Next Article in Journal
The Self-Management Experiences of Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Descriptive Phenomenology Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving the Reprocessing Quality of Flexible Thermolabile Endoscopes: How to Learn from Mistakes
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Exercises and Chair Massage on Musculoskeletal Pain of Young Musicians
Previous Article in Special Issue
Methods of Disinfecting Stethoscopes: Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph17145131
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

No-Touch Automated Disinfection System for Decontamination of Surfaces in Hospitals

by
Patryk Tarka
* and
Aneta Nitsch-Osuch
Department of Social Medicine and Public Health, Medical University of Warsaw, Oczki 3, 02-007 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(14), 5131; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145131
Submission received: 18 May 2020 / Revised: 13 July 2020 / Accepted: 14 July 2020 / Published: 16 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hospital Outdoor and Indoor Environmental Impact: Control Measures)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) remain a common problem, which suggests that standard decontamination procedures are insufficient. Thus, new methods of decontamination are needed in hospitals. Methods: We assessed the effectiveness of a no-touch automated disinfection (NTD) system in the decontamination of 50 surfaces in 10 hospital rooms. Contamination of surfaces was assessed with a microbiological assay and an ATP bioluminescence assay. Unacceptable contamination was defined as > 100 colony forming units/100 cm2 in the microbiological assay, and as ≥ 250 relative light units in the ATP assay. Results: When measured with the microbiological assay, 11 of 50 surfaces had unacceptable contamination before NTD, and none of the surfaces had unacceptable contamination after NTD (p < 0.001). On the ATP bioluminescence assay, NTD decreased the number of surfaces with unacceptable contamination from 28 to 13, but this effect was non-significant (p = 0.176). On the microbiological assay taken before NTD, the greatest contamination exceeded the acceptable level by more than 11-fold (lamp holder, 1150 CFU/100 cm2). On the ATP bioluminescence assay taken before NTD, the greatest contamination exceeded the acceptable level by more than 43-fold (Ambu bag, 10,874 RLU). Conclusion: NTD effectively reduced microbiological contamination in all hospital rooms. However, when measured with the ATP bioluminescence assay, the reduction of contamination was not significant.

1. Introduction

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a serious healthcare problem, with about 2 million cases diagnosed every year both in the USA and the European Union [1,2,3]. In the USA alone, about $28–45 billion are spent every year to treat patients with HAIs [4].
Pathogens causing HAIs can survive for weeks or months on non-disinfected surfaces, such as bed rails, medical equipment, phones, keyboards, and patients’ files [5,6,7,8,9]. These pathogens are often multidrug-resistant, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa, vancomycin-resistant E. faecium, and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-resistant K. pneumoniae [10,11]. It seems that using standard cleaning products and complying with prevention practices, such as proper hand hygiene, are not sufficient to stop HAIs [12]. Therefore, additional methods of decontamination are needed in hospitals.
No-touch automated disinfection (NTD) is a promising approach to reduce HAIs. NTD systems are based on vaporised hydrogen peroxide (VHP), hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV), chlorine dioxide, gaseous ozone, dry mist of hydrogen peroxide (DMHP), or aerosolised hydrogen peroxide (aHP), often complemented with silver cations, aerosolised peracetic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds, high-intensity narrow-spectrum (405 nm) light, and pulsed-xenon UV (PX-UV) radiation [13,14,15]. Among the currently available systems, ultraviolet light devices PX-UV and ultraviolet light-C allow to achieve a log10 reduction in pathogen content of 2–4, aHP systems of ≤ 4, whereas a log10 reduction greater than six is reported for vapor chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide-based VHP, HPV, and dual peroxone systems [16,17,18]. Chemical NTDs are presented in Figure 1. From all NTD systems, technologies based on advanced oxidation processes are of particular interest. Hydrogen peroxide is a potent oxidant, demonstrating stronger biocidal activity in the form of vapor than in aerosol [15]. In advanced oxidation technologies, hydrogen peroxide is combined with ozone to create peroxone—a highly potent oxidative compound [19].
Data on the performance of peroxone-based NTD systems in hospital settings are limited. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of an NTD system in decontamination of critical surfaces in different hospital rooms using two methods: classical microbiological assay—demanding time to obtain results of bacteria growth—and fast ATP bioluminescence assay.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample Collection

