterials. Trends in Biotechnology 31(5):295–304. DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.01.017
  9. Tiller J. C., Liao C.-J., Lewis K., Klibanov A. M. (2001): Designing surfaces that kill bacteria on contact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98(11):5981–5985. DOI 10.1073/pnas.111143098
  10. Kaur R., Liu S. (2016): Antibacterial surface design – contact kill. Progress in Surface Science 91(3):136–153. DOI 10.1016/j.progsurf.2016.09.001
  11. Siedenbiedel F., Tiller J. C. (2012): Antimicrobial polymers in solution and on surfaces: overview and functional principles. Polymers 4(1):46–71. DOI 10.3390/polym4010046
  12. Kaplan J. B. (2010): Biofilm dispersal: mechanisms, clinical implications, and potential therapeutic uses. Journal of Dental Research 89(3):205–218. DOI 10.1177/0022034509359403
  13. Salwiczek M., Qu Y., Gardiner J., Strugnell R. A., Lithgow T., McLean K. M., Thissen H. (2014): Emerging rules for effective antimicrobial coatings. Trends in Biotechnology 32(2):82–90. DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.09.008
  14. ASTM E2562-22: Standard Test Method for Quantification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Grown with High Shear and Continuous Flow using CDC Biofilm Reactor. ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
  15. ISO 22196:2011: Measurement of antibacterial activity on plastics and other non-porous surfaces. International Organization for Standardization, Genf.
  16. ISO 4768:2023: Measurement method of anti-biofilm activity on plastic and other non-porous surfaces. International Organization for Standardization, Genf.

A question about your material.

If your question is not answered here, we are happy to discuss it with you.