CLEANING DEBUNKING HYGIENE MYTHS
If you think hygienic cleanliness depends on disinfectants, deep cleans and bigger budgets, then think again, says James White, Managing Director of Denis Rawlins Ltd.
Awareness of the need for hygienic cleaning has never been higher. Many organisations have suffered the effects of infectious viral outbreaks and food poisoning. Employers are also more alert to the risk inadequate cleaning poses to the wellbeing of their staff.
Unfortunately, understanding of how to deliver hygienically clean surfaces lags some way behind. Many cleaning managers think the solution is more disinfectant – backed up with a regular deep clean (when yet more chemicals, and even fogging agents, may be deployed).
This approach betrays a fundamental misunderstanding not only of cleaning science, but also service and cost management.
The soils that sustain microbes are constantly being deposited on floors as particles of food, bio-waste in toilets, and flakes of dead skin. Cleaning floors with disinfectants kills bacteria, but it does not remove them.
Instead the dead bacteria provide a ready-meal smorgasbord to nurture the next wave of microbes. Given this food source, they can more easily multiply. This is all the more likely, given something else of which we are all too aware – growing bacterial resistance.
Any time a chemical is used to kill microbes, there’s a risk of promoting resistance, because even if the
sanitiser is thoroughly applied, some can be expected to survive. If those microbes are immune, they will proliferate and disinfectants become less effective. Also, scientists have found that certain bacteria – such as E coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter – can produce biofilms that help them avoid contact with the cleaning solution.
“ANY TIME A CHEMICAL IS USED TO KILL
MICROBES, THERE IS A RISK OF PROMOTING RESISTANCE.”
As a company committed to science-based cleaning, we researched the market and identified some effective methods.
It is now easy to test scientifically before and after cleaning, using a hand-held ATP monitor that measures the level of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) – the universal marker for animal, bacterial and mould cells.
This shows – if any evidence is needed – that mopping is ineffective and spreads contamination. Capturing and removing soils in the used water solution is crucial, whether by using a squeegee or preferably, wet vacuuming.
Yet mopping remains the most widely used cleaning method even in one of the most challenging arenas – toilets and washrooms. A variety of risks converge here – from bio-hazardous waste, pathogens left on floors by shoes, germs from users feeling ill, and multiple touch-points that may harbour microbes.
Mopping around obstacles, washing or scrubbing toilet bowls by hand, and wiping down surfaces is difficult and distasteful work. It’s also less hygienic than the ‘No Touch Cleaning’ system developed by Kaivac in the US. This enables the cleaner to spray a dilute solution and rinse with water at high pressure, removing the dirt and contaminants by wet vacuuming.
Comparative testing shows this is between 40 and 60 times more effective at eliminating bacteria than traditional / microfibre mopping. What’s more, this is achieved in between one third and half the time. So savings in cleaning team costs can quickly pay back the investment in the equipment.
Similar levels of hygiene and efficiency can be achieved on any floors, not just wet rooms, with variants of this cleaning technology, so we need to raise awareness that daily, cost-effective cleaning is the key to safeguarding health – not disinfectants and deep cleans.
www.rawlins.co.uk
20 | TOMORROW’S FM
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
