Evaluation of the decontamination efficacy of new and reprocessed microfiber cleaning cloth compared with other commonly used cleaning cloths in the hospital

Comparing the microbial removal efficacy of new and reprocessed microfiber on health care surfaces

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that microfiber is preferred for environmental cleaning and disinfection given its enhanced microbial removal. There has been controversy surrounding the sustained efficacy of reprocessed microfiber, though existing literature on the topic lacks standardized laundering parameters. The present study demonstrates that reprocessed microfiber cloths and pads, laundered according to CDC laundry parameters, achieve microbial removal from healthcare surfaces that is substantially equivalent to that of new microfiber.

The Environmental Footprint Of Single versus Reusable Cloths For Clinical Surface Decontamination: A Life Cycle Approach

Global sustainability is a major health concern facing our planet today. The healthcare sector is a significant contributor to environmentally damaging activity. Reusable cloths should be considered as an environmentally friendly alternative to the predominantly used single-use surface wipes in cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in healthcare settings. To understand its feasibility, a rapid review of current policies on surface decontamination in healthcare settings was conducted. A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) was then carried out to compare the impact of reusable cotton and microfibre cloths versus conventional single-use cloths, with three compatible disinfectants. Seven countries were included in the rapid review of policies. For the LCIA, inputs, outputs, and processes across the life cycle were included, using EcoInvent database v3.7.1 and open LCIA software. Sixteen European-recommended environmental impact categories and eight human health categories were considered. Infection prevention policies examined do not require single-use wipes for cleaning and disinfection. The disinfectant with the highest environmental impact was isopropyl-alcohol. The most environmentally-sustainable option for clinical surface decontamination was the microfibre cloth when used with a quaternary ammonium compound. The least environmentally sustainable option was cotton with isopropyl-alcohol. Impacts were primarily attributed with the use of the disinfectant agent and travel processes.

A review of HTM 01-05 through an environmentally sustainable lens

Patients deserve to be treated in a safe and clean environment with consistent standards of care every time they receive treatment. It is essential that the risk of person-to-person transmission of infections be minimised, yet it is also essential that planetary harm (and therefore public harm) is minimised with respect to resource consumption, air pollution, environmental degradation etc.In 2013, the Department of Health introduced the Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) 01-05 providing dental practices with advice on patient safety when decontaminating reusable instruments in primary care. This paper provides a commentary on HTM 01-05 and similar decontamination guidance. We believe all decontamination documents needs to reflect the so-called 'triple bottom line' - the finance, social cost and impact on the planet.The authors provide an environmental commentary on a number of items mentioned in decontamination documents, including autoclaves (including the use of helix tests), disposable paper towels, undertaking hand hygiene, using a log book, plastic bag use, the use of personal protective equipment, remote decontamination units, single use instruments, single use wipes, disinfection chemicals (for example, sodium hypochlorite) thermal disinfection and wrapping of instruments.It is hoped, in the spirit of the ever-increasing numbers of papers published to highlight how healthcare (and dentistry) could become more sustainable, that these critiques will be taken in the spirit of providing a beginning of further discussion from an environmental perspective.

Environmental cleaning and disinfection of hospital rooms: A nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

As an important reservoir for hospital-acquired infections, environmental surfaces have long been targeted by interventions to improve cleaning and disinfection. Differences in disinfection practices across US hospitals, however, are still unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide survey of environmental services (EVS) personnel in the United States regarding their environmental surface disinfection practices from January 2019 to June 2019. We developed and pilot tested the survey in conjunction with EVS specialists. Survey questions inquired about choices of disinfectants and cleaning equipment during daily and terminal disinfection of both contact isolation and non-contact isolation rooms. We contacted 273 EVS personnel by phone and email to participate in the survey.

RESULTS

Fourty-seven EVS personnel representing different hospitals from 26 US states were included in the analysis. Hypochlorite (bleach) and quaternary ammonium compounds were the most frequently used disinfectants. Most respondents reported using microfiber-based cloths and mops to carry out disinfection. High-touch surfaces in contact isolation rooms were frequently disinfected using bleach (81%, n = 38); floors, however, were not disinfected as frequently in patient rooms. The vast majority of respondents reported use of sporicidal disinfectants for contact isolation rooms but not regular rooms.

