Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Gibson, Kristen E.; Crandall, Philip G.; Ricke, Steven C.

doi:10.1128/aem.00027-12

Cited by 46 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies published in 2012 found that norovirus (human and MNV1 strains) could be substantially reduced on hard surfaces after wiping from one to six times using a range of inocula and material wipes (121,149). This supports the increasingly popular premise that physical removal could challenge routine use of disinfectants for controlling surface microbes (163,164) (Fig.…”

Section: Benefits Of Physically Removing Soilmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Poor choice of cleaning methods or products or inadequate maintenance of equipment will result in environmental contamination of the very surfaces that need attention. There are numerous examples of cleaning cloths, including those made of microfiber, that merely distribute organisms across surfaces instead of removing them (26,120,142,(147)(148)(149). Enterococci, including VRE, seem to be particularly difficult to eliminate from contaminated cloths (51,147,148).…”

Section: Contamination Of Cleaning Equipment and Liquidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Controlling Hospital-Acquired Infection: Focus on the Role of the Environment and New Technologies for Decontamination

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY There is increasing interest in the role of cleaning for managing hospital-acquired infections (HAI). Pathogens such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), multiresistant Gram-negative bacilli, norovirus, and Clostridium difficile persist in the health care environment for days. Both detergent- and disinfectant-based cleaning can help control these pathogens, although difficulties with measuring cleanliness have compromised the quality of published evidence. Traditional cleaning methods are notoriously inefficient for decontamination, and new approaches have been proposed, including disinfectants, steam, automated dispersal systems, and antimicrobial surfaces. These methods are difficult to evaluate for cost-effectiveness because environmental data are not usually modeled against patient outcome. Recent studies have reported the value of physically removing soil using detergent, compared with more expensive (and toxic) disinfectants. Simple cleaning methods should be evaluated against nonmanual disinfection using standardized sampling and surveillance. Given worldwide concern over escalating antimicrobial resistance, it is clear that more studies on health care decontamination are required. Cleaning schedules should be adapted to reflect clinical risk, location, type of site, and hand touch frequency and should be evaluated for cost versus benefit for both routine and outbreak situations. Forthcoming evidence on the role of antimicrobial surfaces could supplement infection prevention strategies for health care environments, including those targeting multidrug-resistant pathogens.

show abstract

Section: Benefits Of Physically Removing Soilmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Contamination Of Cleaning Equipment and Liquidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling Hospital-Acquired Infection: Focus on the Role of the Environment and New Technologies for Decontamination

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are increasing reports that suggest physical, rather than biocidal, removal of bioburden is key to the cleaning process [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. This is not necessarily due to the fact that surface soil is known to impede microbiocidal activity of a disinfectant [59].…”

Section: The Wiping Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dos and don’ts for hospital cleaning

Dancer

2016

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review More evidence is emerging on the role of cleaning and decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection. Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefits for patients. This article considers studies published from 2013 examining hospital decontamination technologies and evidence for cost-effectiveness. Recent findings Novel biocides and cleaning products, antimicrobial coatings, monitoring practices and automated equipment are widely accessible. They do not necessarily remove all environmental pathogens, however, and most have yet to be comprehensively assessed against patient outcome. Some studies are confounded by concurrent infection control and/or antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Few contain data on costs. Summary As automated dirt removal is assumed to be superior to human effort, there is a danger that traditional cleaning methods are devalued or ignored. Fear of infection encourages use of powerful disinfectants for eliminating real or imagined pathogens in hospitals without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Furthermore, efficacy of these agents is compromised without prior removal of organic soil. Microbiocidal activity should be compared and contrasted against physical removal of soil in standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments.

show abstract

“…For influenza virus, chlorine, but also other cleaning agents such as vinegar and quaternary ammonium, is an effective disinfectant (5,29,30). Not only the disinfectant used but also the wiping cloth affects decontamination efficacies and cross-contamination by wiping (33)(34)(35). Gibson et al (34) showed the effect of the type of cloth on the removal of hNoV surrogates from surfaces and their transfer to surfaces, and especially, the transfer to surfaces by wiping with contaminated wipes was greatly affected by the type of cloth, with cotton terry bar towels cross-contaminating surfaces to the greatest extent and microfiber cloth to the least.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wipes Coated with a Singlet-Oxygen-Producing Photosensitizer Are Effective against Human Influenza Virus but Not against Norovirus

Verhaelen

Bouwknegt

Rutjes

et al. 2014

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bTransmission 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-log 10 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.

show abstract

Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Cited by 46 publications

References 51 publications

Controlling Hospital-Acquired Infection: Focus on the Role of the Environment and New Technologies for Decontamination

Controlling Hospital-Acquired Infection: Focus on the Role of the Environment and New Technologies for Decontamination

Dos and don’ts for hospital cleaning

Wipes Coated with a Singlet-Oxygen-Producing Photosensitizer Are Effective against Human Influenza Virus but Not against Norovirus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About