Scheib Sabrina, Leimbach Stefanie, Avramidis Georg, Bellmann Martin, Nitz Julia, Ochs Christian, Tellen Anne, Wente Nicole, Zhang Yanchao, Viöl Wolfgang, Krömker Volker
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Mechanical and Bioprocess Engineering, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, 30452 Hannover, Germany.
Faculty Engineering and Health, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, 37085 Goettingen, Germany.
Pathogens. 2023 Apr 6;12(4):560. doi: 10.3390/pathogens12040560.
During machine milking, pathogenic microorganisms can be transmitted from cow to cow through liners. Therefore, in Germany, a spray method for the intermediate disinfection of the milking cluster is often used for prevention. This method of cluster disinfection is easy to perform, requires little time and no extra materials, and the disinfection solution is safe from outside contamination in the spray bottle. Since no data on a systematic efficacy trial are available, the aim of this study was to determine the microbial reduction effect of intermediate disinfection. Therefore, laboratory and field trials were conducted. In both trials, two sprays of 0.85 mL per burst of different disinfectant solutions were sprayed into the contaminated liners. For sampling, a quantitative swabbing method using a modified wet-dry swab (WDS) technique based on DIN 10113-1: 1997-07 was applied. Thus, the effectiveness of disinfectants based on Peracetic Acid, Hydrogen Peroxide and Plasma-Activated Buffered Solution (PABS) was compared. In the laboratory trial, the inner surfaces of liners were contaminated with pure cultures of () , () , () and . The disinfection of the contaminated liners with the disinfectants resulted in a significant reduction in bacteria with values averaging 1 log for , 0.7 log for 0.7 log for and 0.8 log for . The highest reduction was obtained for contamination with (1.3 log) and (0.8 log) when PABS was applied and for contamination with (1.1 log) and (1 log) when Peracetic Acid Solution (PAS) was used. Treatment with sterile water only led to an average reduction of 0.4 log. In the field trial, after the milking of 575 cows, the liners were disinfected and the total microorganism count from the liner surface was performed. The reduction was measured against an untreated liner within the cluster. Although a reduction in microorganisms was achieved in the field trial, it was not significant. When using PAS, a log reduction of 0.3 was achieved; when using PABS, a log reduction of 0.2 was obtained. The difference between the two disinfection methods was also not significant. Treatment with sterile water only led to a reduction of 0.1 log. The results show that spray disinfection under these circumstances does result in a reduction in the bacteria on the milking liner surface, but for effective disinfection a higher reduction would be preferred.
在机械挤奶过程中,致病微生物可通过内衬从一头奶牛传播到另一头奶牛。因此,在德国,挤奶设备组中间消毒的喷雾法常被用于预防。这种设备组消毒方法易于实施,所需时间少且无需额外材料,并且喷雾瓶中的消毒溶液不受外部污染。由于没有关于系统功效试验的数据,本研究的目的是确定中间消毒的微生物减少效果。因此,进行了实验室试验和现场试验。在两个试验中,每次向受污染的内衬中喷入两喷,每次喷入量为0.85 mL不同的消毒溶液。为了采样,采用了基于DIN 10113-1:1997-07的改良湿干拭子(WDS)技术的定量拭子法。因此,比较了基于过氧乙酸、过氧化氢和等离子体活化缓冲溶液(PABS)的消毒剂的有效性。在实验室试验中,内衬的内表面被()、()、()和的纯培养物污染。用消毒剂对受污染的内衬进行消毒后,细菌数量显著减少,()平均减少1个对数,()减少0.7个对数,()减少0.7个对数,()减少0.8个对数。当使用PABS时,()污染(减少1.3个对数)和()污染(减少0.8个对数)的减少量最高;当使用过氧乙酸溶液(PAS)时,()污染(减少1.1个对数)和()污染(减少1个对数)的减少量最高。仅用无菌水处理平均减少0.4个对数。在现场试验中,在对575头奶牛挤奶后,对内衬进行消毒并对衬垫表面的总微生物数量进行计数。测量了相对于设备组内未处理内衬的减少量。尽管在现场试验中微生物数量有所减少,但不显著。使用PAS时,实现了0.3个对数的减少;使用PABS时,实现了0.2个对数的减少。两种消毒方法之间的差异也不显著。仅用无菌水处理减少了0.1个对数。结果表明,在这些情况下的喷雾消毒确实会使挤奶内衬表面的细菌数量减少,但为了有效消毒,更希望有更高的减少量。