CONCLUSIONS

While frequently used to disinfectant contact isolation rooms, sporicidal agents are rarely used to disinfect regular rooms. Patient room floors are inconsistently disinfected compared to high-touch surfaces.

A review of wipes used to disinfect hard surfaces in health care facilities

BACKGROUND

Despite a plethora of wipes available for use in health care facilities, there is a paucity of articles describing wipe composition, potential interactions between wipes and disinfectants, the manner in which wipes are used, and their relative efficacy. The purpose of this article is to provide an in-depth review of wipes used for disinfection of hard surfaces in health care settings.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches of the Pubmed database and Internet were conducted, and articles published from 1953 through September 2019 and pertinent on-line documents were reviewed. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed.

RESULTS

Wipes vary considerably in their composition, and the disinfectants with which they are used. With reusable dry wipes, the ratio of wipe material to disinfectant and the amount of disinfectant absorbed by the wipe and delivered to surfaces is difficult to standardize, which may affect their efficacy. The manner in which wipes are used by health care personnel is highly variable, due in part to insufficient instructions for use and inadequate education of relevant personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed regarding the best practices for using different types of wipes, improved methods for educating staff, and establishing the relative efficacy of wipes in reducing environmental contamination and health care-associated infections.

Clinical Issues-March 2020

Laundering microfiber cleaning supplies Key words: cloth, mop, microfiber, laundering, microorganisms. Significance of contact time during cleaning Key words: disinfectant, contact time, cleaning, bactericidal efficacy. Mask use during cystoscopy and tonsillectomy procedures Key words: surgical mask, splash, exposure, barrier level, blood-contaminated aerosols. Use of radiopaque towels Key words: radiopaque towels, radiopaque markers, soft goods, towel retention. Personal fragrances in the perioperative setting Key words: fragrances, fragrance sensitivity, asthma, disability.

Hospital flooring safety and health: knowledge gaps and suggestions

Fall incidents are a leading safety concern in the hospital industry. Whereas roughening the floor surface can reduce fall risks, there remains unanswered controversies between achieving and maintaining hygienic cleaning efficiencies and adequately addressing conditions of flooring safety. Thus, the current study critically overviews the status of research and accepted practices on hospital flooring safety and healthy controls. Salient literature was identified by searching keywords and phrases within the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and ScienceDirect to find answers for the major questions on hospital floorings. A comprehensive review analysis identified that underlying causes of hospital fall incidents and flooring-attributable infectious illnesses mainly comprised floor types and materials, cleaning chemicals, materials and methods, maintenance and slip-resistance properties. Findings from this study suggest several major actions to advance hospital flooring safety and health research and practice.

Disinfectant Performance of a Chlorine Regenerable Antibacterial Microfiber Fabric as a Reusable Wiper

Rechargeable disinfectant performance of a microfiber fabric grafted with a halamine precursor, 3-allyl-5,5-dimethylhydantoin (ADMH), was tested in an actual use situation in a university student dining hall. The precursor was successfully incorporated onto the surfaces of polyester fibers by using a radical graft polymerization process through a commercial finishing facility. The N⁻H bonds of ADMH moieties on the fibers can be converted to biocidal N⁻Cl bonds, when the fabrics are washed in a diluted chlorine bleach containing 3000 ppm available chlorine, providing a refreshable disinfectant function. By wiping the surfaces of 30 tables (equivalent to 18 m²) with wet chlorinated fabrics, both Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli in concentrations of 10⁵ CFU/mL were totally killed in a contact time of 3 min. The disinfectant properties of the fabrics were still superior after 10 times successive machine washes (equivalent to fifty household machine washes), and rechargeable after wiping 30 tables before each recharge. Recharging conditions, such as temperature, time, active chlorine concentration and pH value of sodium hypochlorite solution, as well as the addition of a detergent, were studied. The product has the potential to improve public safety against biological contaminations and the transmission of diseases.

