Nikki Kenters1, Elisabeth G W Huijskens2, Sophie C J de Wit3, Joost van Rosmalen4, Andreas Voss5. 1. Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.kenters@gmail.com. 2. Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Microbiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Microbiology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital rooms play an important role in the transmission of several health care-associated pathogens. During the last few years, a number of innovative cleaning-disinfecting products have been brought to market. In this study, commercially available products combining cleaning and disinfection were compared, using 2 different application methods. The aim was to determine which product was most effective in simultaneous cleaning and disinfection of surfaces. METHODS: Seven cleaning-disinfecting wipes and sprays based on different active ingredients were tested for their efficacy in removal of microbial burden and proteins. Efficacy was tested with known Dutch outbreak strains: vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Klebsiella pneumoniae OXA-48, or Acinetobacter baumannii. RESULTS: For all bacteria, ready-to-use cleaning-disinfecting products reduced the microbial count with a log10 reduction >5 with a 5-minute exposure time, with the exception of a spray based on hydrogen peroxide. Omitting the aforementioned hydrogen peroxide spray, there were no significant differences between use of a wipe or spray in bacterial load reduction. Using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements, a significant difference in log10 relative light units (RLU) reduction between various bacteria (P ≤ .001) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In general, a >5 log10 reduction of colony forming units (CFU) for tested wipes and sprays was obtained for all tested bacteria strains, with exception of hydrogen peroxide spray and VRE. Although ATP may show a difference between pre- and postcleaning, RLU reduction does not correlate with actual CFU reductions.
BACKGROUND: Hospital rooms play an important role in the transmission of several health care-associated pathogens. During the last few years, a number of innovative cleaning-disinfecting products have been brought to market. In this study, commercially available products combining cleaning and disinfection were compared, using 2 different application methods. The aim was to determine which product was most effective in simultaneous cleaning and disinfection of surfaces. METHODS: Seven cleaning-disinfecting wipes and sprays based on different active ingredients were tested for their efficacy in removal of microbial burden and proteins. Efficacy was tested with known Dutch outbreak strains: vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Klebsiella pneumoniaeOXA-48, or Acinetobacter baumannii. RESULTS: For all bacteria, ready-to-use cleaning-disinfecting products reduced the microbial count with a log10 reduction >5 with a 5-minute exposure time, with the exception of a spray based on hydrogen peroxide. Omitting the aforementioned hydrogen peroxide spray, there were no significant differences between use of a wipe or spray in bacterial load reduction. Using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements, a significant difference in log10 relative light units (RLU) reduction between various bacteria (P ≤ .001) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In general, a >5 log10 reduction of colony forming units (CFU) for tested wipes and sprays was obtained for all tested bacteria strains, with exception of hydrogen peroxide spray and VRE. Although ATP may show a difference between pre- and postcleaning, RLU reduction does not correlate with actual CFU reductions.
Authors: Beatrice Casini; Anna Righi; Nunzio De Feo; Michele Totaro; Serena Giorgi; Lavinia Zezza; Paola Valentini; Enrico Tagliaferri; Anna Laura Costa; Simona Barnini; Angelo Baggiani; Pietro Luigi Lopalco; Paolo Malacarne; Gaetano Pierpaolo Privitera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kevin Tyan; Adriane Levin; Alejandra Avalos-Pacheco; Deborah Plana; Eleanor A Rand; Helen Yang; Laura E Maliszewski; Lily A Chylek; Lyla Atta; Mark A Tye; Mary M Carmack; N Synclaire Oglesby; Susan Burgin; Sherry H Yu; Nicole R LeBoeuf; Jacqueline M Kemp Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 3.835