Time to up the anti


Anti-bacterial cleaners are not a panacea for infection and contamination, says James White of Denis Rawlins Ltd. Disinfecting dirt is compromising cleanliness and driving bacterial resistance.


We are all health-conscious and much more hygienic in our habits these days. Trust the marketers, they know us best. More and more products, from tissues to kitchen surface cleaners, come with that reassuring flash on the packaging – ‘anti-bacterial’.


Now, when it comes to bacteria, I can honestly say that few companies in the industry can be more ‘anti’ than us. We were before it was fashionable: Denis Rawlins has for years been championing a science-based approach and using ATP meters to test the true effectiveness of cleaning.


While disinfectants and other anti-bacterial products are now widely used – from our homes to offices and restaurants – in the healthcare profession, the stakes are far higher.


Vulnerable patients are exposed not only to contagious diseases and infections in the wards around them, but also to the annual round of norovirus outbreaks and the persistent presence of MRSA and other superbugs.


But even in the healthcare sector there is a misplaced trust in disinfectants as the primary defence against the spread of infections and pathogens.


We see this, especially in toilet areas and washrooms. The mop and bucket, spreading diluted disinfectant – along with soils from the contaminated solution and floors – is still widely used.


Worse, there’s a problem even in operating theatres. A colleague who has carried out ATP testing in hospitals – not only in the UK – recorded high readings in theatres on three continents. The marker for microbial and other living cells never measured less than 2,500. Yet in the USA, where he works, schools are closed if ATP levels reach 1,000.


The main reasons for these poor levels of hygiene in the UK and elsewhere are this out-dated reliance on mopping – or other ineffective methods for cleaning – and blind faith in disinfectants.


We don’t deny that cleaning surfaces with disinfectants – whether by mopping, spraying, wiping or even fogging – kills bacteria. But disinfectants do not sanitise, at least not for long. These cleaning methods disinfect dirt, but do not


24 | REGULAR


remove the soils thoroughly. Dead bacteria are left behind as a ready-meal for the next wave of microbes. Given this smorgasbord, they can feed and more easily multiply.


There’s another problem, particularly pertinent to healthcare, but now looming larger everywhere with the proliferation of anti-bacterials.


The claim on the label that the product eliminates 99.999% of bacteria may well be true. On a surface with a million microbes, which is not unusual, that would mean only 10 survive, assuming correct dilution and application. That is considered a ‘safe’ level. But if those bacteria survived because they are immune, or become so after ingesting the remains of the previous wave, they will multiply over time, and the same chemicals will become increasingly ineffective.


Another concern is that some bacteria seem to produce biofilms that can effectively insulate them from the chemical cleaning agent. E. coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter are among those that may defy disinfectants in this way.


It’s a grisly analogy, but I think a justifiable one: after the tsunami of 2004, or indeed any natural disaster even in the most under-developed countries, the authorities and the locals understand the importance of removing bodies, as they are a potential source of infection. Similarly, in our hospitals and clinics we have strict regulations for the controlled removal of clinical waste. Yet, there is as yet no equivalent regime to ensure that cleaning soils are removed and surface swabs are tested with ATP meters to ensure that cleaning has been effective.


The important takeaway is just that – to take away the soils from cleaning, preferably by wet suction. But even squeegee blades have been shown to remove cleaning liquids more effectively than cloths, leaving far lower levels of bacterial contamination. Now that is truly anti-bacterial action.


www.rawlins.co.uk twitter.com/TomoCleaning


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