Evaluation of the Cleaning Procedure Efficacy in Prevention of Nosocomial Infections in Healthcare Facilities Using Cultural Method Associated with High Sensitivity Luminometer for ATP Detection

In healthcare facilities, environmental surfaces may be a reservoir of infectious agents even though cleaning and disinfection practices play a role in the control of healthcare-associated infections. In this study, the effectiveness of cleaning/disinfection procedures has been evaluated in two hospital areas, which have different risk category classifications. According to the contract with the cleaning service, after the daily ambulatory activities, the housekeeping staff apply an alcohol-based detergent followed by a chlorine-based disinfectant (2% Antisapril, Angelini; 540 mg/L active chlorine), properly diluted and sprayed. The contract provides for the use of disposable microfiber wipes which must be replaced with new ones in each health out-patient department. Surface contamination was analyzed using cultural methods and ATP detection, performed with a high-sensitivity luminometer. The values 100 CFU/cm² and 40 RLU/cm² were considered as the threshold values for medium-risk category areas, while 250 CFU/cm² and 50 RLU/cm² were defined for the low-risk category ones. Air quality was evaluated using active and passive sampling microbiological methods and particle count (0.3 μm⁻10 μm) detection. The cleaning/disinfection procedure reduced the medium bacterial counts from 32 ± 56 CFU/cm² to 2 ± 3 CFU/cm² in the low-risk area and from 25 ± 40 CFU/cm² to 7 ± 11 CFU/cm² in the medium-risk one. Sample numbers exceeding the threshold values decreased from 3% and 13% to 1% and 5%, respectively. RLU values also showed a reduction in the samples above the thresholds from 76% to 13% in the low-risk area. From the air samples collected using the active method, we observed a reduction of 60% in wound care and 53% in an ambulatory care visit. From the air samples collected using the passive method, we highlighted a 71.4% and 50% reduction in microbial contamination in the medium-risk area and in the low-risk one, respectively. The 10 μm size particle counts decreased by 52.7% in wound care and by 63% in the ambulatory care visit. Correct surface sanitation proved crucial for the reduction of microbial contamination in healthcare settings, and plays an important role in ensuring air quality in hospital settings.

An international survey of cleaning and disinfection practices in the healthcare environment

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance has become an urgent global health priority. Basic hygiene practices and cleaning and disinfection of the hospital environment are key in preventing pathogen cross-transmission.

AIM

To our knowledge no studies have assessed the worldwide differences in cleaning and disinfection practices in healthcare facilities. The electronic survey described here was developed in order to evaluate differences in healthcare facility cleaning practices around the world.

METHODS

The International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC, formerly ISC), Infection Prevention and Control work group developed a survey with 30 multiple-choice questions. The questions were designed to assess the current cleaning practices in healthcare settings around the world.

FINDINGS

A total of 110 healthcare professionals, representing 23 countries, participated in the online survey. In 96% of the facilities a written cleaning policy was present. Training of cleaning staff occurred in 70% of the facilities at the start of employment. Cleaning practices and monitoring of these practices varied.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey enabled assessment and recognition of widely differing global practices in approaches to environmental cleaning and disinfection. Development of guideline recommendations for cleaning and disinfection could improve practices and set minimum standards worldwide.

Effectiveness of cleaning-disinfection wipes and sprays against multidrug-resistant outbreak strains

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.

Effectiveness of various cleaning and disinfectant products on Clostridium difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 010, 014 and 027

Background

In healthcare facilities, Clostridium difficile infections spread by transmission of bacterial spores. Appropriate sporicidal disinfectants are needed to prevent development of clusters and outbreaks. In this study different cleaning/disinfecting wipes and sprays were tested for their efficacy against spores of distinctive C. difficile PCR ribotypes.

Methods

Four different products were tested; 1) hydrogen peroxide 1.5%; 2) glucoprotamin 1.5%; 3) a mixture of ethanol, propane and N-alkyl amino propyl glycine; and 4) a mixture of didecyldimonium chloride, benzalkonium chloride, polyaminopropyl, biguanide and dimenthicone as active ingredients. Tiles were contaminated with a test solution containing a concentration of 5x10⁶CFU/ml spores of C. difficile strains belonging to PCR ribotypes 010, 014 or 027. The tiles were left to dry for an hour and then wiped or sprayed with one of the sprays or wipes as intended by the manufacturers. When products neutralized after 5 min, microbiological cultures and ATP measures were performed.

