Comparison of Floor Cleaning and Disinfection Processes in a Research Animal Facility.

IF 1.2 3区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Vittoria M Capria, Max O Fernandez, Mary M Walker, Valerie K Bergdall
{"title":"Comparison of Floor Cleaning and Disinfection Processes in a Research Animal Facility.","authors":"Vittoria M Capria,&nbsp;Max O Fernandez,&nbsp;Mary M Walker,&nbsp;Valerie K Bergdall","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-22-000042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Floor cleaning and disinfection are essential components of maintaining animal health status and meeting regulatory requirements in research vivaria. However, best practices for method, frequency, and evaluation techniques have not been established. Reuse of cotton string mop and bucket systems has been implicated in spreading contamination in the human hospital setting. We evaluated 4 different combinations of disinfectant and mop systems commonly used in rodent vivaria. Eight housing rooms were mopped a total of 4 times using one of the following methods: quaternary ammonium compound (QUAT) and cotton string mop (QC), QUAT and microfiber mop (QM), hydrogen peroxide disinfectant (HPD) and cotton string mop (HC), or HPD and microfiber mop (HM). ATP and RODAC samples of the floor were taken before and after mopping. The time to mop each room, floor drying time, and the amount of disinfectant used were recorded. The QC method was associated with significantly more bacterial contamination while all other methods significantly reduced bacterial contamination. The QC method performed significantly worse in reducing bacterial contamination as compared with all other methods when cotton mop heads were reused. All methods except QC significantly reduced ATP levels, with the HC and HM methods being significantly more effective at reducing ATP levels than the QC and QM methods. Costs were similar for the QC, QM, and HM methods. The results of this study indicate that reuse of cotton string mop heads with QUAT increases floor contamination while HPD is effective for up to 3 reuses. Single use microfiber mops were effective with both QUAT and HPD but did not result in more effective cleaning or disinfection than cotton string mops.</p>","PeriodicalId":50019,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9732774/pdf/jaalas2022000644.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-22-000042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Floor cleaning and disinfection are essential components of maintaining animal health status and meeting regulatory requirements in research vivaria. However, best practices for method, frequency, and evaluation techniques have not been established. Reuse of cotton string mop and bucket systems has been implicated in spreading contamination in the human hospital setting. We evaluated 4 different combinations of disinfectant and mop systems commonly used in rodent vivaria. Eight housing rooms were mopped a total of 4 times using one of the following methods: quaternary ammonium compound (QUAT) and cotton string mop (QC), QUAT and microfiber mop (QM), hydrogen peroxide disinfectant (HPD) and cotton string mop (HC), or HPD and microfiber mop (HM). ATP and RODAC samples of the floor were taken before and after mopping. The time to mop each room, floor drying time, and the amount of disinfectant used were recorded. The QC method was associated with significantly more bacterial contamination while all other methods significantly reduced bacterial contamination. The QC method performed significantly worse in reducing bacterial contamination as compared with all other methods when cotton mop heads were reused. All methods except QC significantly reduced ATP levels, with the HC and HM methods being significantly more effective at reducing ATP levels than the QC and QM methods. Costs were similar for the QC, QM, and HM methods. The results of this study indicate that reuse of cotton string mop heads with QUAT increases floor contamination while HPD is effective for up to 3 reuses. Single use microfiber mops were effective with both QUAT and HPD but did not result in more effective cleaning or disinfection than cotton string mops.

研究动物设施地板清洁和消毒过程的比较。
地板清洁和消毒是维持动物健康状态和满足实验动物监管要求的重要组成部分。然而,方法、频率和评估技术的最佳实践尚未建立。棉线拖把和水桶系统的重复使用与人类医院环境中的污染传播有关。我们评估了鼠类体内常用的4种消毒剂和拖把系统的不同组合。采用季铵盐(QUAT)和棉绳拖把(QC)、季铵盐和超细纤维拖把(QM)、双氧化氢消毒剂(HPD)和棉绳拖把(HC)或HPD和超细纤维拖把(HM)中的一种方法,共拖地4次。在拖地前后分别对地板进行ATP和RODAC的检测。记录每个房间的拖地时间、地板干燥时间和消毒剂使用量。质量控制方法与明显更多的细菌污染相关,而所有其他方法显著减少细菌污染。当棉拖把头重复使用时,与所有其他方法相比,QC方法在减少细菌污染方面表现明显较差。除QC外,所有方法均能显著降低ATP水平,HC和HM方法在降低ATP水平方面明显优于QC和QM方法。质量控制、质量管理和HM方法的成本相似。本研究结果表明,使用QUAT重复使用棉绳拖把头会增加地板污染,而HPD最多可重复使用3次。一次性使用的超细纤维拖把对QUAT和HPD都有效,但并不比棉线拖把更有效地清洁或消毒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
35.30%
发文量
122
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (JAALAS) serves as an official communication vehicle for the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). The journal includes a section of refereed articles and a section of AALAS association news. All signed articles, including refereed articles and book reviews, editorials, committee reports, and news and commentary, reflect the individual views of the authors and are not official views of AALAS. The mission of the refereed section of the journal is to disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed information on animal biology, technology, facility operations, management, and compliance as relevant to the AALAS membership. JAALAS accepts research reports (data-based) or scholarly reports (literature-based), with the caveat that all articles, including solicited manuscripts, must include appropriate references and must undergo peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信