Efficacy of Sodium Hypochlorite Bleach and "Alternative" Products in Preventing Transfer of Bacteria to and from Inanimate Surfaces
Journal article by Carole A. Parnes; Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 59, 1997
Journal Article Excerpt
Efficacy of Sodium Hypochlorite Bleach and "Alternative" Products in Preventing Transfer of Bacteria to and from Inanimate Surfaces. by Carole A. Parnes Introduction The use of environmentally "safe" products or "home mixtures" as alternatives for commercial products specifically manufactured for various home cleaning/disinfecting chores continues to be advocated in newspaper and magazine articles, in books, by environmental groups, and even by government agencies (Household Hazardous Waste Projects). By 1993, at least 35 states had issued guidebooks recommending the use of alternative products (1). Major reasons given by consumers for use of alternative products are: improving the environment, reducing hazards, reducing water pollution, and cost savings. At a recent environmental conference (October 1995), one participant, the author of a book recommending the use of alternative products, suggested that if one "uses fewer toxic chemicals," one's "lifestyle is healthier" and the use of "naturally sustainable ingredients" is better for the environment (2,3). However, unlike commercial products, "alternatives" and "home mixtures" are not controlled by federal safety regulations and have no precautionary labeling. They have no directions for use, nor for proper disposal. The preparations may be chemically unstable, and may degrade in the container in which they are stored. It is highly unlikely that the "alternatives" have been evaluated for environmental safety or compatibility, and they have not been registered by the Environmental Protection Agency as disinfectants. [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] Alternative products are usually recommended for cleaning kitchen and bathroom surfaces and glass, but some are suggested for disinfecting (4,5,6,7), without mention of anti-microbial efficacy. The object of disinfection is to reduce the spread of infection and disease by eliminating the causal organisms. Mechanical removal of organisms from any surface is important; however, if removal is not combined with disinfection, or if the organisms are removed from one surface only to be deposited onto another, the process has not been successful. Several studies have shown the role of surfaces in households, day care centers, and various institutions in the transmission of bacterial and viral diseases (8,9,10,11). Two recent studies conducted to determine the antimicrobial activity of alternative products have shown that they may not be as effective as proclaimed by their advocates. A study at the University of Minnesota indicated the lack of antimicrobial efficacy of various alternative products on a plastic laminate surface in the presence of bathroom and kitchen soils (12). The "alternatives" used in these tests included those most commonly recommended for cleaning and for disinfection: ammonia, baking soda, borax, lemon juice, and vinegar. A commercial disinfectant containing bleach also was tested. The undiluted disinfectant and vinegar were most effective in reducing the number of organisms on the surfaces. The remaining alternative products showed little efficacy. No attempts were made to determine the number of viable organisms remaining on the sponges used to clean the surfaces. Bauer et al. also utilized a single test surface (Formica[R]), which after being inoculated with bacteria, was sprayed with the test product solutions and then wiped with dampened sponges (13). Ammonia, borax, baking soda, vinegar and one commercial antimicrobial spray product were evaluated. These tests showed that only the antimicrobial product significantly reduced the number of viable organisms on the Formica[R] surface and on the sponges. None of the "alternatives" showed efficacy in either the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Use Dilution Test (which is required by the EPA to verify efficacy of dilutable products as disinfectants) or the EPA Non-Food Contact Sanitizer Test (in which a 3 log reduction in the number of contaminating organisms demonstrates efficacy as a sanitizer). The present study expands upon the simulated testing by Olson et al. by (12): a) determining numbers of organisms on sponges used for cleaning, those transferred to surrounding areas, as well as those remaining on the initial contaminated surface; b) using both ceramic and Formica[R], representative of the surfaces found in bathrooms and kitchens; c) increasing the concentration of the alternative products to create a "best" situation; d) using two bacteria: Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus; e) eliminating soil; and f) decreasing the number of sponge strokes to reflect a more realistic cleaning process. This study also differs from the simulated testing by Bauer et al. by (13): a) determining numbers of organisms transferred to surrounding areas, as well as those remaining on the initial contaminated surfaces and the sponges; b) using two surfaces: ceramic and Formica[R]; c) increasing the concentration of the alternative products to create a "best" situation; andd) decreasing sponge strokes to reflect a ... |
End of free preview...
To continue reading this publication, you must have a Questia Subscription.
Try Us Today! Click Here
Questia provides the world's largest online library of scholarly books and journal articles, with integrated footnote and bibliography tools, highlighting, note taking and book marking. With a Questia subscription, you'll have access to the full text of more than 67,000 books and 1.5 million articles.
Already a subscriber? Login:
Sponsored Links
Free Newsletter
Get helpful how-to's, writing tips, search strategies, quizzes & more!
Search the Library
