Survival of wound pathogens under different environmental conditions

Pettit, Felicity; Lowbury, E. J. L.

doi:10.1017/s0022172400041267

Cited by 43 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From four tested cultures, P. aeruginosa appeared to be the most sensitive to desiccation, which is consistent with previously published data (Skaliy and Eagon 1972;Pettit and Lowbury 1968;Favero 2004). We observed no reliable variance in each microorganism's recovery from different materials and no significant difference in recovery of microorganisms (with the exception of B. subtilis) inoculated on the same material.…”

Section: Figure 51 Recovery Of Air-dried Microorganisms From Differsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The number of microorganisms that can be recovered depends on the type of microorganism (i.e., the microorganisms' resistance to air drying), environmental conditions, and the specifics of material to which is the microorganism is applied, among other factors (Pettit and Lowbury 1968;Otter and French 2009) The materials provided by MAMC for the PAEROSOL efficacy evaluation varied significantly. Non-porous floor tile with no pattern and lightly patterned non-porous countertop laminate were materials that were easy to cut, but their surface was hard to moisten uniformly with the microorganism suspension.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Microorganisms' Recovery From Contaminated Matermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, they desiccate and gradually die in environmental conditions when "artificially" inoculated on inanimate surfaces (Donlan and Costertan 2002;Anderl et al 2000). Different strains of the same microorganism withstand desiccation differently in the environment (Pettit and Lowbury 1968). Table 5.1 demonstrate the cumulative results of the recovery of four microorganisms from the coupons of four materials.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Microorganisms' Recovery From Contaminated Matermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Rainina¹,

McCune²,

Luna³

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryA recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report estimated that annually 1.7 million patients acquire an infection while in a hospital (known as healthcare-associated infections, or HAIs), and the annual medical costs of healthcare associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals are estimated to be between $5 billion and $11 billion. In other words, the patients contracted the infection while in the hospital, and the infection was not a result of their medical condition when admitted to the hospital. It is estimated that about 90,000 individuals die every year from HAIs. The list of HAIs is extensive; some are relatively easy to treat and some, like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are life-threatening to both patients and staff. At least one third of HAIs are considered preventable and can be directly related to a standard of practice in infection control cleaning techniques. Although important in reducing surface contamination, manual cleaning methods have limited efficacy in reducing the bioburden on the surfaces beyond "high touch" areas, and they are completely ineffective in disinfecting airborne pathogens disseminated via aerosols in healthcare environments. Therefore new, more effective methods are needed to enhance the decontamination of various hospital facilities where diseases can rapidly and easily spread.Alternative disinfection technologies such as gaseous decontaminations are being marketed to the healthcare sector. Gaseous decontamination offers a complementary technology to manual cleaning that increases the probability of an effective reduction in pathogens by providing a comparatively uniform distribution of disinfectant in an entire confined environment. Three commercially available gaseous decontamination technologies have been extensively examined and reported as effective in reducing HAIs: gaseous hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and ozone. While there is a role to play for these new technologies in the decontamination of healthcare settings, the requirement for both a thorough preclean of surfaces and safety measures to ensure no gases and vapors penetrate beyond the space being decontaminated calls into question the safety and cost-effectiveness of these methods in healthcare facilities.The goal of this study was to validate the previously observed high biological kill performance of the PAEROSOL decontamination technology against common HAIs in a non-human subject trial within a hospital setting of Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) on Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington. PAEROSOL-a semi-dry micro-aerosol atomized from a 0.5-0.25% aqueous solution of table salt that has been electrochemically activated-was previously shown to be non-toxic, environmentally safe, and requiring no precautions for its application. As compared to gaseous hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and ozone, PAEROSOL application requires neither thorough pre-cleaning of the surfaces, nor special safety measures. In addition to validating the disinfecting efficacy...

show abstract

Section: Figure 51 Recovery Of Air-dried Microorganisms From Differsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Efficacy Of Microorganisms' Recovery From Contaminated Matermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Efficacy Of Microorganisms' Recovery From Contaminated Matermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Rainina¹,

McCune²,

Luna³

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown previously that Gram-positive organisms survive longer than Gram-negative on drying (Pettit & Lowbury, 1968), but little is known of the comparative ability of Gram-negative organisms to survive drying. The isolation of gentamicin-resistant klebsiellae from dry surfaces agrees with the report by Cook et al (1979) who found klebsiellae on 12 of 129 dry surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in skin and environmental survival of hospital gentamicin-resistant enterobacteria

Gibson

Buckles

1981

J. Hyg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYDuring a period when 245 patients were infected by or harboured gentamicinresistant enterobacteria, random sampling showed hand carriage in 33 % of affected patients but in only 5 % of attendant staff. Only klebsiellae were isolated from the latter. Recovery was commoner from the hands of bed-ridden patients or faecal carriers and significantly more frequent for klebsiellae (37 %) and enterobacter (33 %) than citrobacter (5-6 %) and E. coli (5-0 %). Similarly, survival on forearms of volunteers was much longer for klebsiellae and enterobacter than for citrobacter or E. coli (means respectively were 70, 45, 10 and 13 min), and on dry surfaces (means respectively were 28, 26, 3 and 7 h). Klebsiellae were isolated from 17 of the 56 dry environmental surfaces sampled. The presence of plasmid resistance determinants had no effect on survival times, either on the skin or following drying onto formica surfaces. On dry surfaces 9-5 % of E. coli but only 1-3 % of klebsiellae lost resistance to gentamicin. These findings accord well with recent experience in which gentamicin-resistant klebsiellae have been involved to a much greater extent than other resistant enterobacteria in hospital infection.

show abstract

“…Our frequent changing and autoclaving of connector-tubing prevents multiplication of Gram-negative bacilli, since moisture does not accumulate and dry conditions are unfavourable to these bacteria (Lowbury & Fox, 1953;Pettit & Lowbury, 1968). There is then insufficient accumulation of bacteria in the tubing to make contamination of the ventilator likely.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of cross-infection in an intensive care unit

Harris¹,

Orwin²,

Colquhoun³

et al. 1969

J. Hyg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIn a survey undertaken in an intensive care unit, coliform bacilli were found to be responsible for most infections,Pseudomonas aeruginosaand Staphylococcus aureus being isolated much less frequently. Tracheostomy or endotracheal intubation predisposed to infection, but in our experience intermittent positive pressure ventilation did not significantly affect its incidence. Little cross-infection has occurred, and it has never been possible to incriminate the ventilators in its transmission.We gratefully acknowledge the assistance we have received from colleagues in the Intensive Therapy Unit and the Department of Bacteriology during the course of this investigation.

show abstract

Survival of wound pathogens under different environmental conditions

Cited by 43 publications

References 9 publications

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Variation in skin and environmental survival of hospital gentamicin-resistant enterobacteria

Control of cross-infection in an intensive care unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About