Andersen B M, Rasch M, Kvist J, Tollefsen T, Lukkassen R, Sandvik L, Welo A
Department of Hospital Infections, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
J Hosp Infect. 2009 Jan;71(1):57-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.09.014. Epub 2008 Nov 17.
Routine surface cleaning is recommended to control the spread of pathogens in hospital environments. In Norway, ordinary cleaning of patient rooms is traditionally performed with soap and water. In this study, four floor-mopping methods--dry, spray, moist and wet mopping--were compared by two systems using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence (Hygiena and Biotrace). These systems assess residual organic soil on surfaces. The floor-mopping methods were also assessed by microbiological samples from the floor and air, before and after cleaning. All methods reduced organic material on the floors but wet and moist mopping seemed to be the most effective (P < 0.001, P < 0.011, respectively, ATP Hygiena). The two ATP methods were easy to use, although each had their own reading scales. Cleaning reduced organic material to 5-36% of the level present before cleaning, depending upon mopping method. All four mopping methods reduced bacteria on the floor from about 60-100 to 30-60 colony-forming units (cfu)/20cm2 floor. Wet, moist and dry mopping seemed to be more effective in reducing bacteria on the floor, than the spray mopping (P=0.007, P=0.002 and P=0.011, respectively). The burden of bacteria in air increased for all methods just after mopping. The overall best cleaning methods seemed to be moist and wet mopping.
建议进行常规的表面清洁，以控制医院环境中病原体的传播。在挪威，传统上使用肥皂和水对病房进行常规清洁。在本研究中，使用两种三磷酸腺苷（ATP）生物发光系统（Hygiena和Biotrace）比较了四种拖地方法——干拖、喷雾拖、湿拖和潮拖。这些系统用于评估表面上残留的有机污垢。还通过清洁前后从地面和空气中采集的微生物样本对拖地方法进行了评估。所有方法都减少了地面上的有机物质，但湿拖和潮拖似乎是最有效的（分别为P < 0.001，P < 0.011，ATP Hygiena）。这两种ATP方法使用简便，尽管各有自己的读数刻度。根据拖地方法的不同，清洁后有机物质减少到清洁前水平的5%-36%。所有四种拖地方法都使地面上的细菌数量从约60-100个菌落形成单位（cfu）/20平方厘米减少到30-60个cfu/20平方厘米。湿拖、潮拖和干拖在减少地面细菌方面似乎比喷雾拖更有效（分别为P = 0.007，P = 0.002和P = 0.011）。拖地后所有方法使空气中的细菌数量都有所增加。总体而言，最佳的清洁方法似乎是潮拖和湿拖。
