Environmental meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) disinfection using dry-mist-generated hydrogen peroxide

Bartels, Mette Damkjær; Kristoffersen, K.; Slotsbjerg, T.; Rohde, Susanne Mie; Lundgren, Bettina; Westh, Henrik

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2008.05.018

Cited by 55 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…63,67,68,72,73 However, aHP systems have not been shown to eradicate pathogens in clinical practice. For example, one or more positive C. difficile culture was collected from 20% of 15 and 50% of 10 rooms studied after an aHP process.…”

Section: Microbiological Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…70 Reported cycle times are 3e4 h for multiple cycles and 2 h for single cycles. 67,69,72 However, cycle times for single rooms may be considerably longer when hand-held sensors are used to ensure that H 2 O 2 concentrations are below health and safety limits prior to room re-entry. 70 Some studies suggest that homogeneous distribution of the active agent is not achieved, perhaps because aHP is introduced via a unidirectional nozzle and the particles are affected by gravity, thus being more effective on lower horizontal surfaces.…”

Section: Practical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control

Otter

Yezli

Perl

et al. 2013

Journal of Hospital Infection

126

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Microbiological Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control

Otter

Yezli

Perl

et al. 2013

Journal of Hospital Infection

126

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…New technologies were developed to disinfect the environment in US like use of UV rays, but effectiveness remains low of this technique due to low penetrations particularly overshadowed and covered areas. 19 To date a number of studies have demonstrated the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide against a range of healthcare-associated pathogens including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Clostridium difficile and vancomycinresistant enterococcus (VRE). 20, This is a relatively new and fully regulated technology available for ICU sterilisation by forming either H2O2 vapour or an aerosol fog with 99% kill rate.…”

Section: Predisposing Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection Control in Isolation Units/Hdus/Icus- A Comparative Study Using Three Different Disinfectants With Fogger for Environmental Decontamination

Singh¹,

Kumar²,

Singh³

et al. 2017

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDIntensive care units (ICUS), High dependency units (HDUS) and Isolation units or wards carry high risk of nosocomial infection, morbidity, mortality and health care cost. To limit the nosocomial infection, health care providers should adopt aggressive and effective infection control measures. The importance of disinfection is frequently acknowledged but previous data indicated little distinction between manual and automated area decontamination. WHO has updated guidelines on infection control from time to time. MATERIALS AND METHODSVarious studies recommended automated fogging system for environmental decontamination and with this perspective we conducted our study using fogger with three different disinfectants namely 1) H2O2 silver solution; 2) Octyldecyldimethylammonium chloride, Dioctyldimethylammonium chloride, Didecyldimethylammonium chloride, Alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride; 3) N-Alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride, Didecyldimethylammonium chloride, Polymeric biguanide hydrochloride. During the study, rooms of isolation wards, high definition units and intensive care units were fogged separately with all the three disinfectants along with high end cleaning of all the surfaces. The swab samples were taken from various sites like wall, bed, floor and air. RESULTSThe results of growth then obtained were compared and analysed. The causes of bacterial and fungal growth even after fogging were analysed and enumerated. The control measures were adopted to reduce bacterial and fungal growth to nil. CONCLUSIONInfection control policy and guidelines were prepared and distributed to concerned departments for implementation and to check cross infection at various vulnerable points.

show abstract

“…Hydrogen peroxide vapor can be delivered with different levels of associated humidity, depending on the brand of equipment used (French et al, 2004;Hall et al, 2007;Kahnert et al, 2005;Krause et al, 2001, McDonnell et al, 2002Rudnick et al, 2009). A more recently developed approach, using a dry mist of hydrogen peroxide, is also available and uses a lower source hydrogen peroxide concentration (typically 5%) with silver cations (Andersen et al, 2006;Bartels et al, 2008;Grare et al, 2008;Shapey et al, 2008). In addition, both chlorine dioxide gas and ozone gas have been used effectively in fumigation applications (Pan et al, 1992;Rastogi et al, 2009;Sy et al, 2005;Wilson et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Multiple Systems for Laboratory Whole Room Fumigation

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fumigation of high-containment microbiology facilities is an international requirement and in the UnitedKingdom this process is still commonly undertaken using formaldehyde vaporization. Formaldehyde usage is simple and inexpensive, but concerns exist over its toxicity and carcinogenicity. Alternative fumigants exist, although independent, parallel comparison of these substances is limited. This study determined the level of biocidal efficacy achievable with formaldehyde and compared this with other commonly used fumigants. Three different hydrogen peroxide-based fumigation systems were evaluated (two vapor and one dry-mist methods), along with true gas systems employing ozone and chlorine dioxide. A range of challenge microorganisms was used at different room locations to assess the efficacy, usability, and safety of the fumigation equipment. These microorganisms included Geobacillus stearothermophilus, Clostridium difficile, Mycobacterium fortuitum, and Vaccinia virus. Only chlorine dioxide and formaldehyde fumigants gave consistently high levels of antimicrobial efficacy across all bacterial challenge tests (typically greater than a 5-log reduction). All systems performed similarly against Vaccinia virus, but variable results were noted for Geobacillus, C. difficile, and M. fortuitum for the hydrogen peroxide-and ozone-based systems. The study also revealed inconsistencies in system reliability and reproducibility, with all fumigant systems aborting midcycle on at least one occasion. In contrast, formaldehyde fumigation was confirmed as extremely reliable, largely because of its simplicity (liquid plus hot plate). All the fumigants tested have UK workplace exposure limits of 2 ppm or less, yet residual fumigant was detected for the formaldehyde and hydrogen peroxide systems following cycle completion, even after room aeration. Articles

show abstract

Environmental meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) disinfection using dry-mist-generated hydrogen peroxide

Cited by 55 publications

References 26 publications

The role of ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control

The role of ‘no-touch’ automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control

Infection Control in Isolation Units/Hdus/Icus- A Comparative Study Using Three Different Disinfectants With Fogger for Environmental Decontamination

Comparison of Multiple Systems for Laboratory Whole Room Fumigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About