This study was conducted in an oncological hospital in Poland. Contamination of five different surfaces in 10 hospital rooms (see Table 1) was measured before and after NTD with an ATP bioluminescence assay and a microbiological assay. The samples for both assays were collected on different days in September 2019.
According to the manufacturer’s instructions, before NTD, all hospital rooms were cleaned and disinfected with two types of cleaning solution: 55% ethanol + quaternary ammonium propionate—for small surfaces (holders, tables, medical equipment, etc.), and N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodécylopropane-1,3-diamine + dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride—for large surfaces (floors). The samples were collected up to 15 min after the initial cleaning.
For NTD, we used the system which sprays a peroxone vapor, a combination of hydrogen peroxide and ozone, to decontaminate all surfaces.
The duration of decontamination was one hour each time. The decontamination cycle consisted of the following phases: hydrogen peroxide phase, ozone phase—in which peroxone was formed, and one-hour contact phase. Next, the rooms were aerated for another hour.
Technical properties of NTD system used in the study were as follows:
  • Disinfectant compound usage: 8 mL/m3
  • Particle size generated by the device: 5–8 µm (dry mist)
  • Hydrogen peroxide concentration: 7.5%
  • Maximum ozone concentration: 3 ppm
  • Contact time—1 h.
  • Aerating time—1 h.
NTD system user guidelines strictly prohibit human attendance during the procedure. In our study, according to the guidelines, during NTD procedure the rooms were empty. The staff was allowed to enter the rooms after 2 h, when hydrogen peroxide concentration reached levels below 1 ppm. The samples were taken immediately after the aeration (i.e., 2 h after peroxone was formed).

2.2. ATP Bioluminescence Assays

ATP bioluminescence assays show general organic contamination such as bacteria, food, or human secretions and excretions [20]. These assays are based on the chemiluminescence properties of a luciferin-luciferase reagent, which emits light in the presence of ATP [21]. We used 3M Clean-Trace ATP Surface Test swabs (3M Company, St. Paul, MN, USA) to sample surfaces, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. All surfaces were swabbed for 30 s, and the swabs were returned to the swab device. The ATP tests were read immediately or within 1 h of collection. The samples were analysed with a 3M Clean-Trace NGi Luminometer (3M Company, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the results were reported in relative light units (RLU). In a hospital setting, RLU > 250 is considered as unacceptable contamination [22].

2.3. Microbiological Assay

Due to the fact that most of the surfaces assessed in our study were not flat, we decided to use 3M™ Petrifilm™ plates (London, ON, Canada) [23]. Each plate (contact surface 20 cm2) contained a build-in grid to facilitate colony counting, water-soluble gelling agent, nutrients, and red dye indicator. The detailed composition of the medium was not provided by the manufacturer. In order to neutralise the disinfectants used during initial cleaning phase, each plate was hydrated with 1 cm3 of sterile disinfectant neutralizer: broth 1000 cm3, Tween 80 30.0 g, soy lecithin 3.0 g, L-histidine 1.0 g, thiosulfate 0.5 g. After the hydration, the plates were left for 1 h in room temperature and the gel was formed.
During the sample collection, the plates were pressed on each surface (500 g/cm2) for 10 s, with no side movements. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h under aerobic conditions. Then, the growth of micro-organisms was measured in colony-forming units (CFU) per 100 cm2 [24]. Values >100 CFU/100 cm2 were regarded as unacceptable contamination.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Values from the two assays were presented for all surfaces before and after NTD. We used the following cut-offs for unaccepted contamination: ≥250 RLU in the ATP assay, and >100 CFU/100 cm2 in the microbiological assay. The McNemar test with continuity correction was used to assess whether NTD decreased the number of surfaces with unacceptable contamination significantly. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the differences in median contamination before and after NTD. p < 0.05 was considered significant. R software (version 3.52, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for all calculations.

3. Results

In total, 50 surfaces from 10 rooms were tested. The results are presented in Figure 2 and Table 1, in which unacceptable contamination is shown in bold.

