Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2019), 40, 254–266 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.318
Letter to the Editor
Use of a stop valve to enhance disinfectant exposure may improve sink drain disinfection
Jennifer L. Cadnum BS1, Scott H. Livingston BS1,2, Scott A. Gestrich MD1, Annette L. Jencson BS, CIC1, Brigid M. Wilson PhD3 and Curtis J. Donskey MD2,3
1Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 2Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland, Ohio and 3Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
To the Editor—Sinks in healthcare facilities are a potential reservoir for dissemination of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli and Candida spp.1,2 Unfortunately, sink drainage systems provide a favorable environment for pathogen colonization and biofilm formation, but they are not amenable to cleaning and disinfection.3 Pouring disinfectants into sink drains has been reported to be beneficial, but reductions in sink colonization have often been limited or transient.4 We hypothesized that disinfectants poured into drains might have limited efficacy in part because they flow rapidly down the drain, providing inadequate contact time and poor penetration into many of the areas harboring micro- organisms. Thus, we conducted a pilot study to test the hypothesis that approaches that allow instillation of disinfectant throughout the proximal drainage system for a prolonged period would improve the efficacy of liquid disinfectants. In initial experiments, we installed a stop valve immediately
distal to the P trap in a research laboratory sink known to be colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Closure of the valve resulted in stoppage of flow; opening the valve allowed liquids to flow normally.We tested the impact of 3 interventions: (1) pouring 500mL of 5% acetic acid down the drain over 1 minute; (2) pouring 500mL of a 1 to 10 dilution of household bleach down the drain over 1 minute; and (3) pouring 500mL of a 1 to 10 dilution of household bleach down the drain over 1 minute with the stop valve closed allowing complete filling of the drainage system from the valve to just above the strainer for 1 hour followed by opening of the valve and flushing with water for 30 seconds. To assess the impact of the interventions, quantitative cultures for gram-negative bacilli were collected from the proximal sink drain to depth of 2.5 cm below the strainer before treatment and intermittently for 15 days post treat- ment. The experiment was repeated twice for each intervention. A second set of experiments was conducted in 4 patient rooms
with sink colonization by gram-negative bacilli. Among the 4 sinks, 2 were treated by pouring 500mL of disinfectant down the drain and the other 2 were treated by instillation of the disinfectant for 1 hour. The experimental methods were as described previously with the following exceptions: (1) the valve was placed proximal to the P trap approximately 15cm below the strainer; (2) the disinfectant
Author for correspondence: Curtis J. Donskey MD, Geriatric Research, Education,
and Clinical Center 1110W, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, 10701 East Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44106. E-mail:
Curtis.Donskey@
va.gov
Cite this article: Cadnum JL, et al. (2019). Use of a stop valve to enhance disinfectant
exposure may improve sink drain disinfection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 254–256. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.318
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
used was a commercial improved hydrogen peroxide product; and (3) the sinks were operated by patients and staff as needed. The experiment was repeated twice; sinks treated with one method during the first run were treated with the opposite method during the second run. For both sets of experiments, an ordinary least-squares regression model was used to compare treatment groups. As shown in Fig. 1(A), pouring bleach or acetic acid into the
laboratory sink resulted in only transient suppression of proximal drain colonization, whereas instillation of bleach for 1 hour resulted in suppression at this site for several days (P<.001). The organisms recovered throughout the experiment were identified as P. aeruginosa. As shown in Fig. 1(B), pouring the improved hydrogen per-
oxide disinfectant into the patient room sinks resulted in only transient suppression of proximal drain colonization, whereas instillation proximal to the P trap for 1 hour reduced gram- negative bacilli concentrations in the section below the strainer for several days (P<.001). After 1 hour of disinfectant instillation, numerous visible pieces of organic and inorganic material were released from the sides of the drain pipes, and swabs used to sample the sink drain were visibly cleaner than baseline swabs (Fig. 1(C)). Our results demonstrate that pouring disinfectants down
drains has only a transient impact on the microbial load just below the strainer. In contrast, use of a valve to allow instillation of disinfectant throughout the proximal drainage system with a 1-hour dwell time resulted in reduced proximal sink drain colo- nization for several days. This effect was probably observed due to increased disinfectant contact time and enhanced penetration into some of the areas harboring microorganisms. These findings are clinically relevant because the proximal sink drain is the primary site of dispersal from colonized sinks.5 Moreover, the fact that colonization of the drain was reduced for several days suggests that intermittent rather than daily application of the disinfection process might be effective in reducing the risk for dispersal. Our study has some limitations. The study was a small proof- of-concept study that will require validation in larger studies. However, some previous studies have suggested that similar approaches can be effective in reducing sink contamination.6,7 For example, Klick et al6 reported that daily filling of sinks fitted with drain cutoff valves with 5% phenol solution in conjunction with heating was effective in reducing colonization with Pseudomonas spp. We did not demonstrate that the reduction in proximal sink drain colonization resulted in reduced dispersal of organisms during operation of the sinks. Finally, installing valves in sink
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
