Geraldine M Tembo, Daniel A Fajardo, Gurpreet K Chaggar, Kelly Rainey, Siddharth Kumar, Leslie Santos, Kazi A Ahmed, Peter J Teska, Haley F Oliver
{"title":"金黄色葡萄球菌污染表面不同消毒剂化学成分及使用方法的评价。","authors":"Geraldine M Tembo, Daniel A Fajardo, Gurpreet K Chaggar, Kelly Rainey, Siddharth Kumar, Leslie Santos, Kazi A Ahmed, Peter J Teska, Haley F Oliver","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.08.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transmission of health care-acquired infections from pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus is still a concern in hospital environments. Proper cleaning and disinfection application methods are essential to mitigate the spread of pathogens. We hypothesized there would be significant differences in hygiene outcomes of the products, application methods, and wiping cloths.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Efficacies of 7 products were compared and tested against S. aureus American Type Culture Collection 6538 on a 2-square-meter Formica surface. Four application methods (cloth and bucket, prewet, spray surface and wipe with cloth, and spray cloth and wipe surface) were used with 3 wiping cloths to evaluate differences in hygiene outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hydrogen peroxide--based product was most efficacious against S. aureus compared with other products. There were significant differences in application methods and wiping cloths used in the study. Regardless of product, application method, and cloth used, there was evidence of cross-contamination to previously sterile surfaces, wiping cloths, and gloves, especially when nonantimicrobials were used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, most antimicrobials had higher bactericidal efficacy compared with nonantimicrobials. Desirable hygiene outcomes were achieved when the spray surface and wipe with cloth method, microfiber, and nonwoven cloth were used in the study. However, all cloths retained viable bacteria, posing a risk of cross-contamination.</p>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of different disinfectant chemistries and application methods on surfaces contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus.\",\"authors\":\"Geraldine M Tembo, Daniel A Fajardo, Gurpreet K Chaggar, Kelly Rainey, Siddharth Kumar, Leslie Santos, Kazi A Ahmed, Peter J Teska, Haley F Oliver\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.08.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transmission of health care-acquired infections from pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus is still a concern in hospital environments. Proper cleaning and disinfection application methods are essential to mitigate the spread of pathogens. We hypothesized there would be significant differences in hygiene outcomes of the products, application methods, and wiping cloths.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Efficacies of 7 products were compared and tested against S. aureus American Type Culture Collection 6538 on a 2-square-meter Formica surface. Four application methods (cloth and bucket, prewet, spray surface and wipe with cloth, and spray cloth and wipe surface) were used with 3 wiping cloths to evaluate differences in hygiene outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hydrogen peroxide--based product was most efficacious against S. aureus compared with other products. There were significant differences in application methods and wiping cloths used in the study. Regardless of product, application method, and cloth used, there was evidence of cross-contamination to previously sterile surfaces, wiping cloths, and gloves, especially when nonantimicrobials were used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, most antimicrobials had higher bactericidal efficacy compared with nonantimicrobials. Desirable hygiene outcomes were achieved when the spray surface and wipe with cloth method, microfiber, and nonwoven cloth were used in the study. However, all cloths retained viable bacteria, posing a risk of cross-contamination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of infection control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.08.029\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.08.029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of different disinfectant chemistries and application methods on surfaces contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus.
Background: Transmission of health care-acquired infections from pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus is still a concern in hospital environments. Proper cleaning and disinfection application methods are essential to mitigate the spread of pathogens. We hypothesized there would be significant differences in hygiene outcomes of the products, application methods, and wiping cloths.
Methods: Efficacies of 7 products were compared and tested against S. aureus American Type Culture Collection 6538 on a 2-square-meter Formica surface. Four application methods (cloth and bucket, prewet, spray surface and wipe with cloth, and spray cloth and wipe surface) were used with 3 wiping cloths to evaluate differences in hygiene outcomes.
Results: Hydrogen peroxide--based product was most efficacious against S. aureus compared with other products. There were significant differences in application methods and wiping cloths used in the study. Regardless of product, application method, and cloth used, there was evidence of cross-contamination to previously sterile surfaces, wiping cloths, and gloves, especially when nonantimicrobials were used.
Conclusions: Overall, most antimicrobials had higher bactericidal efficacy compared with nonantimicrobials. Desirable hygiene outcomes were achieved when the spray surface and wipe with cloth method, microfiber, and nonwoven cloth were used in the study. However, all cloths retained viable bacteria, posing a risk of cross-contamination.
期刊介绍:
AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)