3.1. Microbiological Assay

Before NTD, unacceptable contamination was detected on 11 of 50 surfaces. Contamination was acceptable on all tested surfaces in the Patient Recovery Room 2, Operating Room 1, and Ward no. 116. The greatest contamination (1150 CFU/100 cm2) was detected on a treatment lamp holder. After NTD, contamination was acceptable on all surfaces in all rooms. The greatest contamination (70 CFU/100 cm2) was detected on the phone in the patient recovery room. NTD decreased significantly the number of surfaces with unacceptable contamination measured with the microbiological assay: from 11/50 to 0/50 (p < 0.001). Similarly, the reduction in median contamination on all surfaces was also significant (p < 0.001, Figure 2A)

3.2. ATP Bioluminescence Assay

Before NTD, unacceptable contamination was detected on 28 of 50 surfaces. None of the rooms had acceptable contamination on all surfaces. The greatest contamination was detected on the phone in Operating Room 4 (2331 RLU), the phone in the Patient Recovery Room 1 (2552 RLU), and the Ambu bag in the Patient Recovery Room 1 (10,874 RLU). After NTD, acceptable contamination on all surfaces was detected in the Endoscopy Unit, Ward no. 116, and in the Patient Recovery Room 2. The greatest contamination was detected on the phone (1178 RLU), bed railing (1119 RLU), and Ambu bag in the Patient Recovery Room 1 (7123 RLU). NTD decreased, non-significantly, the frequency of surfaces with unacceptable contamination measured with the ATP bioluminescence assay: from 28/50 to 13/50 (p = 0.176). However, the reduction in median contamination on all surfaces was significant (p < 0.001, Figure 2B).

4. Discussion

The NTD system used in this study reduced microbiological contamination in different hospital rooms. NTD decreased significantly the number of surfaces with unacceptable contamination measured with the microbiological assay, but not with the ATP bioluminescence assay.
The efficiency of decontamination depended on the given surface. On some surfaces, contamination measured with the ATP assay decreased only slightly after NTD—for example, on an operating lamp holder (379 vs. 371 RLU) or X-ray apparatus keyboard (854 vs. 751 RLU). On other surfaces, such as a remote control, contamination decreased considerably (495 vs. 25 RLU). Such differences may be associated with the type of material of the decontaminated surface. In the study by Eschlbeck et al. [25], it was observed that the rate of decontamination with hydrogen peroxide depended on the hydrophobicity of the material, while its porosity played a minor role. Also, the amount of the agent used in NTD may influence the effectiveness of the process, as shown in the study by Horn and Niemeyer [26], in which better outcomes were achieved by increasing the volume of peracetic acid.
In our study, the number of surfaces with unacceptable microbiological contamination before NTD was much higher when assessed with the ATP bioluminescence assay than the microbiological assay (28 vs. 11 surfaces). The greatest contamination measured with the microbiological assay exceeded the acceptable level by more than 11-fold (treatment lamp holder, 1150 CFU/100 cm2), and, for the ATP bioluminescence assay, by more than 43-fold (Ambu bag, 10,874 RLU). After decontamination with the NTD system, the number of surfaces with unacceptable contamination was still much higher when measured with the ATP bioluminescence assay than with the microbiological assay (13 vs. 0).
