INFECTION PREVENTION 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 30 25 20 15 60000 10 40000 50005 00 Room am front am back Control am front am back Treated 4 200002 00 Room am front am back Control Left to right: Fig 1. BSRMA CFU test results: day 1, before the staff arrive. Fig 2. BSRMA CFU test results: day 1, after staff depart. 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 30 25 20 15 10 50005 00 Room am front am back Control am front am back Treated
200000 180000
140000 160000
120000
100000 80000
60000 40000 20000 0
10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8
Room am front am back Control Left to right: Fig 3. BSRMA CFU test results: day 2, before the staff arrive. Fig 4. BSRMA CFU test results: day 2, after staff depart.
be above the safe maximum exposure levels (MELs). This would mean that either significant PPE needed to be worn in the rooms during treatment, or the room would need to be vacated. There is now a method of reducing the concentration to well below safe MELs, whilst maintaining therapeutic value. This is achieved by reducing the concentration of free radicals, then passing it over titanium dioxide in the presence of UVc light. There is some, as yet unpublished evidence, that this technology has the secondary effect of reducing live microbial levels on surfaces.
Technology 2
Photocatalytic solution – Ivisiguard (Orion Eco solutions) This surface treatment uses similar photocatalytic technology to the Aerus product, in that it uses a form of free radical as its active antimicrobial. As a persistent surface treatment, it is applied every six months to clean surfaces, and remains in place until worn away through frictional forces seen in everyday use. Like any persistent antimicrobial technology, the reapplication schedule is based on the perceived levels of use of the surfaces and may change from surface to surface.
At the time of publication, a test is being developed that will show the presence of sufficient antimicrobial to remain therapeutic. With both technologies, routine
standard cleaning is recommended to be continued.
Study methodology
This study is limited to bacterial counts only, no viruses or fungi were able to be counted. Whilst not exact, it is possible to extrapolate the bacterial count results with equivalent increases and decreases of both viral units and fungi.5 Two rooms of equivalent size with similar footfall, sharing the same ventilation system, were selected. One room was used as the control, and a second room was treated with the two new disinfecting technologies already described. The rooms were in use from 8am to 6pm on both study days. The normal surface cleaning regime was continued in both rooms by the same cleaning operatives, using identical disinfecting/decontaminating chemicals and equipment. Environmental samples were taken using sterile Dacron swabs, dampened with Aespetol (New Horizons Diagnostics Baltimore USA). In both rooms, samples
WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM MAY 2024 were taken from an area of 20cm2 on
flat table-top surfaces made of similar materials, allowing for maximum potential to gain a result. Evidence has shown that on surfaces where BSRMA shows live CFU counts are low, culture rarely shows any result.5-7
Samples were tested
using the Profile 1 BSRMA test for live CFU numbers, and also blood agar plate culture for pathogen identification. In both rooms, samples were taken at two sites as far apart as possible. One sample was taken from a tabletop at the front of the room, towards to the wall with the main monitor screen, and the second from a tabletop towards the rear of the room, where drinks and snacks were available. The first samples were taken in both rooms after standard cleaning and before the rooms began their normal daily use at approximately 6.30am. Up to 20 people were in both rooms at any one time, whilst normal office business meetings took place. The second samples of the day were taken at the end of the working day, after the occupants had left and before standard cleaning could take place, at approximately 7pm. In the room with the new disinfecting technologies, the surfaces were treated with Invisiguard by spraying 0.5% solution
29 am front am back Treated am front am back Treated 6
140000 120000
100000 80000 14 12 10 8
CFU
CFU
CFU
CFU
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
