Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024 Jun 18;90(6):e0038424. doi: 10.1128/aem.00384-24. Epub 2024 May 24.
Carpet cleaning guidelines currently do not include the use of an antimicrobial, except after a bodily fluid event. To address this gap, we compared the efficacy of three antimicrobials-two hydrogen peroxide-based (HO) products (A and B) and one chlorine-based product (C)-and a steam treatment against two norovirus surrogates, specifically feline calicivirus (FCV) and Tulane virus (TuV). These tests were performed on nylon carpets with either water-permeable or waterproof backing types. The effect of repeated antimicrobial use on carpet properties was also evaluated. For a carpet with water-permeable backing, products A, B, and C achieved a 0.8, 3.1, and 0.9 log PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and 0.3, 2.5, and 0.4 log TCID/coupon reduction of TuV, respectively, following a 30 min contact time. For carpet with waterproof backing, only product B achieved a 5.0 log PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and >3.0 log TCID/coupon reduction of TuV, whereas products A and C achieved a 2.4 and 1.6 log PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and a 1.2 and 1.2 log TCID/coupon reduction of TuV, respectively. Steam treatment achieved a ≥ 5.2 log PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and a > 3.2 log TCID/coupon reduction of TuV in 15 seconds on the carpet with both backing types. The repeated use of products A and B decreased the tensile strength of the carpet backing, while use of product B resulted in cracks on carpet fibers. Overall, steam treatment for 15 seconds was efficacious on both carpet types, but only product B achieved efficacy after a 30-minute exposure on the carpet with waterproof backing.IMPORTANCECarpets are common in long-term care facilities, despite its potential as a vehicle for transmission of agents associated with healthcare-associated infections, including human norovirus (NoV). Presently, our understanding of carpet disinfection is limited; hence, there are no commercial antimicrobials against norovirus available for use on carpets. Our findings showed that steam treatment, which minimally affected the properties of carpet fibers and backing, was more efficacious against human norovirus surrogates on carpets compared to the three chemical antimicrobials tested. Additionally, the two surrogates were more sensitive to chemical antimicrobials on the carpet with waterproof backing compared to carpets with water-permeable backing. These findings can inform development of antimicrobials for use on carpets contaminated with human norovirus.
地毯清洁指南目前不包括使用抗菌剂,除非发生体液事件。为了解决这一差距,我们比较了三种抗菌剂(两种基于过氧化氢的产品(A 和 B)和一种基于氯的产品(C))和蒸汽处理对两种诺如病毒替代物(猫杯状病毒[FCV]和图兰病毒[TuV])的功效。这些测试是在具有透水或防水背衬类型的尼龙地毯上进行的。还评估了重复使用抗菌剂对地毯性能的影响。对于具有透水背衬的地毯,产品 A、B 和 C 对 FCV 的减少量分别为 0.8、3.1 和 0.9 log PFU/优惠券,对 TuV 的减少量分别为 0.3、2.5 和 0.4 log TCID/优惠券,接触时间为 30 分钟。对于具有防水背衬的地毯,只有产品 B 对 FCV 的减少量达到 5.0 log PFU/优惠券,对 TuV 的减少量>3.0 log TCID/优惠券,而产品 A 和 C 对 FCV 的减少量分别为 2.4 和 1.6 log PFU/优惠券,对 TuV 的减少量分别为 1.2 和 1.2 log TCID/优惠券。蒸汽处理在两种背衬类型的地毯上 15 秒内实现了 FCV 的≥5.2 log PFU/优惠券减少和 TuV 的>3.2 log TCID/优惠券减少。产品 A 和 B 的重复使用降低了地毯背衬的拉伸强度,而产品 B 的使用导致地毯纤维出现裂缝。总体而言,蒸汽处理在 15 秒内对两种地毯类型均有效,但只有产品 B 在具有防水背衬的地毯上暴露 30 分钟后才有效。
重要性
地毯在长期护理设施中很常见,尽管它可能成为与医疗保健相关感染相关病原体(包括人类诺如病毒[NoV])传播的媒介。目前,我们对地毯消毒的了解有限;因此,目前没有针对诺如病毒的商业抗菌剂可用于地毯。我们的研究结果表明,与测试的三种化学抗菌剂相比,蒸汽处理对地毯上的人类诺如病毒替代物更有效,对地毯纤维和背衬的性能影响最小。此外,与具有透水背衬的地毯相比,这两种替代物对防水背衬地毯上的化学抗菌剂更敏感。这些发现可以为受人类诺如病毒污染的地毯开发抗菌剂提供信息。