Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Efficacy of directed misting application of a peroxygen disinfectant for environmental decontamination of a veterinary hospital

2005; American Veterinary Medical Association; Volume: 227; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2460/javma.2005.227.597

1943-569X

Gage Patterson, Paul S. Morley, Kenneth D. Blehm, David E. Lee, Magdalena Dunowska,

Infection Control and Ventilation

Abstract Objective —To evaluate effectiveness of 4% peroxymonosulfate disinfectant applied as a mist to surfaces in a large animal hospital as measured by recovery of Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Design —Field trial. Sample Population —Polyester transparencies inoculated with bacteria. Procedure —Polyester transparencies were inoculated with S aureus or S Typhimurium and placed in various locations in the hospital. After mist application of the peroxygen disinfectant, viable bacterial numbers were quantified and compared with growth from control transparencies to assess reduction in bacterial count. Results —When applied as a mist directed at environmental surfaces contaminated with a geometric mean of 4.03 × 10 7 CFUs of S aureus (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.95 × 10 7 to 4.11 × 10 7 ) or 6.17 × 10 6 CFUs of S Typhimurium (95% CI, 5.55 × 10 6 to 6.86 × 10 6 ), 4% peroxymonosulfate reduced the geometric mean number of viable S aureus by 3.04 × 10 7 CFUs (95% CI, 8.6 × 10 5 to 1.7 × 10 6 ) and S Typhimurium by 3.97 × 10 6 CFUs (95% CI, 8.6 × 10 5 to 3.5 × 10 6 ). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance —Environmental disinfection with directed mist application of a 4% peroxymonosulfate solution was successful in reducing counts of bacterial CFUs by > 99.9999%. Directed mist application with this peroxygen disinfectant as evaluated in this study appeared to be an effective and efficient means of environmental disinfection in a large animal veterinary hospital and would be less disruptive than more traditional approaches to intensive environmental cleaning and disinfection. ( J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:597–602)