Evaluation of a Disinfectant Wipe Intervention on Fomite-to-Finger Microbial Transfer

Abstract

bInanimate surfaces, or fomites, can serve as routes of transmission of enteric and respiratory pathogens. No previous studies have evaluated the impact of surface disinfection on the level of pathogen transfer from fomites to fingers. Thus, the present study investigated the change in microbial transfer from contaminated fomites to fingers following disinfecting wipe use. Escherichia coli (10 8 to 10 9 CFU/ml), Staphylococcus aureus (10 9 CFU/ml), Bacillus thuringiensis spores (10 7 to 10 8 CFU/ml), and poliovirus 1 (10 8 PFU/ml) were seeded on ceramic tile, laminate, and granite in 10-l drops and allowed to dry for 30 min at a relative humidity of 15 to 32%. The seeded fomites were treated with a disinfectant wipe and allowed to dry for an additional 10 min. Fomite-to-finger transfer trials were conducted to measure concentrations of transferred microorganisms on the fingers after the disinfectant wipe intervention. The mean log 10 reduction of the test microorganisms on fomites by the disinfectant wipe treatment varied from 1.9 to 5.0, depending on the microorganism and the fomite. Microbial transfer from disinfectant-wipetreated fomites was lower (up to <0.1% on average) than from nontreated surfaces (up to 36.3% on average, reported in our previous study) for all types of microorganisms and fomites. This is the first study quantifying microbial transfer from contaminated fomites to fingers after the use of disinfectant wipe intervention. The data generated in the present study can be used in quantitative microbial risk assessment models to predict the effect of disinfectant wipes in reducing microbial exposure. Inanimate objects and surfaces (fomites) are known to be a reservoir for the transmission of pathogens in the environment directly, by surface contact with the mouth or abraded skin, or indirectly by contamination of fingers and subsequent hand-to-mouth, hand-toeye, or hand-to-nose contact (1, 2). Previous laboratory studies have modeled food preparation in domestic kitchens to better understand cross-contamination of food-borne pathogens (3, 4). The occurrence and spread of pathogens throughout the home and health care settings have also been studied to better understand the role of fomites in pathogen exposure and acquired infections (5-11). The potential for pathogen transfer from contaminated fomites to fingers is a concern in health care environments; particularly those in close proximity to the patient that are frequently touched (12-25). Health care-acquired infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, and Clostridium difficile are associated with high morbidity and mortality (18,20,22,(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). Most nosocomial and foodborne pathogens can persist on fomites for weeks or even months (18,19,31,32) and on fingers for up to several hours (33-35). Pathogen presence and survival on fomites in domestic homes, public places, hospitals, and other health care facilities are important factors in evaluating potential health risks t...

Surface touch and its network growth in a graduate student office

“…We assumed that some surfaces were contaminated at 9 am , that a surface was potentially contaminated if it was touched by a contaminated hand, and that a hand also potentially became contaminated if it touched a contaminated surface. The virus quantity on each surface could be calculated by combining our data with the transfer rates between hands and different types of surfaces . Seed contaminated surfaces are therefore important.…”

Pathogen transfer and high variability in pathogen removal by detergent wipes

“…Although this is not the first study to demonstrate the transfer of microbes to clean surfaces by wipes, 10,11,13,14,16 it is the first instance where the transfer of microorganisms onto multiple surfaces has been quantified in this way and the percentage transfer estimated. The potential repeated seeding of health care environments by wipes is of concern and raises questions as to how best to use wipes in practice; should a 1 wipe, 1 surface, 1 direction approach be universally and strictly implemented as already recommended?…”

“…4 In view of the findings from our study, additional complementary ways to decrease surface microburden should be explored, including the use of combined detergent-disinfectant wipes and antimicrobial surfaces. 10,11,13,14,16 The latter is showing promising results in reducing microorganisms from environmental surfaces in health care settings. 30 …”

“…There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the importance of environment contamination in the transmission of clinically relevant pathogens. 5,6 Although multiple studies have investigated the efficacy of microfiber cloths [7][8][9] and antimicrobial wipes, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] to the best of our knowledge no study has yet investigated the efficacy of detergent wipes. Although it has been suggested that a 1 wipe, 1 surface, 1 direction approach be implemented, in practice a wipe (detergent-or disinfectant-based) is likely to be used on multiple surfaces.…”

The healthy workplace project: Reduced viral exposure in an office setting

“…10 Once deposited onto surfaces, they may persist for hours to months and spread to other individuals via contact with contaminated surfaces and infection sites (i.e., nose, mouth, or eyes). 11–13 …”