Several studies have compared ATP bioluminescence and microbiological assays. In a study evaluating over 80 different surfaces, a microbiological assay showed unacceptable contamination on about 20% of surfaces before cleaning, and on about 6% after cleaning; the respective figures for an ATP assay were considerably higher: 50% and 20%, respectively [27]. In another study assessing the effects of decontamination with vaporised hydrogen peroxide, a standard microbiological assay, but not an ATP bioluminescence assay, showed multiple log-reductions in contamination [28]. Those investigators concluded that the ATP bioluminescence assay should not be an alternative to standard microbiological methods [28]. Our study is in line with these findings. Indeed, in a review by Nante et al. [29], from 14 papers assessing correlation between RLU and aerobic colony counts (ACC), three of the studies showed no correlation, and four of them showed only poor/moderate correlation. However, because different ATP assays with no standardised threshold are available, comparisons between studies are challenging. Of note, a new standard EN 17272:2020 was approved by the Technical Committee 216 of European Committee for Standardisation (CEN/TC 216), describing the methods to determine the disinfectant activity of automated processes for distributing chemicals by air diffusion [30]. The unified standard will provide guidance for future research, making future studies more comparable.
ATP assays are not optimal for estimating of the risk of infection. These assays cannot distinguish between pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria and between live and dead cells. The relationship between the level of residual surface contamination and the risk of infection after conventional disinfection has not been extensively studied. However, multiple studies revealed that subsequent patients occupying the hospital room after infected individuals are at increased risk of infection [31,32,33,34,35]. Probably the conventional methods do not sufficiently prevent from disease transmission. Bshabshe et al. [36] showed that NTD can reduce that risk. In another study, Anesi et al. [37] observed a reduction in Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile rate from 1.73 to 0.93 cases per 1000 patient-days in the 12 months after NTD implementation. Being especially valuable in heavy patient overload, when the risk of disease transmission is high, NTD systems have been recommended in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic management [38].
In assessing the effectiveness of cleaning and decontamination methods, particular consideration should be paid to potential human errors, e.g., improper formulation or contact time of the agent, sensitive area omission, etc. [39]. NTD systems eliminate the impact of the human factor. Our study is in line with other trials [40] confirming that NTD can effectively inactivate pathogenic microorganisms while conventional methods remain insufficient.
The limitations of our study need to be mentioned. First, the sample size, i.e., the number of surfaces and hospital rooms that were evaluated was small. Second, the chemical compounds used in our study before NTD can interfere with ATP-based assays [41]. Also, we did not identify the species present in the examined rooms before and after using NTD system. Qualitative methods of assessment would be particularly valuable in assessing the risk of HAI before and after decontamination, however, quantitative methods seem to support the effectiveness of NTD system as it reduced the contamination levels below standards commonly used in clinical settings.
Finally, in microbiological tests, we used the value >100 CFU/100 cm2 as a threshold of unacceptable contamination, which is not common in other research. Some authors suggest for clinical surface hygiene assessments the same threshold as for the food industry (>250 CFU/100 cm2) [42]. This standard has been implemented in many studies [43,44,45,46]; however, it is not clear if it is adequate for the prevention of disease transmission in healthcare facilities [47]. Hence, we decided to use a stricter standard [24]. According to Carling et al. [48], only surfaces with undetectable levels of biological contamination (0 CFU) achieved after documented cleaning can be considered successfully decontaminated.

