Literature DB >> 33450309

Nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 on high-touch surfaces of public areas next to COVID-19 hospitalization units.

Laura Gavaldà-Mestre1, Dolors Ramírez-Tarruella2, Carme Gutiérrez-Milla3, Ferran Guillamet-Roig2, Rosa Orriols-Ramos4, Sònia Ragull Tisner5, Noemí Pàrraga-Niño6.   

Abstract

We studied the contamination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the bacterial load of high-touch surfaces located in public areas next to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) hospitalization units. Ninety-two samples were obtained from 46 different high-touch surfaces: 36 sites next to COVID-19 hospitalization units and 10 sites in the cabins of the public elevators. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected at any site, despite high bacterial loads suggested that the studied sites had been frequently touched prior to the sampling.
Copyright © 2021 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Environmental contamination; Infection prevention; Surface sampling

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33450309      PMCID: PMC7837185          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Infect Control        ISSN: 0196-6553            Impact factor:   2.918


Most studies analyzing the contamination of surfaces with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been conducted in the rooms of infected patients and the common areas of isolation wards and have identified high percentages of positive samples.1, 2, 3, 4 However, environmental contamination of other hospital areas during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has not received much attention.

Methods

On May 25 and 26, 2020, surface samples were obtained from public areas next to 4 COVID-19 hospitalization units at the Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain (2 intensive care units with 10 and 12 admitted patients and 2 conventional hospitalization units with 11 and 12 admitted patients). Due to the characteristics of the building, everyone entering or leaving these units had to pass through the public areas. The air supply of the entire building was 100% fresh (no recirculation). Since March 2020, visitors were not allowed, and universal masking with a surgical mask was mandatory for hospital workers in all areas. Three different spaces in the public areas were considered for the environmental study: the halls next to the units, the public toilets (only in conventional hospitalization units) and the waste areas (only in intensive care units). The sites selected were repeatedly touched throughout the day. The sampled sites in the halls were the coffee vending machines, the staircases railings, the elevator's wall buttons, and the wall phones used by the health care professionals. Samples taken in the public toilets corresponded to sites that were touched before hand washing (door handles, flushes, soap dispensers, and sink faucets). As the common areas of intensive care units do not have public toilets, samples of the waste containers and the waste elevators were taken in the waste area. Apart from the public areas, 2 types of samples were taken in the cabins of the public elevators: the buttons and the wall area where hands lean when staying in the elevator. The sites were sampled at mid-morning 4 hours after routine cleaning with 1,000 ppm sodium hypochlorite. Two samples were obtained at each site. For SARS-CoV-2 testing, a sterile polypropylene plastic swab wetted with viral transport medium (Biocomma) was used for sampling a 100-cm2 surface. Next to this surface, a RODAC plate with trypticase soy agar was pressed to provide a quantitative measure of the bacterial load. q-PCR technique was used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2. Swabs were transported to the laboratory in a refrigerated container within 2 hours after sampling. RNA was extracted with the commercial PathoGene-spinTM DNA/RNA Extraction Kit. The commercial RT-qPCR VETfinder Real-Time PCR kit for the detection of nCoV-19 (Generon) and the LightCycler 480 Real-Time PCR System (Roche) instrument were used for the detection of viral RNA. To assess the extraction efficiency, RNA was added before the extraction process (Intype IC RNA, Generon). Finally, RNA levels were detected by qPCR with a probe against this RNA (HEX). The detection threshold of the technique was 35 copies/cm2. RODAC plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. The aerobic colony counting (ACC) was expressed as colony forming units per cm2 (CFU/cm2). According to the accepted standards for hospital cleanliness, when the ACC was ≥2.5 CFU/cm2, the surfaces were considered dirty.

Results

Ninety-two samples were obtained from 46 different high-touch surfaces of public areas: 36 sites next to COVID-19 hospitalization units and 10 sites in the cabins of the public elevators (Tables 1 and 2 ). SARS-CoV-2 was not detected at any site. Forty-three surfaces (93.5%) presented bacterial growth, 26 of which had levels greater than the cutoff point of 2.5 CFU/cm2 (56.6%) (Tables 1 and 2). The highest bacterial loads in the public areas next to conventional hospitalization units were found in the staircase's railings (25 CFU/cm2), whereas in the areas next to intensive care units the most contaminated surfaces corresponded to the waste containers. The remaining surfaces did not show a consistent pattern. Only 3 sites showed no bacterial growth, and all of the sites corresponded to the cabins of the elevators exclusively reserved for patients (Table 2).
Table. 1

Environmental sites sampled for SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial load detection in public areas next to the intensive care units and conventional hospitalization units attending COVID-19 patients

Intensive care unit 1
Intensive care unit 2
SARS-CoV-2 q-PCRACC (CFU/cm2)SARS-CoV-2 q-PCRACC (CFU/cm2)
Coffee vending machine, buttonsNegative16negative2
Coffee vending machine, pickup windowNegative12negative16
Public elevator, wall buttonsNegative7negative16
Public staircase railingNegative4negative5
Waste container 1Negative6negative2
Waste container 2Negative1negative25
Waste container 3Negative2negative25
Waste elevator, handleNegative2negative7
Wall phoneNegative16negative16

ACC, aerobic colony counts

Table 2

Environmental sites sampled in the cabins of the public elevators for SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial load detection.

SARS-CoV-2 q-PCRACC (CFU/cm2)
Elevator for workers and visitors n° 1ButtonsWall area where hands leanNegativeNegative41
Elevator for workers and visitors n° 2ButtonsWall area where hands leanNegativeNegative73
Elevator for workers and visitors n° 3ButtonsWall area where hands leanNegativeNegative65
Elevator exclusive for patients n° 1ButtonsWall area where hands leanNegativeNegative01
Elevator exclusive for patients n° 2ButtonsWall area where hands leanNegativeNegative00

ACC, aerobic colony counts.

Environmental sites sampled for SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial load detection in public areas next to the intensive care units and conventional hospitalization units attending COVID-19 patients ACC, aerobic colony counts Environmental sites sampled in the cabins of the public elevators for SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial load detection. ACC, aerobic colony counts.

Discussion

Our data indicate that environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in public areas in the vicinity of COVID-19 hospitalization units does not seem to be of great magnitude. However, our results are probably affected by the exceptional circumstances adopted by the hospital during the pandemic period. As no visitors were permitted, the contamination of surfaces was probably much lower than that during the normal functioning of the hospital. Furthermore, mandatory universal masking probably minimized environmental contamination with respiratory droplets. It is known that the ACC of hospital surfaces correlates with the number of previous hand-touch counts. In our case, the high bacterial loads suggested that the studied sites had been frequently touched prior to the sampling. Despite this, SARS-CoV-2 was not detected. Distance to the patient rooms did not seem to explain the differences found in the ACCs. These findings support the hypothesis that compliance with infection prevention practices of health care workers assisting COVID-19 patients was appropriate, especially universal masking and hand hygiene adherence. Our study has several limitations. First, the environmental contamination in the hospitalization units was not studied, so we cannot state if it was significantly greater than that noted in public areas. Second, as this is a cross-sectional study, our hypothesis cannot be verified. Further research is required to confirm these findings and determine the role of inanimate surfaces on the risk of COVID-19 infection in the population.
  6 in total

Review 1.  Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination.

Authors:  Stephanie J Dancer
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient.

Authors:  Sean Wei Xiang Ong; Yian Kim Tan; Po Ying Chia; Tau Hong Lee; Oon Tek Ng; Michelle Su Yen Wong; Kalisvar Marimuthu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Examining the association between surface bioburden and frequently touched sites in intensive care.

Authors:  C E Adams; J Smith; V Watson; C Robertson; S J Dancer
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2016-11-13       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare premises.

Authors:  Guangming Ye; Hualiang Lin; Song Chen; Shichan Wang; Zhikun Zeng; Wei Wang; Shiyu Zhang; Terri Rebmann; Yirong Li; Zhenyu Pan; Zhonghua Yang; Ying Wang; Fubing Wang; Zhengmin Qian; Xinghuan Wang
Journal:  J Infect       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 6.072

5.  Environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in a designated hospital for coronavirus disease 2019.

Authors:  Songjie Wu; Ying Wang; Xuelan Jin; Jia Tian; Jianzhong Liu; Yiping Mao
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 2.918

6.  SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination associated with persistently infected COVID-19 patients.

Authors:  Hui Lei; Feng Ye; Xiaoqing Liu; Zhenting Huang; Shiman Ling; Zhanpeng Jiang; Jing Cheng; Xiaoqun Huang; Qiubao Wu; Shiguan Wu; Yanmin Xie; Cheng Xiao; Dan Ye; Zifeng Yang; Yimin Li; Nancy H L Leung; Benjamin J Cowling; Jianxing He; Sook-San Wong; Mark Zanin
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2020-07-12       Impact factor: 4.380

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Effect of SARs-CoV-2 pandemic on infection prevention behaviors and bacterial burden of high touch surfaces in a medical/surgical setting.

Authors:  Marisol Resendiz; Dawn M Blanchard; Michael B Lustik; Timothy S Horseman; Gordon F West
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Mechanical Wiping Increases the Efficacy of Liquid Disinfectants on SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Angela Sloan; Samantha B Kasloff; Todd Cutts
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  Presence of SARS-CoV-2 on food surfaces and public space surfaces in three districts of Lima, Peru.

Authors:  K Alvis-Chirinos; Y Angulo-Bazán; O Escalante-Maldonado; D Fuentes; M G Palomino-Rodriguez; E Gonzales-Achuy; H Mormontoy; P Hinojosa-Mamani; L Huamán-Espino; J P Aparco
Journal:  Braz J Med Biol Res       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.904

4.  Household characteristics associated with surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and frequency of RT-PCR and viral culture positivity-California and Colorado, 2021.

Authors:  Talya Shragai; Caroline Pratt; Joaudimir Castro Georgi; Marisa A P Donnelly; Noah G Schwartz; Raymond Soto; Meagan Chuey; Victoria T Chu; Perrine Marcenac; Geun Woo Park; Ausaf Ahmad; Bernadette Albanese; Sarah Elizabeth Totten; Brett Austin; Paige Bunkley; Blake Cherney; Elizabeth A Dietrich; Erica Figueroa; Jennifer M Folster; Claire Godino; Owen Herzegh; Kristine Lindell; Boris Relja; Sarah W Sheldon; Suxiang Tong; Jan Vinjé; Natalie J Thornburg; Almea M Matanock; Laura J Hughes; Ginger Stringer; Meghan Hudziec; Mark E Beatty; Jacqueline E Tate; Hannah L Kirking; Christopher H Hsu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 3.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.