ENVI RONMENTAL DECONTAMINAT ION


Furthermore, another study13 evaluated the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus on stainless steel samples with different surface roughnesses Rq in a range of 217.9–56.6 nm (Ra in a range of 172.5–45.2 nm). It was found that the number of viable cells on the untreated rough surface was at least 10- fold lower than those on the electropolished surfaces after 4 h of incubation time for P. aeruginosa and 15-fold lower for S. aureus. Fluorescence images and scanning electron microscopy images revealed that the bacterial cells tend to adhere individually as single cells on untreated rough surfaces. In contrast, clusters of the bacterial cells (microcolonies) were observed on electropolished smooth surfaces. Their study demonstrated that nanoscale surface roughness can play an important role in restraining bacterial adhesion and formation of microcolonies. Interestingly, on untreated rough surfaces, the bacterial cells were scattered all over in small clumps, whereas on the electropolished smooth surfaces, the bacteria were found to clump in large clusters. Alternatively, a study by Wang and colleagues (2009)14


investigated the effects


of surface roughness on the adherence of E.coli. The study was primarily focused on fruit surfaces but also tested the adherence on metal scrubs (aluminium). They found that E.coli remained on the metal scrub even after sonication treatments. Test results indicated that there was a positive linear correlation between Ra and adhesion rate of E. coli O157:H7. A linear increase of residual bacteria population with increased surface roughness of aluminium stubs was also observed. The environmental scanning electron microscopy images showed that bacteria tended to attach to or be entrapped in the grooves or cavities of fruits and tested metals, which provided protection to the cells against washing treatments.


Conclusion


As a result of this pandemic, many efforts have been focused on the employment of fast solutions to eradicate COVID-19. The pandemic posed and still poses many risks and challenges for the healthcare sectors globally in terms of supply shortages of PPE, and facilitated environmental transmission as a result of contaminated equipment and surfaces. This caused healthcare sectors to implement more cleaning measures in their infection control programmes which may contribute to change in properties of the treated surfaces and equipment – eventually leading to increased surface roughness and formation of cracks and fractures. It was proved in the literature that increased surface roughness can promote microbial adhesion and biofilm formation. Increased use of cleaners in the COVID-19 era can


cause more damage, if the cleaners are not formulated right or not compatible with the surfaces.


As discussed, surface defects can hide bacteria and viruses making cleaning more difficult, may promote biofilm formation and make UV-C light technologies less effective. Therefore, it is very important for manufacturers of surfaces materials and cleaning products to ensure that the possibilities of increased surface roughness are reduced to a minimum. Hence, surface materials compatibility testing is key to ensure these challenges don’t arise.


10 Edi Medilanski., Karin Kaufmann., Lukas Y Wick., Oskar Wanner & Hauke Harms (2002). Influence of the Surface Topography of Stainless Steel on Bacterial Adhesion. Biofouling, 18:3, 193- 203, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010290011370


11 Cheng Y., Feng G., Moraru. C (2019). Micro- and nanotopography sensitive bacterial attachment mechanisms: a review. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, 191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00191


CSJ


References 1 Toomey, E. C., et al. (2020). Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face- piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review. Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 1–9. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1017/ice.2020.1243


2 Sarkis-Onofre, R., Borges, R., Demarco, G., Dotto, L., Schwendicke, F., & Demarco, F. F. (2020). Decontamination of N95 respirators against SARS- CoV-2: A scoping review. Journal of dentistry, 104, 103534. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103534


3 Russo, R., Levine, C., Grady, C., Peixoto, B., McCormick-Ell, J., Block, T., Gresko, A., Delmas, G., Chitale, P., Frees, A., Ruiz, A., & Alland, D. (2020). Decontaminating N95 respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic: simple and practical approaches to increase decontamination capacity, speed, safety and ease of use. The Journal of hospital infection, 109, 52–57. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhin.2020.12.006


4 Dancer S. J. (2014). Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 27(4), 665–690. https://doi. org/10.1128/CMR.00020-14


5 Bueckert, M., Gupta, R., Gupta, A., Garg, M., & Mazumder, A. (2020). Infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Coronaviruses on Dry Surfaces: Potential for Indirect Transmission. Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 13(22), 5211. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13225211


6 Abreu, A. C., Tavares, R. R., Borges, A., Mergulhão, F., & Simões, M. (2013). Current and emergent strategies for disinfection of hospital environments. The Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 68(12), 2718–2732. https://doi. org/10.1093/jac/dkt281


7 Nakai R. (2020). Size Matters: Ultra- small and Filterable Microorganisms in the Environment. Microbes and Environments, 35(2), ME20025. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME20025


8 Agatia A. (2019). SCRATCHING THE SURFACE: HOW MICROBES ADHERE TO WORKTOPS’ Microbiology society, online available at: Scratching the surface: how microbes adhere to worktops | Microbiology Society


9 Lloyd M (2013). Environmental stress cracking: A review. Polymer Engineering & Science, 53 (3), 0032-3888, https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.23284


60 l WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM


12 Mireles LK., Dayan J., Massicotte R., Dagher F., Yahia L. (2016) Interactions of active compounds of disinfectants on metallic and polymeric hospital surfaces. Clin Med Invest: doi: 10.15761/ CMI.1000109


13 Wu et al. (2018). Role of the surface nanoscale roughness of stainless steel on bacterial adhesion and microcolony formation. ACS Omega, 3(6), 6456-6464. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.8b00769


14 Wang et al. (2009). Effect of Surface Roughness on Retention and Removal of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on Surfaces of Selected Fruits. Food Science.74(1). E8-E15. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00998.x


About the author


Tautvydas Karitonas is a leading expert in harnessing decontamination technology to eliminate viruses, bacteria and other contaminants from hospitals, care homes and public spaces. In his role as head of research and development at Inivos, Tautvydas has led research and development into numerous pioneering solutions for virus outbreaks, including isolation pods, automated hydrogen peroxide vapour (HPV) and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) systems and decontamination wipes. Inivos is a provider of decontamination technology, designed to eliminate viruses, bacteria and other contaminants from hospitals, public spaces and businesses. Since Inivos was founded in 2007, it has worked with hundreds of hospitals around the world to provide technology, training and rapid decontamination services to meet an immediate infection need and eliminate any opportunity for a patient to acquire infection while in hospital.


MAY 2021


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