Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

An in vitro bacterial surface migration assay underneath sterile barrier material commonly found in a hospital setting



To determine what barrier material used in hospital neonatal intensive care units most effectively blocks bacterial migration.

Study Design:

Bacterial migration distance was compared across simple and complex solid media using Escherichia coli, an early and common neonatal gut colonizer, and Staphylococcus aureus, a common skin bacterium, across polystyrene, medical-grade silicone, hydrocolloid dressing and transparent film dressing as barrier materials on complex solid media.


Bacterial migration was significantly greater on complex versus simple solid media. Bacteria migrated farthest beneath hydrocolloid dressing and transparent film dressing, while migration underneath polystyrene and medical-grade silicone was generally comparable to no barrier.


Commonly used hydrocolloid dressing and transparent film dressing surprisingly increases bacterial migration, possibly by providing a wet capillary surface for bacteria to attach to or inducing biofilm formation. Using polystyrene or silicone to interface with the site of catheter insertion may best avoid a bacterial wicking phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3


  1. Harrison W, Goodman D . Epidemiologic trends in neonatal intensive care, 2007–2012. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169 (9): 855–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Patrick SW, Kawai AT, Kleinman K, Jin R, Vaz L, Gay C et al. Health care-associated infections among critically ill children in the US, 2007–2012. Pediatrics 2014; 134 (4): 705–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldmann D . System failure versus personal accountability: the case for cleanhands. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (2): 121–123.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Greenberg RG, Cochran KM, Smith PB, Edson BS, Schulman J, Lee HC et al. Effect of catheter dwell time on risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection in infants. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (6): 1080–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jean-Baptiste N, Benjabmin DK, Cohen-Wolkowiez M, Fowler VG, Laughon M, Clark RH et al. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32 (7): 679–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harkes G, Dankert J, Feijen J . Bacterial migration along solid surfaces. Appl Environ Biol 1992; 58 (5): 1500–1505.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Frymier PD, Ford RM, Berg HC, Cummings PT . Three-dimensional tracking of motile bacteria near a solid planar surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92 (13): 6195–6199.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Darouiche RO, Safar H, Raad II . In vitro efficacy of antimicrobial-coated bladder catheters in inhibited bacterial migration along catheter surface. Can J Infect Dis 1997; 176 (4): 1109–1112.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nickel JC, Costerton JW . Bacterial biofilms and catheters: a key to understanding bacterial strategies in catheter-associated urinary tract infection. Can J Infect Dis 1992; 3 (5): 261–267.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reddy ST, Chung KK, McDaniel CJ, Darouiche RO, Landman J, Brennan AB . Micropatterned surfaces for reducing the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an in vitro study on the effect of Sharklet micropatterned surfaces to inhibit bacterial colonization and migration of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. J Endourol 2011; 25 (9): 1547–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tran K, Gibson A, Wong D, Tilahun D, Selock N, Good T et al. Designing a low-cost multifunctional infant incubator. J Lab Autom 2014; 19 (3): 332–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dambkowski CL, Chehab EF, Shih JD, Venook R, Wall JK . In vitro assessment of bacterial colonisation rates of umbilical cord segments using three embodiments of a novel neonatal umbilical catheter protection device. BMJ Innov 2016; 2: 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shoham Y, Kogan L, Weiss J, Tamir E, Krieger Y, Barnea Y et al. Wound ‘dechronification’ with negatively-charged polystyrene microspheres: a double-blind RCT. J Wound Care 2013; 22 (3): 144–146 148, 150–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weissman O, Winkler E, Teot L, Remer E, Farber N, Bank J et al. Treatment of wounds following breast reduction and mastopexy with subsequent wound dehiscence with charged polystyrene microspheres. Wounds 2014; 26 (2): 37–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012; 486 (7402): 207–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Merenstein GB, Gardner SL . Handbook of Neonatal Intensive Care, 6th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences: Philadelphia, PA, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tiffany KF, Burke BL, Collins-Odoms C, Oelberg DG . Current practice regarding the enteral feeding of high-risk newborns with umbilical catheters in situ. Pediatrics 2003; 112 (1 Pt.1): 20–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Soto SM, Bosch J, Jimenez de Anta MT, Villa J . Comparative study of virulence traits of escherichia coli clinical isolates causing early and late neonatal sepsis. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46 (3): 1123–1125.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wood TK, Gonzalez Barrios AF, Herzberg M, Lee J . Motility influences biofilm architecture in Escherichia coli. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006; 72 (2): 361–367.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Surgical Materials Testing Laboratory Dressings Datacard: Bordered Granuflex. Available at (accessed on 16 Dec 1997).

  21. Garret TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang Z . Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci 2008; 18 (9): 1049–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sood A, Granick MS, Tomaselli NL . Wound dressings and comparative effectiveness data. Adv Wound Care 2014; 3 (8): 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the Wallace H Coulter Foundation for financial support. We also thank the Stanford Department of Bioengineering for providing the facilities to conduct this study. This project was generously funded by the Stanford-Coulter Translational Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to J D Shih.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shih, J., Wood, L., Dambkowski, C. et al. An in vitro bacterial surface migration assay underneath sterile barrier material commonly found in a hospital setting. J Perinatol 37, 848–852 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links