5. Conclusions

In summary, our study showed that NTD is a feasible method of decontamination: when added to standard decontamination procedures, it can further decrease the risk of HAIs. It seems that ATP bioluminescence assays with standard cut-off are not valid for assessing the effectiveness of NTD. Further studies are needed to standardise the cut-off values.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.T., A.N.-O.; methodology, P.T.; software, P.T.; validation, P.T.; formal analysis, P.T.; investigation, P.T.; resources, P.T.; data curation, P.T.; writing—original draft preparation, P.T.; writing—review and editing, A.N.-O.; visualisation, P.T.; supervision, A.N.-O.; project administration, P.T.; funding acquisition, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Amity International Company for providing the AirdeconTM 200 instrument for experimentation free of charge.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Klevens, R.M.; Edwards, J.R.; Richards, C.L. Estimating healthcare-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep. 2007, 122, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Anderson, R.N. Deaths: Leading causes for 1999. Natl. Vital. Stat. Rep. 2001, 49, 1–87. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Cassini, A.; Plachouras, D.; Eckmanns, T.; Sin, M.A.; Blank, H.-P.; Ducomble, T.; Haller, S.; Harder, T.; Klingeberg, A.; Sixtensson, M.; et al. Burden of Six Healthcare-Associated Infections on European Population Health: Estimating Incidence-Based Disability-Adjusted Life Years through a Population Prevalence-Based Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, e1002150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Scott, R., II. The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in US Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. In Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Preparedness, Detection, and Control of Infectious Diseases, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Polock, D.A., Stone, P.W., Eds.; Economist: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kramer, A.; Schwebke, I.; Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2006, 6, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Sole, M.L.; Poalillo, F.E.; Byers, J.F.; Ludy, J.E. Bacterial growth in secretions and on suctioning equipment of orally intubated patients: A pilot study. Am. J. Crit. Care 2002, 11, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Catalano, M.; Quelle, L.S.; Jeric, P.E.; Di Martino, A.; Maimone, S.M. Survival of Acinetobacter baumannii on bed rails during an outbreak and during sporadic cases. J. Hosp. Infect. 1999, 42, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Heyba, M.; Ismaiel, M.; Alotaibi, A.; Mahmoud, M.; Baquer, H.; Safar, A.; Al-Sweih, N.; Al-Tailr, A. Microbiological contamination of mobile phones of clinicians in intensive care units and neonatal care units in public hospitals in Kuwait. BMC Infect. Dis. 2015, 15, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Hartmann, B.; Benson, M.; Junger, A.; Quinzio, L.; Rohring, R.; Fengler, B.; Farber, U.W.; Wille, B.; Hempelmann, G. Computer keyboard and mouse as a reservoir of pathogens in an intensive care unit. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2004, 18, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sievert, D.M.; Ricks, P.; Edwards, J.R.; Schneider, A.; Patel, J.; Srinivasan, A.; Kallen, A.; Limbago, B.; Fridkin, S.F. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Team and Participating NHSN Facilities. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: Summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009–2010. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2013, 34, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hidron, A.I.; Edwards, J.R.; Patel, J.; Horan, T.C.; Sievert, D.M.; Pollock, D.A.; Fridkin, S.F. National Healthcare Safety Network Team; Participating National Healthcare Safety Network Facilities. Infections: Annual summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006–2007. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2008, 29, 996–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Wilson, A.P.R.; Smyth, D.; Moore, G.; Singleton, J.; Jackson, R.; Gant, V.; Jeanes, A.; Shaw, S.; James, E.; Cooper, B.; et al. The impact of enhanced cleaning within the intensive care unit on contamination of the near-patient environment with hospital pathogens: A randomized crossover study in critical care units in two hospitals. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 39, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dancer, S.J. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: Focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 665–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Han, J.H.; Sullivan, N.; Leas, B.F.; Pegues, D.A.; Kaczmarek, J.L.; Umscheid, C.A. Cleaning Hospital Room Surfaces to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: A Technical Brief. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 20, 598–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Otter, J.A.; Yezli, S.; Perl, T.M.; Barbut, F.; French, G.L. 17—A guide to no-touch automated room disinfection (NTD) systems. In Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 413–460. [Google Scholar]
