Executive Housekeeping Today - October 2008 - (Page 13)

The question under consideration is: “Does the process of spraying, agitating, and then vacuuming a solution from a contaminated restroom floor have better potential to reduce exposure to specific human pathogens than does the traditional method of mop and bucket?” Based on my survey of medical literature and scientific “common sense,” I believe this question can be strongly answered affirmatively. It is obvious to anyone trained in medical microbiology that a cleaning method that simultaneously removes pathogenic organisms, while at the same time removing their food source, is much more likely to succeed at preventing disease transmission than is the mop and bucket method that simply spreads pathogens around the floor in a rich nutrient broth of contaminated bucket water. The traditional cleaning method essentially turns a restroom floor into a very large culture plate, supplying ample water and nutrition to disease-causing organisms that can rapidly proliferate. As the number of organisms rises exponentially, the probability that an infective load will be transferred to a person’s skin by a single contact likewise rises because infections generally require a threshold number of organisms to be exceeded before disease results. The sprayand-vac method has the ability to prevent such conditions required t Is a Spray-and-Vac System Really Better at Cleaning and Reducing the Risk of Disease? by Paul S. Darby, MD, PhD, MPH, CIME, FACOEM for bacterial prolifThe spray-and-vac method has the ability eration and disease to prevent conditions required for bacterial transmission. proliferation and disease transmission. The medical literature supports the contention that traditional clean- Clearly a method that physically ing methods may actually increase removes spores from the environthe risk of disease. From Germany ment is preferred over one that came a study in 2004 of household causes them to proliferate. cleaning and surface disinfection methods. A test organism, Staphy- References and lococcus aureus, was found to be Additional Information disseminated from contaminated 1. J Hosp Infect. 2004 Apr;56 flooring to clean flooring by the Suppl 2:S70-5. Household cleansweep of a mop when water was ing and surface disinfection: new used, but also when traditional insights and strategies. Exner M, cleaning solutions were used Vacata V, Hornei B, Dietlein E, such as surfactants (detergents) Gebel J. Institute of Hygiene and and disinfectants (glycol deriva- Public Health, University of Bonn, tives, quaternary ammonium Bonn, Germany. martin.exner@ compounds, alklyamines). In light ukb.uni-bonn.de. of the huge recent increase in Recently, new insights into the methicillin-resistant Staphyloc- persistence of pathogens, their cus aureus (MRSA) infections in transfer from inanimate surfaces hospitals and in the community at to humans and the risk of conlarge, one has to ponder whether tamination and dissemination of traditional cleaning methods are pathogens by detergents have been part of the equation. There has gained. Furthermore, new experialso been a rise in the number mental data on the interruption of of potentially-lethal infections of chains of infection by disinfectants, the human intestine caused by as well as results of outbreakClostridium difficile, a bacterium control studies are now available. which reproduces through the for- Hence, it has become necessary mation of long-lasting spores that to reassess the potential benefits can persist in the environment using disinfectants to prevent for years and are not affected by and control nosocomial infections. typical cleaners. In fact, a British Based on the new findings and in study reported in 2006 found that view of the increasing incidence the use of non-bleach cleaners of nosocomial infections and anactually caused the organism to tibiotic resistances, the German thrive and produce more spores! (continued on page 18) October 2008/Executive Housekeeping Today 3

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Executive Housekeeping Today - October 2008

Executive Housekeeping Today - October 2008� Contents Executive Corner An Easier, Greener, and Healthier Approach to Floor Care Caring for Carpets in 24-Hour Facilities Frugal Housekeeper Case Study: University of Miami My Experiences with High-Speed Machines vs. Spray Buffers Vacuum Floor Care Q&A with Andre Motta Is a Spray-and-Vac System Really Better at Cleaning and Reducing the Risk of Disease? CEU Article The IEHA/CRI Partnership The Green Scene USGBC Green Tip What's in YOUR Janitor Closet? Inside the Industry Product Highlights New Members Joint IEHA/ISSA Members REH/CEH Members Advertisers' Index Calendar of Events Inside IEHA What IEHA Has Done for Me

Executive Housekeeping Today - October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.