Dunowska Magdalena, Morley Paul S, Patterson Gage, Hyatt Doreene R, Van Metre David C
Animal Population Health Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 Jun 15;228(12):1935-9. doi: 10.2460/javma.228.12.1935.
OBJECTIVE-To compare the efficacy of a peroxygenbased disinfectant used in footbaths with the efficacy of the same disinfectant used in footmats for reducing bacterial contamination of footwear in a large animal hospital. DESIGN-Prospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION-Bacteria recovered from the soles of rubber boots after experimental microbial contamination and exposure to disinfectant solutions or water (water-treated control boots) or no treatment (untreated control boots). PROCEDURES-Investigators contaminated boots by walking through soiled animal bedding. Swab samples were collected from the sole of 1 untreated boot (right or left); the other boot was treated as investigators stepped through a disinfectant-filled footbath, a disinfectant-filled footmat, or water-filled footmat. Samples were collected 10 minutes after each treatment. Differences in numbers of bacteria recovered from treated and untreated boots were analyzed. RESULTS-Mean bacterial counts from peroxygentreated boots were 1.3 to 1.4 log(10) lower (95.4% to 99.8%) than the counts from untreated boots. Results were similar for footmat- and footbath-treated boots. In contrast, there were no statistically detectable differences in mean bacterial counts in samples collected from water-treated or untreated boots. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE-Results suggest that footmats and footbaths containing peroxygenbased disinfectant are effective in reducing bacterial contamination on the soles of boots when used in conditions representative of large animal hospitals. Similar results were achieved with use of either footmats or footbaths. The use of footbaths and footmats containing effective disinfectants may help decrease the risk for spread of nosocomial infection but should not be expected to sterilize footwear.
目的——比较在大型动物医院中，用于足浴盆的过氧消毒剂与用于脚垫的同一种消毒剂在减少鞋类细菌污染方面的效果。设计——前瞻性研究。样本群体——实验性微生物污染后，从橡胶靴鞋底回收的细菌，以及暴露于消毒剂溶液或水（水处理对照靴）或未处理（未处理对照靴）的情况。程序——研究人员通过走过弄脏的动物垫料来污染靴子。从1只未处理靴子（右或左）的鞋底采集拭子样本；当研究人员走过装满消毒剂的足浴盆、装满消毒剂的脚垫或装满水的脚垫时，另一只靴子进行相应处理。每次处理后10分钟采集样本。分析处理过和未处理过的靴子回收的细菌数量差异。结果——过氧处理的靴子的平均细菌计数比未处理的靴子低1.3至1.4个对数（10）（95.4%至99.8%）。脚垫和足浴盆处理的靴子结果相似。相比之下，从水处理或未处理的靴子采集的样本中，平均细菌计数在统计学上没有可检测到的差异。结论及临床意义——结果表明，在代表大型动物医院的条件下使用时，含有过氧消毒剂的脚垫和足浴盆可有效减少靴底的细菌污染。使用脚垫或足浴盆都能取得类似结果。使用含有有效消毒剂的足浴盆和脚垫可能有助于降低医院感染传播的风险，但不应期望对鞋类进行消毒。
