Literature DB >> 22776118

Effectiveness of shoe covers for bioexclusion within an animal facility.

Judy M Hickman-Davis1, Mackenzie L Nicolaus, Joann M Petty, Dianne M Harrison, Valerie K Bergdall.   

Abstract

The personal protective equipment (PPE) required for entry into rodent barrier rooms often includes a hair bonnet, face mask, disposable gown, gloves, and shoe covers. Traditionally, shoe covers have been considered essential PPE for maintaining a 'clean' animal room. The introduction of microisolation caging and ventilated rack housing prompted us to reevaluate the contribution of shoe covers to bioexclusion. Contamination powder that fluoresces under black light was to track particle dispersal on the floor and personnel. The test mouse room contained a ventilated microisolation rack and biosafety cabinet. Powder was applied directly inside or outside the animal room doorway. PPE with or without shoe covers was donned outside of the animal room doorway and discarded on exiting. Participants either were scanned on entry into the room for the presence of florescence or asked to complete a simulated standard animal room activity while wearing full PPE. Animal rooms were scanned for florescence after exit of participants. All participants donning shoe covers fluoresced in multiple areas, primarily on gloves and gowns. Shoe covers had no effect on the spread of powder in normal traffic patterns, with no powder detected within caging. Powder also was used to determine the distance substances could be carried on the floor from building entry points. Results indicate that shoe covers do not improve (and actually may compromise) bioexclusion. Donning of shoe covers offers a potential for contamination of personnel from contact with shoe bottoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22776118      PMCID: PMC3314521     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.232


  16 in total

1.  Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  The estimated national burden of physical ergonomic hazards among US workers.

Authors:  Sangwoo Tak; Geoffrey M Calvert
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 2.214

Review 3.  [Evidence of control and prevention of surgical site infection by shoe covers and private shoes: a systematic literature review].

Authors:  Alice Medeiros Lutz Santos; Rúbia Aparecida Lacerda; Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2005-03-03

4.  Theatre over-shoes do not reduce operating theatre floor bacterial counts.

Authors:  H Humphreys; R J Marshall; V E Ricketts; A J Russell; D S Reeves
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Subcritical endemic steady states in mathematical models for animal infections with incomplete immunity.

Authors:  D Greenhalgh; O Diekmann; M C de Jong
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.144

6.  A positive, individually ventilated caging system: a local barrier system to protect both animals and personnel.

Authors:  G Clough; J Wallace; M R Gamble; E R Merryweather; E Bailey
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 7.  Protective over-shoes are unnecessary in a day surgery unit.

Authors:  N C Weightman; K R Banfield
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  Quality-assurance testing of staff pharmacists handling cytotoxic agents.

Authors:  B R Harrison; R J Godefroid; E A Kavanaugh
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 2.637

9.  Prevalence and spread of enterohepatic Helicobacter species in mice reared in a specific-pathogen-free animal facility.

Authors:  U R M Bohr; M Selgrad; C Ochmann; S Backert; W König; A Fenske; T Wex; P Malfertheiner
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Evaluation of a forced-air-ventilated micro-isolation system for protection of mice against Pasteurella pneumotropica.

Authors:  Masakazu Hasegawa; Soichiro Kagiyama; Masaru Tajima; Kazuya Yoshida; Yayoi Minami; Tsutomu Kurosawa
Journal:  Exp Anim       Date:  2003-04
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Personal Protective Equipment in Animal Research.

Authors:  Jason S Villano; Janet M Follo; Mark G Chappell; Morris T Collins
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 0.982

2.  Using reduced personal protective equipment in an endemically infected mouse colony.

Authors:  Samuel W Baker; Kevin A Prestia; Brian Karolewski
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Protection of Antarctic microbial communities - 'out of sight, out of mind'.

Authors:  Kevin A Hughes; Don A Cowan; Annick Wilmotte
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 5.640

4.  Reuse of Disposable Isolation Gowns in Rodent Facilities during a Pandemic.

Authors:  Toi A Collins; Amanda E Sparks; Mary M Walker; Lon V Kendall; Karen M Dobos; Valerie K Bergdall; Judy M Hickman-Davis
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 1.706

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.