Results

Irrespective of the disinfection method, the microbial count log₁₀ reduction of C. difficile PCR ribotype 010 was highest, followed by the reduction of C. difficile 014 and C. difficile 027. Overall, the wipes performed better than the sprays with the same active ingredient. On average, although not significantly, a difference in relative light units (RLU) reduction between the wipes and sprays was found. The wipes had a higher RLU log₁₀ reduction, but no significant difference for RLU reduction was observed between the different C. difficile strains (p = 0.16).

Conclusion

C. difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 014 and 027 strains are more difficult to eradicate than non-toxigenic PCR ribotype 010. In general, impregnated cleaning/disinfection wipes performed better than ready-to-use sprays. Wipes with hydrogen peroxide (1.5%) showed the highest bactericidal activity.

Transfer and Decontamination of S. aureus in Transmission Routes Regarding Hands and Contact Surfaces

Hand hygiene, cleaning and disinfection are pre-requirements for hygiene management in hospital settings and the food industry. In order to facilitate risk management, different contamination scenarios and interventions need to be evaluated. In the present study data on transfer rates and reductions of Staphylococcus aureus were provided in an experimental set-up using artificial skin. Using this methodology, test persons were not exposed with pathogenic bacteria. An exposure assessment model was developed and applied to evaluate different contamination routes and hygiene interventions. The transfer rates of S. aureus from inoculated VITRO-SKIN^® to fomites were calculated from blotting series. The VITRO-SKIN^® was more prone to spread bacteria than fomites. When different surfaces were cleaned, the reduction of S. aureus varied between <1 and 7 log CFU. It could not be concluded that a certain coupon material, cleaning agent, cleaning wipe, soiling or humidity consistently resulted in a high or low reduction of S. aureus. The reduction of S. aureus and E. coli during hand washing was evaluated on artificial skin, VITRO-SKIN^®. The reduction of E. coli on VITRO-SKIN^® was similar to the log reduction obtained when washing human hands. The S. aureus count on a human hand was both calculated in different scenarios describing different contamination routes starting from a contaminated hand using the exposure assessment model, and measured on an experimental setup using VITRO-SKIN^® for validation. A linear relationship was obtained between the analysed level of S. aureus and the calculated level. However, the calculated levels of S. aureus on the VITRO-SKIN^® in the scenarios were 1–1.5 log lower than the analysed level. One of the scenarios was used to study the effect of interventions like hand washing and cleaning of surfaces.

Time-dependent influence on assessment of contaminated environmental surfaces in operating rooms

BACKGROUND

There is no established method to assess the contamination of environmental surfaces because the results change with time. We evaluated current methods for assessment of contamination of environmental surfaces in the operating room (OR).

METHODS

Contamination of environmental surfaces in the OR was assessed using an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test and bacterial culture. We collected 480 ATP test samples from 17 surfaces in 6 ORs to determine the influence of surface features, including frequency of touching and surface orientation on contamination, after completion of daily scheduled operations. Another 54 pairs of ATP and microbial samples were taken from 3 surfaces in each of the same OR except 1 to determine the time course of the results of ATP and microbial tests when ORs were not used.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the ATP results were strongly influenced by frequency of touching and orientation of environmental surfaces. The microbial counts declined over time, whereas the ATP results remained at a high level.

CONCLUSION

The ATP test result could be used as a relatively stable trace of contamination of environmental surfaces; however, it is not a surrogate indicator of the number of viable microbes which declines over time.

Microfiber cloths reduce the transfer of Clostridium difficile spores to environmental surfaces compared with cotton cloths

BACKGROUND

Environmental surfaces in health care facilities contaminated with Clostridium difficile spores can be a reservoir that contribute to transmission of hospital-acquired infections. Microfiber cleaning cloths may improve the effectiveness of surface cleaning. The objective of this study was to assess the removal and transfer of C difficile spores on surfaces cleaned by microfiber compared with cotton cloths.