  16. Casini, B.; Tuvo, B.; Cristina, M.L.; Spagnolo, A.M.; Totaro, M.; Baggiani, A.; Privitera, G.P. Evaluation of an ultraviolet C (UVC) light-emitting device for disinfection of high touch surfaces in hospital critical areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Elgujja, A.; Altalhi, H.; Ezreqat, S. Review of the efficacy of ultraviolet C for surface decontamination. J. Nat. Sci. Med. 2020, 3, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Otter, J.A.; Yezli, S.; Perl, T.M.; Barbut, F.; French, G.L. The role of “no-touch” automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control. J. Hosp. Infect. 2013, 83, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xu, X.; Goddard, W.A., III. Peroxone chemistry: Formation of H2O3 and ring-(HO2) (HO3) from O3/H2O2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 15308–15312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Moore, G.; Smyth, D.; Singleton, J.; Wilson, P. The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of a modified cleaning program implemented within an intensive care setting. Am. J. Infect. Control 2010, 38, 617–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shama, G.; Malik, D. The uses and abuses of rapid bioluminescence-based ATP assays. Int. J. Hydrogen Environ. Health 2013, 216, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. European Committee for Standardization. CEN/TC 243—Cleanroom Technology. 1993. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/tc/cen/9f58539c-5394-4f44-afe3-8528a2e35e33/cen-tc-243 (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  23. Rawlinson, S.; Ciric, L.; Cloutman-Green, E. How to carry out microbiological sampling of healthcare environment surfaces? A review of current evidence. J. Hosp. Inf. 2019, 103, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Draft European Standard CEN/TC/243/WG2/1993. Available online: https://www.hex-group.eu/en_BE/biocontamination-control/ (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  25. Eschlbeck, E.; Seeburger, C.; Kulozik, U. Spore inactivation on solid surfaces by vaporized hydrogen peroxide—Influence of carrier material surface properties. J. Food. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Horn, H.; Niemeyer, B. Aerosol disinfection of bacterial spores by peracetic acid on antibacterial surfaces and other technical materials. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Huang, Y.S.; Chen, Y.C.; Chen, M.L.; Cheng, A.; Hung, I.C.; Wang, J.T.; Sheng, W.H.; Chang, S.C. Comparing visual inspection, aerobic colony counts, and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay for evaluating surface cleanliness at a medical center. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2015, 43, 882–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Colbert, M.E.; Gibbs, S.G.; Schmid, K.K.; High, R.; Lowe, J.J.; Chaika, O.; Smith, P.W. Evaluation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assay to confirm surface disinfection of biological indicators with vaporised hydrogen peroxide (VHP). Healthc. Infect. 2015, 20, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nante, N.; Ceriale, E.; Messina, G.; Lenzi, D.; Manzi, P. Effectiveness of ATP bioluminescence to assess hospital cleaning: A review. J. Prev. Med. Hyg. 2017, 58, E177–E183. [Google Scholar]
  30. EN 17272:2020. Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Methods of Airborne Room Disinfection by Automated Process —Determination of Bactericidal, Mycobactericidal, Sporicidal, Fungicidal, Yeasticidal, Virucidal and Phagocidal Activities. Available online: https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0::::FSP_LANG_ID,FSP_PROJECT:25,62318&cs=10D54BE215B9679AD9914C42C71BA77CE (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  31. Weber, D.J.; Rutala, W.A.; Miller, M.B.; Huslage, K.; Sickbert-Bennett, E. Role of hospital surfaces in the transmission of emerging health care-associated pathogens: Norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter species. Am. J. Infect. Control 2010, 38, S25–S33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Datta, R.; Platt, R.; Yokoe, D.S.; Huang, S.S. Environmental cleaning intervention and risk of acquiring multidrug-resistant organisms from prior room occupants. Arch. Intern. Med. 2011, 171, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Huang, S.S.; Datta, R.; Platt, R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1945–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Drees, M.; Snydman, D.; Schmid, C. Prior environmental contamination increases the risk of acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nseir, S.; Blazejewski, C.; Lubret, R.; Wallet, F.; Courcol, R.; Durocher, A. Risk of acquiring multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli from prior room occupants in the ICU. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 17, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bshabshe, A.A.; Joseph, M.R.P.; Assiri, A.; Omer, H.A.; Hamid, M.E. A multimodality approach to decreasing ICU infections by hydrogen peroxide, silver cations, and compartmentalization. J. Infect. Public Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Anesi, A.; Rognoni, V.; Accetta, R.; Ferrari, M. Impact of hydrogen peroxide and silver cations dry-mist disinfection on the reduction of hospital acquired Clostridium difficile infections. In Proceedings of the 28th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Madrid, Spain, 21–24 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fudan Zhongshan. Guidance of COVID-19 Prevention and Control. Available online: https://www.tencent.com/en-us/responsibility/combat-covid-19-hospital-guidance.html (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  39. Carling, P.C.; Von Beheren, S.; Kim, P.; Woods, C. Healthcare Environmental Hygiene Study Group. Intensive care unit environmental cleaning: An evaluation in sixteen hospitals using a novel assessment tool. J. Hosp. Infect. 