PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
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 (H2O2) 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 log10 PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and 0.3, 2.5, and 0.4 log10 TCID50/coupon reduction of TuV, respectively, following a 30 min contact time. For carpet with waterproof backing, only product B achieved a 5.0 log10 PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and >3.0 log10 TCID50/coupon reduction of TuV, whereas products A and C achieved a 2.4 and 1.6 log10 PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and a 1.2 and 1.2 log10 TCID50/coupon reduction of TuV, respectively. Steam treatment achieved a ≥ 5.2 log10 PFU/coupon reduction of FCV and a > 3.2 log10 TCID50/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.
摘要：
地毯清洁指南目前不包括使用抗菌剂，除了体液事件后。为了解决这个差距，我们比较了三种抗微生物剂-两种基于过氧化氢（H2O2）的产品（A和B）和一种基于氯的产品（C）-以及蒸汽处理对两种诺如病毒替代品的功效，特别是猫杯状病毒（FCV）和杜兰病毒（TuV）。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。还评估了反复使用抗微生物剂对地毯性能的影响。对于带有透水背衬的地毯，产品A,B,和C实现了0.8、3.1和0.9log10PFU/试样减少的FCV和0.3、2.5和0.4log10TCID50/试样减少的TuV，分别,在30分钟的接触时间之后。对于带防水背衬的地毯，只有产品B实现了5.0log10PFU/优惠券FCV减少和>3.0log10TCID50/优惠券TuV减少，而产品A和C实现了2.4和1.6log10PFU/优惠券的FCV减少和1.2和1.2log10TCID50/优惠券的TuV减少，分别。在具有两种背衬类型的地毯上，蒸汽处理在15秒内实现了≥5.2log10PFU/试片FCV降低和>3.2log10TCID50/试片TuV降低。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上的裂纹。总的来说,蒸汽处理15秒对两种地毯都有效，但是只有产品B在具有防水背衬的地毯上暴露30分钟后才达到功效。重要因素在长期护理设施中很常见，尽管它有可能作为传播与医疗保健相关感染相关的药物的工具，包括人类诺如病毒（NoV）。目前,我们对地毯消毒的理解是有限的；因此，地毯上没有商业抗诺如病毒的抗生素。我们的发现表明蒸汽处理，对地毯纤维和背衬的性能影响最小，与测试的三种化学抗菌剂相比，对地毯上的人类诺如病毒替代品更有效。此外,与具有透水背衬的地毯相比，这两个代理人对具有防水背衬的地毯上的化学抗菌剂更敏感。这些发现可以为开发用于被人类诺如病毒污染的地毯的抗微生物剂提供信息。
