4.8 Article

Surface Cleaning and Disinfection: Efficacy Assessment of Four Chlorine Types Using Escherichia coli and the Ebola Surrogate Phi6

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 8, Pages 4624-4631

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States Agency for International Development's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA)
  2. Fulbright Foreign Student Program
  3. P.E.O. Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, international organizations provided conflicting recommendations for disinfecting surfaces contaminated by uncontrolled patient spills. We compared the efficacy of four chlorine solutions (sodium hypochlorite, sodium dichloroisocyanurate, high-test hypochlorite, and generated hypochlorite) for disinfection of three surface types (stainless steel, heavy-duty tarp, and nitrite) with and without pre-cleaning practices (prewiping, covering, or both) and soil load. The test organisms were Escherichia coli and the Ebola surrogate Phi6. All tests achieved a minimum of 5.9 and 3.1 log removal in E. coli and Phi6, respectively. A 15 min exposure to 0.5% chlorine was sufficient to ensure <8 Phi6 plaque-forming unit (PFU)/cm(2) in all tests. While chlorine types were equally efficacious with and without soil load, variation was seen by surface type. Wiping did not increase disinfection efficacy and is not recommended because it generates infectious waste. Covering spills decreased disinfection efficacy against E. coli on heavy-duty tarp but does prevent splashing, which is critical in Ebola contexts. Our results support the recommendation of a 15 min exposure to 0.5% chlorine, independently of chlorine type, surface, pre-cleaning practices, and organic matter, as an efficacious measure to interrupt disease transmission from uncontrolled spills in Ebola outbreaks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available