Andersen B M, Solheim N, Krüger O, Levy F, Sogn K, Moløkken I
Seksjon for sykehushygiene, Ullevål sykehus, Oslo.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1997 Feb 28;117(6):838-41.
The effect of floor cleaning on bacteria, organic materials and particles in the patients' rooms was studied at Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Four cleaning methods were compared; dust-adhesive (dry), humified, wet mopping, and regular wet washing (RWW) without a mop. The following tests were taken from the floor before and after cleaning: bacterial counts (colony forming units = CFU) and ATP (presence of organic materials), and from the air: CFU/m3 air, and particle counts/m3 air. Humified mopping and dry mopping reduced the bacterial counts from the floor by 75% and 55% respectively (p = 0.005 and p = 0.014, using contact medium). The wet mopping had no statistically significant effect, while the wet washing even increased the CFU on the floor by 35-50% (p = 0.017 with contact medium, and p = 0.028 with petrifilm). The two wet methods were the most effective, however, in removing organic materials from the floor; 65% to 70% reduction (p = 0.051 and p =0.008). The CFU/m3 air was low both before (50-130 CFU/m3) and after (70-110 CFU/m3) cleaning. A slight increase in airborne particles was measured after dry mopping. Combined use of humified mopping and wet mopping is recommended, but is dependent on a well prepared and finished floor surface.
挪威奥斯陆的于勒沃尔大学医院对病房地面清洁对细菌、有机物质和颗粒的影响进行了研究。比较了四种清洁方法：粘尘（干式）、加湿、湿拖以及不用拖把的常规湿洗（RWW）。在清洁前后对地面进行了以下测试：细菌计数（菌落形成单位=CFU）和ATP（有机物质的存在情况），并对空气进行了测试：每立方米空气中的CFU以及每立方米空气中的颗粒计数。加湿拖地和干式拖地分别使地面细菌计数减少了75%和55%（使用接触培养基时，p=0.005和p=0.014）。湿拖没有统计学上的显著效果，而湿洗甚至使地面上的CFU增加了35%-50%（使用接触培养基时p=0.017，使用Petrifilm时p=0.028）。然而，两种湿式清洁方法在去除地面有机物质方面最为有效；减少了65%至70%（p=0.051和p=0.008）。清洁前后每立方米空气中的CFU都很低（清洁前为50-130CFU/立方米，清洁后为70-110CFU/立方米）。干式拖地后测量到空气中的颗粒略有增加。建议联合使用加湿拖地和湿拖，但这取决于准备充分且完成度高的地面表面。