METHODS

C difficile spores (approximately 4.2 log(10)/site) were applied to ceramic surfaces. Microfiber or cotton cloths were used to wipe the surfaces that were sprayed with either buffer or a nonsporicidal cleaning agent. To ensure reproducible pressure and surface contact time, a drill apparatus was used. The pressure was 1.5-1.77 N, and the total number of rotations was 10. Viable counts were used to assess the efficiency of microfiber and cotton cloths in removing and transferring spores.

RESULTS

Of 4.4 log(10)C difficile spores inoculated on a ceramic surface, microfiber and cotton cloths removed 2.4 and 1.7 log(10), respectively. Microfiber cloths containing 4.2 log(10)C difficile spores transferred 1.7 log(10) C difficile spores when used to wipe a ceramic surface compared with cotton cloths that transferred 2.4 log(10). Similarly microfiber wipes transferred fewer spores on consecutive surfaces wiped compared with cotton cloths (0.8 log(10) vs 1.80 log(10)).

CONCLUSION

The use of microfiber cloths may reduce the risk of C difficile spore transfer during surface cleaning.

Wipes coated with a singlet-oxygen-producing photosensitizer are effective against human influenza virus but not against norovirus

Transmission of enteric and respiratory viruses, including human norovirus (hNoV) and human influenza virus, may involve surfaces. In food preparation and health care settings, surfaces are cleaned with wipes; however, wiping may not efficiently reduce contamination or may even spread viruses, increasing a potential public health risk. The virucidal properties of wipes with a singlet-oxygen-generating immobilized photosensitizer (IPS) coating were compared to those of similar but uncoated wipes (non-IPS) and of commonly used viscose wipes. Wipes were spiked with hNoV GI.4 and GII.4, murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1), human adenovirus type 5 (hAdV-5), and influenza virus H1N1 to study viral persistence. We also determined residual and transferred virus proportions on steel carriers after successively wiping a contaminated and an uncontaminated steel carrier. On IPS wipes only, influenza viruses were promptly inactivated with a 5-log10 reduction. D values of infectious MNV-1 and hAdV-5 were 8.7 and 7.0 h on IPS wipes, 11.6 and 9.3 h on non-IPS wipes, and 10.2 and 8.2 h on viscose wipes, respectively. Independently of the type of wipe, dry cleaning removed, or drastically reduced, initial spot contamination of hNoV on surfaces. All wipes transferred hNoV to an uncontaminated carrier; however, the risk of continued transmission by reuse of wipes after 6 and 24 h was limited for all viruses. We conclude that cleaning wet spots with dry wipes efficiently reduced spot contamination on surfaces but that cross-contamination with noroviruses by wiping may result in an increased public health risk at high initial virus loads. For influenza virus, IPS wipes present an efficient one-step procedure for cleaning and disinfecting contaminated surfaces.

Cleaning and decontamination of the healthcare environment

Evidence is accumulating for the role of cleaning in controlling hospital infections. Hospital pathogens such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), norovirus, multi-resistant Gram-negative bacilli and Clostridium difficile persist in the healthcare environment for considerable lengths of time. Cleaning with both detergent and disinfectant-based regimens help control these pathogens in both routine and outbreak situations. The most important transmission risk comes from organisms on frequently handled items because hand contact with a contaminated site could deliver a pathogen to a patient. Cleaning practices should be tailored to clinical risk, near-patient areas and hand-touch-sites and scientifically evaluated for all surfaces and equipment in today’s hospitals.

A randomized controlled trial of enhanced cleaning to reduce contamination of healthcare worker gowns and gloves with multidrug-resistant bacteria

OBJECTIVE. To determine whether enhanced daily cleaning would reduce contamination of healthcare worker (HCW) gowns and gloves with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (MDRAB). DESIGN. A cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING. Four intensive care units (ICUs) in an urban tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTs. ICU rooms occupied by patients colonized with MRSA or MDRAB. INTERVENTION. Extra enhanced daily cleaning of ICU room surfaces frequently touched by HCWs. RESULTS. A total of 4,444 cultures were collected from 132 rooms over 10 months. Using fluorescent dot markers at 2,199 surfaces, we found that 26% of surfaces in control rooms were cleaned and that 100% of surfaces in experimental rooms were cleaned (P < .001). The mean proportion of contaminated HCW gowns and gloves following routine care provision and before leaving the rooms of patients with MDRAB was 16% among control rooms and 12% among experimental rooms (relative risk, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.11]; P = .23). For MRSA, the mean proportions were 22% and 19%, respectively (relative risk, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.53]; P = .16). DISCUSSION. Intense enhanced daily cleaning of ICU rooms occupied by patients colonized with MRSA or MDRAB was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in contamination of HCW gowns and gloves after routine patient care activities. Further research is needed to determine whether intense environmental cleaning will lead to significant reductions and fewer infections.

