Show your support of CIRI with the 'CIRI Supporter' logo, available for display on your Web site upon joining CIRI.
Join today and help CIRI advance the cause of cleaner, more productive, and healthier indoor environments through scientific research!
Mops and Buckets Spread Germs
"Bucket solutions become contaminated almost immediately during cleaning, and continued use of the solution transfers increasing numbers of microorganisms to each subsequent surface to be cleaned.
"...Another source of contamination in the cleaning process is the cleaning cloth or mop head, especially if left soaking in dirty cleaning solutions."
CDC
By Hasan Aycicek, Utku Oguz and Koray Karci
Comparison of results of ATP bioluminescence and traditional hygiene swabbing methods for the determination of surface cleanliness at a hospital kitchen.
Abstract
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence and traditional microbiological swabbing culture methods were used for detection of surface hygiene on worktops, cutting boards and equipment at a hospital kitchen. A total of 280 surface samples were collected from the kitchen. The agreement between the two methods (coefficient of Kappa) was statistically significant (corrected χ2=30.886; κ=0.249; p<0.001). Consequently, the ATP monitoring method provides results rapidly with improved benefits in the control of surface contamination and application of corrective action against poor hygiene. However, it is not a substitute for culturing methods; the combination of both methods was emphasized for surface hygiene monitoring. The results indicate that, for food safety and public health, the hygienic status of the surfaces in the kitchen should be improved and food handlers should be trained well on hygiene.
Hasan Aycicek , Utku Oguz and Koray Karci
Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, 06018-Etlik-Ankara, Turkey
Received 29 October 2004; revised 5 September 2005; accepted 22 September 2005. Available online 2 November 2005.
The full article was published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health.
The Cleaning Industry Research Institute (CIRI) is a 501.c.3 not-for-profit scientific, educational and research organization that applies science to the practice and improvement of cleaning and maintenance.
This abstract/brief is presented under the recognized "fair use" doctrine with respect to article copyright and intellectual property. Readers are encouraged to secure the full article from the originating publication source. Articles also may be obtained through a librarian, an information specialist or inter-library loan. In cases where payment is required under copyright it can be processed through a reference library or the Copyright Clearance Center at www.copyright.com.
CIRI provides no warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no legal liability for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information disclosed on its site. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of CIRI principals, executives, science advisors or affiliates.
Popular Topics: Swine Flu | H1N1 | MRSA | Staph | Norovirus | Flu | E. Coli | C. Difficile | Salmonella | Green Cleaning | Cleaning for Health | Nosocomial Infections | Disinfection | Bacteria | Viruses | Indoor Air Quality | Asthma | Allergies | Allergen | Mold
This site donated by:
Comment by Lynn Krafft on April 24th, 2010 at 7:11pm
Using any disinfectant as a wipe rather than allowing the 10 minutes of dwell time recommended by most manufacturers will result in a reduced kill whether properly diluted or not. This seems to be what happened here.
The flushing action of the spray and vac machine was effective because it actually removed the microorganisms along with whatever soils were present, leaving a hygienically clean surface.
The real life problem is that not all rest rooms are constructed in such a manner that a spray device is usable without water damage to porous surfaces. They should be, but they are too often not. Even so, it would appear that a careful use of a spray and vac unit would be worthwhile simply from the standpoint that no chemicals are used, moving costs and human exposure down. That is a positive.
Comment by Allen Rathey on April 24th, 2010 at 3:50pm
Rex - This article written by Scott Spencer of the University of Washington (UW) may be helpful.
Spray-and-Vac Testing at UW
If there is any upside to managing a custodial department during a downside economy, it may be the way it forces innovation in the form of increasingly creative solutions to solve severe budgetary problems. More and more custodial managers have discovered already the successful strategy of reducing cleaning chemical inventories to an absolute minimum. This can cut costs while still contributing positively to one's sustainability efforts. As an additional benefit, it may also allow for maintaining or improving cleanliness levels through simplification and standardization.
But what about taking the next, seemingly unthinkable step, of removing chemicals from the cleaning equation? This would obviously reduce the number and amount of cleaning chemicals introduced into the environment. But would effective cleaning still occur?
A recent comparative beta test conducted at the University of Washington suggests that, at least for certain applications, cleaning without chemicals may be as good if not better than cleaning with them.