2008, 68, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chiguer, M.; Maleb, A.; Amrani, R.; Abda, N.; Alami, Z. Assessment of surface cleaning and disinfection in neonatal intensive care unit. Heliyon 2019, 5, E2966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Brown, E.; Eder, A.R.; Thompson, K.M. Do surface and cleaning chemistries interfere with ATP measurement systems for monitoring patient room hygiene? J. Hosp. Infect. 2010, 74, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Dancer, S.J. How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J. Hosp. Infect. 2004, 56, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lewis, T.; Griffith, C.; Gallo, M.; Weinbren, M. A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces. J. Hosp. Infect. 2008, 69, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mulvey, D.; Redding, P.; Robertson, C.; Woodall, C.; Kingsmore, P.; Bedwell, D.; Dancer, S.J. Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. J. Hosp. Infect. 2011, 77, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Smith, P.W.; Sayles, H.; Hewlett, A.; Cavalieri, R.J.; Gibbs, S.G.; Rupp, M.E. A study of three methods for assessment of hospital environmental cleaning. Healthc. Infect. 2013, 18, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ho, Y.H.; Wang, L.S.; Jiang, H.L.; Chang, C.H.; Hsieh, C.J.; Chang, D.C.; Tu, H.Y.; Chiu, T.Y.; Chao, H.J.; Tseng, C.C. Use of a Sampling Area-Adjusted Adenosine Triphosphate Bioluminescence Assay Based on Digital Image Quantification to Assess the Cleanliness of Hospital Surfaces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 2016, 13, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Griffith, C.J.; Obee, P.; Cooper, R.A.; Burton, N.F.; Lewis, M. The effectiveness of existing and modified cleaning regimens in a Welsh hospital. J. Hosp. Infect. 2007, 66, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Carling, P.C.; Perkins, J.; Ferguson, J.; Thomasser, A. Evaluating a New Paradigm for Comparing Surface Disinfection in Clinical Practice. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 1349–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 17 05131 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical no-touch room disinfection systems.
Figure 1. Chemical no-touch room disinfection systems.
Ijerph 17 05131 g001
Ijerph 17 05131 g002 550
Figure 2. Contamination before and after no-touch disinfection (NTD) in the microbiological (A) and ATP bioluminescence (B) assays. Middle bars show median; upper and lower bars show interquartile range.
Figure 2. Contamination before and after no-touch disinfection (NTD) in the microbiological (A) and ATP bioluminescence (B) assays. Middle bars show median; upper and lower bars show interquartile range.
Ijerph 17 05131 g002
Table
Table 1. Surface contamination before and after no-touch disinfection in different hospital rooms.
Table 1. Surface contamination before and after no-touch disinfection in different hospital rooms.
Microbiological Assay
(CFU/100 cm2)		ATP Bioluminescence Assay
(RLU)
RoomSurfaceBefore NTDAfter NTDBefore NTDAfter NTD
Operating Room 4Operating lamp holder150379371
Upper surface of operating table5017285
Anaesthetic machine (table)45015978
Mayo table0017264
Phone56002331599
Treatment Room in Ward ITreatment lamp holder115001119508
Upper surface of mattress105155103
Treatment table1500840120
Sink15017622
Locker holder under sink 5058787
Patient Recovery Room 1Phone5607025521178
Bed remote control100668229
Bed railing215019051119
Ambu bag4001010,8747123
Sink10025332
Endoscopy Unit: automatic disinfector roomSink007024
Locker holder400035664
Remote control of disinfector0074651
Inside of automatic disinfector 0014419
Tap above sink100320161
Endoscopy Unit: examination roomVideo track endoscopy keyboard3050656156
Blood pressure cuff4001308270
Anaesthesiological table9007457
Storage355436171
Anaesthesiological table handle72520488170
Operating Room 1Upper surface of operating table0017587
Operating lamp holder007550
Computer mouse25151230514
X-ray apparatus keyboard3515854751
Ambu bag0011688
Operating Room 2Infusion pump remote control panel00918450
Ambu bag13501349437
Anaesthesiological table0014882
Blood pressure cuff20012134
Operating table remote control panel00583430
Ward no. 116Calling staff pilot108050
Mattress205291153
Toilet flush button003817
Bedside table1005235127
Bed railing300232215
Patient Recovery Room 2Infusion pump control panel00160120
Sink0028680
Bedside table00495118
Cardiomonitor screen00284250
Handle locker0017334
Treatment Room Ward IBed remote control5049525
Sink1003620
ECG apparatus keyboard150151905661
Treatment lamp holder15013441
Upper surface of mattress100019959
Notes: unacceptable contamination is shown in bold.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tarka, P.; Nitsch-Osuch, A. No-Touch Automated Disinfection System for Decontamination of Surfaces in Hospitals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145131

AMA Style

Tarka P, Nitsch-Osuch A. No-Touch Automated Disinfection System for Decontamination of Surfaces in Hospitals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(14):5131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145131

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tarka, Patryk, and Aneta Nitsch-Osuch. 2020. "No-Touch Automated Disinfection System for Decontamination of Surfaces in Hospitals" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145131

APA Style

Tarka, P., & Nitsch-Osuch, A. (2020). No-Touch Automated Disinfection System for Decontamination of Surfaces in Hospitals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145131

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop