Literature DB >> 34183092

Evaluation of Rodent Cage Processing Using Reduced Water Temperatures.

Mary M Walker1, Dianne M Harrison1, Toi A Collins1, Valerie K Bergdall1.   

Abstract

Studies published in 1994 and 2000 established a temperature range of 143-180 °F for effective cage sanitization in animal facilities. These 2 studies were, respectively, theoretical and based on experiments using hot water to sanitize bacteria-coated test tubes. However, such experimental methods may not capture the practical advantages of modern washing technology or account for the routine use of detergent in cage wash. Moreover, these methods may not translate to the challenges of removing adhered debris and animal waste from the surfaces being sanitized. A sample of highly soiled cage bottoms, half of which were autoclaved with bedding to create challenging cleaning conditions, were processed at 6 combinations of wash and rinse cycles with 125 °F, 140 °F, and 180 °F water with detergent. All cycles were equipped with a data logging device to independently verify temperatures. After washing, cages underwent visual inspection and microbial sampling consisting of organic material detection using ATP detection and Replicate Organism Detection and Counting (RODAC) plates. Cages with any amount of visible debris failed inspection, as did cages that exceeded institutional sanitization thresholds. Results indicate that wash and rinse temperatures of 140 °F for a programmed wash duration of 450 s and rinse of 50 s effectively clean and disinfect both highly soiled and autoclaved cages. Accounting for both steam and electrical energy, these parameters result in an annual savings of $21,867.08 per washer on an equivalent run basis using the current institutional standard of 180 °F.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34183092      PMCID: PMC8483641          DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.706


  18 in total

1.  Comparison of a rapid ATP bioluminescence assay and standard plate count methods for assessing microbial contamination of consumers' refrigerators.

Authors:  Fur-Chi Chen; Sandria L Godwin
Journal:  J Food Prot       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.077

2.  A review of the role of temperature time in an effective cage sanitization program.

Authors:  C L Wardrip; J E Artwohl; B T Bennett
Journal:  Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci       Date:  1994-09

3.  Cleanliness audit of clinical surfaces and equipment: who cleans what?

Authors:  R E Anderson; V Young; M Stewart; C Robertson; S J Dancer
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Evaluation of adenosine triphosphate-bioluminescence hygiene monitoring for trouble-shooting fluid milk shelf-life problems.

Authors:  S C Murphy; S M Kozlowski; D K Bandler; K J Boor
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Evaluation of the Sterility of Press'n Seal Cling Film for Use in Rodent Surgery.

Authors:  Kathryn M Emmer; Natalie A Celeste; Willie A Bidot; Marcel I Perret-Gentil; Raphael A Malbrue
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 1.232

6.  Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness.

Authors:  D Mulvey; P Redding; C Robertson; C Woodall; P Kingsmore; D Bedwell; S J Dancer
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 3.926

7.  Extending the Use of Disposable Caging Based on Results of Microbiologic Surface Testing.

Authors:  Brian J Smith; Kristin E Killoran; Jiajie J Xu; Jessica D Ayers; Lon V Kendall
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 8.  Use of ATP bioluminescence for assessing the cleanliness of hospital surfaces: a review of the published literature (1990-2012).

Authors:  Emanuele Amodio; Claudia Dino
Journal:  J Infect Public Health       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 3.718

9.  Effect of chemical cleaning agents and commercial sanitizers on ATP bioluminescence measurements.

Authors:  T A Green; S M Russell; D L Fletcher
Journal:  J Food Prot       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.077

10.  How reliable are ATP bioluminescence meters in assessing decontamination of environmental surfaces in healthcare settings?

Authors:  Navid Omidbakhsh; Faraz Ahmadpour; Nicole Kenny
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.