Disinfection Testing Unit, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.
Disinfection Testing Unit, School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Sep;106(1):189-195. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.06.031. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
The ability of healthcare-associated infection pathogens to survive on environmental surfaces is well known. Disinfection is employed to reduce or remove these pathogens but disinfection failures still occur. One method with the potential to improve disinfection efficacy is whole-room disinfection with hydrogen peroxide (HO).
To determine the influence of delivery system on the efficacy of low-concentration HO on common healthcare-associated infection pathogens.
SanoStatic (electrostatic spray) was compared with SanoFog (fogging) in terms of performance for delivery of 5% HO and trace silver ions for disinfection. The bacterial test challenges were vancomycin-resistant Enterobacterales (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBLK), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Clostridium difficile spores, Bacillus atropheus and Geobacillus stearothermophilus commercial spore strips.
SanoFog and SanoStatic were effective when tested under the conditions of experimentation reported here. For VRE, ESBLK, CPE and MRSA, SanoFog and SanoStatic were comparable in performance. For C. difficile we concluded the following: SanoFog was most effective for disinfection of C. difficile spores when compared to SanoStatic.
Whereas SanoFog and SanoStatic were effective against bacterial cells, the current practice of using SanoFog and SanoStatic together would be effective for disinfection of C. difficile spores based on investigations under the conditions of experimentation reported here. The spore strips results were not comparable to the results either for the vegetation cells (VRE, ESBLK, CPE, and MRSA) or for C. difficile spores.
众所周知,医疗相关感染病原体在环境表面存活的能力很强。消毒是用来减少或去除这些病原体的,但消毒失败仍时有发生。一种有可能提高消毒效果的方法是使用过氧化氢(HO)对整个房间进行消毒。
确定输送系统对低浓度 HO 对常见医疗相关感染病原体的杀菌效果的影响。
桑诺静态(静电喷雾)与桑诺雾(雾化)在输送 5% HO 和痕量银离子进行消毒的性能方面进行了比较。细菌测试挑战是耐万古霉素肠杆菌科(VRE)、产超广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)的肺炎克雷伯菌(ESBLK)、产碳青霉烯酶肠杆菌科(CPE)、耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)、艰难梭菌孢子、枯草芽孢杆菌和嗜热脂肪芽孢杆菌商业孢子带。
在本文报道的实验条件下,桑诺雾和桑诺静态都很有效。对于 VRE、ESBLK、CPE 和 MRSA,桑诺雾和桑诺静态的性能相当。对于艰难梭菌,我们得出以下结论:与桑诺静态相比,桑诺雾在消毒艰难梭菌孢子方面最有效。
虽然桑诺雾和桑诺静态对细菌细胞有效,但根据本文报道的实验条件下的研究,目前同时使用桑诺雾和桑诺静态的做法将对艰难梭菌孢子的消毒有效。与植被细胞(VRE、ESBLK、CPE 和 MRSA)或艰难梭菌孢子的结果相比,孢子带的结果不可比。