Microbial contamination of hospital reusable cleaning towels

BACKGROUND

Hospital cleaning practices are critical to the prevention of nosocomial infection transmission. To this end, cloth towels soaked in disinfectants are commonly used to clean and disinfect hospital surfaces. Cloth cleaning towels have been linked to an outbreak of Bacillus cereus and have been shown to reduce the effectiveness of commonly used quaternary ammonium disinfectants. Thus, it is important to determine whether the reuse of cloth towels increases the risk of pathogen transmission in hospitals.

METHODS

The goal of this project was to determine the effects of laundry and cleaning practices commonly used in hospitals for washing, storage, and disinfection of cloth cleaning towels on their microbial loads.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that cloth towels used for cleaning hospital rooms contained high numbers of microbial contaminants.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case, hospital laundering practices appear insufficient to remove microbial contaminants and may even add contaminants to the towels. Furthermore, it has been previously reported that towels can interfere with the action of common hospital disinfectants. Either independently or in combination, these 2 factors may increase the risk for transmission of pathogens in hospitals. These observations indicate the need to critically reevaluate current hospital cleaning practices associated with reuse of cloth towels.

Antimicrobial efficacy of a novel eucalyptus oil, chlorhexidine digluconate and isopropyl alcohol biocide formulation

Effective surface disinfection is a fundamental infection control strategy within healthcare. This study assessed the antimicrobial efficacy of novel biocide formulations comprising 5% and 2% eucalyptus oil (EO) combined with 2% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) contained within a wipe. The efficacy of this novel antimicrobial formulation to remove and eliminate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli and Candida albicans from steel surfaces was investigated. Adpression studies of pre-contaminated wipes were also utilised to assess their potential to induce cross-contamination between hard surfaces. Furthermore, the bactericidal nature of the EO-formulation was established in addition to time-kill. The EO-containing formulations demonstrated bactericidal antimicrobial efficacy against all microorganisms and did not induce surface cross-contamination. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) between the 5% and 2% EO formulations in their ability to remove microorganisms from steel surfaces, however both significantly (p < 0.05) removed more than the control formulations. Microbial biofilms were eliminated within 10 min (p < 0.05) when exposed to the EO formulations. Our novel EO-formulation demonstrated rapid antimicrobial efficacy for potential disinfection and elimination of microbial biofilms from hard surfaces and may therefore be a useful adjunct to current infection control strategies currently employed within healthcare facilities.

Evaluation of the cleaning efficiency of microfibre cloths processed via an ozonated laundry system

The use of microfibre cloths for environmental cleaning has become ubiquitous in healthcare environments. However, there are issues with the re-use of microfibre cloths associated with their sterilisation and continued cleaning performance. Ozone-based laundry systems potentially provide an efficient route for the recycling of microfibre cloths; however it is necessary to demonstrate that this technology does not degrade their cleaning efficiency. The impact of an ozone-based laundry system on the cleaning efficiency of microfibre cloths was evaluated using a simulated wiping protocol. Two different types of microfibre cloth were investigated with no significant difference ( p>0.05) in the cleaning efficiency of either type being found over one, 150 and 350 wash cycles. The cleaning performance of ozone treated cloths was also not significantly different from that of conventionally laundered (250 cycles) cloths.

Cleaning and decontamination efficacy of wiping cloths and silver dihydrogen citrate on food contact surfaces

AIMS

  To test the efficacy of four wipe cloth types (cotton bar towel, nonwoven, microfibre and blended cellulose/cotton) with either quaternary ammonia cleaning solution or silver dihydrogen citrate (SDC) in cleaning food contact surfaces.