The Testing
First, an experienced worker cleaned and wiped off faucets, sinks, and counters with traditional tools. She did not take time to replace paper products or empty the trash. She disinfected toilets with a correctly diluted EPA-registered product, and mopped floors with a correctly diluted EPA-registered product and a microfiber wet mop. Performing at a normal pace, she cleaned two restrooms, one men's room and one women's room located on the second and third floors of the Health Sciences Building.
In contrast, a manufacturer's representative used a 12 gal. spray-and-vac machine filled with water but no chemicals to clean an identical men's and women's room on the same two floors as the first subject. He pressure-washed vertical and horizontal surfaces, wiped down fixtures, squeegeed counter tops, and squeegeed-vacuumed the floor. He did not replace paper products, or empty trash.
Both subjects started at the same time, with carts or machines already stocked or plugged in and located at the front of the restrooms being cleaned. This seemed practical because custodians are encouraged to set up carts and machinery at the end of a shift in preparation for work to be performed the following day. The time required to prepare carts or machines varies; most Custodial Managers reported carts required 5 minutes for preparation, a restroom machine 5 to 10 minutes.
Spaces Tested
Before and after cleaning, the tester sampled the same spaces in the comparable restrooms of each subject. He took 4" by 4" swab samples of sink counter tops and floor tile in the main walkway a yard from the room entrance, and floor tile two feet in front of the toilet in the first stall from the room entrance. The tester ran the swab approximately 4-6 seconds each time before placing the swab in an ATP measuring device.
How It Works
ATP is a chemical produced only in living cells and is found in both living and once-living cells. ATP measured from restroom surfaces may contain skin as well as other human cells and residue besides microbial cells. Since ATP is found in organic material, generally large amounts of ATP detected strongly suggests an unclean surface.
ATP is measured in a luminometer (light meter) after the sample is mixed with an enzyme reagent, to provide a light reading. The larger the reading (or light created), the greater amount of ATP in the sample, and the greater amount of organic material on the surface tested. Low readings are desired.
Promising Results
Spraying, agitating, and vacuuming restroom surfaces produced on average an 89% reduction in ATP in two restrooms tested, while the "microfiber-traditional" method produced a 56% reduction. This means that in the rooms tested, machine cleaning produced 58% better results than microfiber-traditional cleaning. In both cases where the machine was utilized, the ATP reading decreased to below 30, which is considered sanitary. In fact, in two test sites the count dropped to zero.
In addition, the restroom machine reduced cleaning time on the average by 92 seconds (7:25 vs 8:57 minutes). But this difference is negligible if set up times are considered, since some custodial managers reported experiencing up to 5 minutes more being required to set up a restroom-cleaning machine as opposed to preparing a custodial cart.
Explaining the Results
At first glance, plain water does not seem like a likely candidate for achieving particularly clean surfaces. But plain water may still act as a reasonable solvent for some types of soil. In fact, we know from high school biology courses that water is referred to as the universal solvent because it can dissolve both acids and bases of many types. This is why it is so important to the chemical reactions of life. However, agitation presents a special advantage in the cleaning process. Pressurized plain water agitates soil, as does the motion of a squeegee. Both steps seem to be more effective in cleaning than initially realized--at least in loosening and suspending soil. But immediate vacuuming of soil on the surfaces sampled in this study may represent the essential step in achieving favorable cleaning results. Dissolved soil held in solution cannot resettle on surfaces if it is vacuumed immediately after agitation.
Summary
While the benefits of EPA-registered disinfectants and other proven modalities such as microfiber cannot be dismissed, this test suggests the viability of a unique non-chemical intervention for reducing organic deposits that foster microbial growth. It appears that following one easy-to learn, step-by-step process, even with an exclusion of chemicals, presents a potentially effective way to clean restroom surfaces.
Comment by Rex Morrison on April 23rd, 2010 at 2:43pm
I am going to be testing a restroom at a high school using an ATP device next week. Got any advice as to how I should start? I want to test the old fashioned method of hand cleaning and cotton mopping for two weeks. I will then use the same testing method but will be using the Kaivac cleaning system. I will be using the Science Dept. to do the testing. How would you go about it? Thanks Rex Morrison
Comment by Lynn Krafft on April 16th, 2010 at 9:38am
Another study indicating the deficiencies in our normal hygienic cleaning practices in health-related areas. Both testing methods (ATP and swabbing) show that we don't do well with surface hygiene, even where it is essential to our well-being.
Yet, we seem to live on. Some because they avoid these environs and some because they have solid immune systems.
Live and learn...if you live long enough to do so. Since some of the basic principles of hygiene have been known for hundreds of years, the prospect of our learning doesn't look all that good, does it?