METHODS

  Swab samples collected from untreated, cloth-treated and cloth disinfectant-treated surfaces were subjected to hygiene monitoring using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence and aerobic total plate counting (TPC) assays.

RESULTS

  Adenosine triphosphate measurements taken after wiping the surfaces showed poor cleaning by nonwoven cloths (2·89 RLU 100 cm(-2) ) than the microfibre (2·30 RLU 100 cm(-2) ), cotton terry bar (2·26 RLU 100 cm(-2) ) and blended cellulose/cotton cloth types (2·20 RLU 100 cm(-2) ). The cellulose/cotton cloth showed highest log reduction in ATP-B RLU values (95%) and CFU values (98·03%) when used in combination with SDC disinfectant.

CONCLUSIONS

  Cleaning effect of wiping cloths on food contact surfaces can be enhanced by dipping them in SDC disinfectant. ATP-B measurements can be used for real-time hygiene monitoring in public sector, and testing microbial contamination provides more reliable measure of cleanliness.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY

  Contaminated food contact surfaces need regular hygiene monitoring. This study could help to estimate and establish contamination thresholds for surfaces at public sector facilities and to base the effectiveness of cleaning methods.

Removal and transfer of viruses on food contact surfaces by cleaning cloths

Contamination of food contact surfaces with pathogens is considered an important vehicle for the indirect transmission of food-borne diseases. Five different cleaning cloths were assessed for the ability to remove viruses from food contact surfaces (stainless steel surface and nonporous solid surface) and to transfer viruses back to these surfaces. Cleaning cloths evaluated include two different cellulose/cotton cloths, one microfiber cloth, one nonwoven cloth, and one cotton terry bar towel. Four viral surrogates (murine norovirus [MNV], feline calicivirus [FCV], bacteriophages PRD1 and MS2) were included. Removal of FCV from stainless steel was significantly greater (P ≤ 0.05) than that from nonporous solid surface, and overall removal of MNV from both surfaces was significantly less (P ≤ 0.05) than that of FCV and PRD1. Additionally, the terry towel removed significantly fewer total viruses (P ≤ 0.05) than the microfiber and one of the cotton/cellulose cloths. The cleaning cloth experiments were repeated with human norovirus. For transfer of viruses from cloth to surface, both cellulose/cotton cloths and microfiber transferred an average of 3.4 and 8.5 total PFU, respectively, to both surfaces, and the amounts transferred were significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) from those for the nonwoven cloth and terry towel (309 and 331 total PFU, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in the amount of virus transfer between surfaces. These data indicate that while the cleaning cloths assessed here can remove viruses from surfaces, some cloths may also transfer a significant amount of viruses back to food contact surfaces.

Promises and pitfalls of recent advances in chemical means of preventing the spread of nosocomial infections by environmental surfaces

Hard, nonporous environmental surfaces in health care settings are now receiving due recognition for their role in the spread of several types of nosocomial pathogens. The corresponding increase in the means to decontaminate such surfaces to interrupt the spread of infections is leading to the marketing of a plethora of products and procedures, including the "green" variety, with varying claims of microbicidal activity, human and environmental safety, and materials compatibility. Limitations of the existing methods to assess environmental surface disinfectants and the regulations that govern their premarket registration make objective evaluations difficult. Label claims of many such products also do not reflect the realities of field use along with a strong tendency to focus on the "bug de jour." Furthermore, whereas wiping is often an integral part of environmental surface decontamination, products meant for the purpose are rarely assessed with the physical effect of wiping incorporated. Many "green" products possess neither the spectrum of microbicidal activity nor the speed of action essential for use in health care settings. In general, "self-sanitizing" surfaces being marketed actively these days require greater scrutiny for field-relevant microbicidal activity as well as the potential to enhance microbicide resistance. The widening use of environmental surface disinfectants is also raising concerns on their human and environmental safety at many levels along with the realization that routine surface disinfection procedures in health care settings are frequently inadequate and possibly counterproductive. All this points to an urgent review of the basic procedures for assessing existing and new environmental surface disinfectants for their microbicidal activity, label claims, registration requirements, overall safety, and routine practices of environmental surface decontamination.