DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Approaches to disinfection, whether chemically based or not, generally must be performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions to guarantee performance. However, users don’t always read or follow the directions. In addition to performance testing under ideal conditions, it is important to consider what real-world users may do wrong in order to determine the impact on performance. Fabric softeners are commonly used to soften the feel of fabrics, improve ironing performance, increase stain resistance, and to reduce static electricity. Fabric softeners are generally not recommended for cotton towels as they tend to decrease water absorption. For microfiber towels, the coating of the fibers prevents them from picking up dirt particles. Despite these recommendations, fabric softeners are popular and those who use them are likely to use them with all laundry loads and not just clothing. When evaluating disinfectants, the industry standard requires demonstration of a 5 log reduction of bacterial load. In this study, a minimum of a 5 log reduction of E. coli was obtained in all experiments. There was no difference in performance between cotton and microfiber cloths, whether laundered without fabric softener, with liquid fabric softener, and with dryer sheets. Because the MondoVap system uses only tap water to create high temperature, low moisture steam, it can be considered a safer, green alternative to traditional chemical disinfectants. The unit is easy to use, and while it requires an up front investment, eliminating the ongoing costs of chemicals should save money in the long run. In order to fully evaluate the MondoVap, further experiments should include laundering microfiber and cotton cloths together, additional infectious agents, and additional surfaces including irregular surfaces such as doorknobs and children’s toys.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work was partially funded by Advanced Vapor Technologies (Everett, WA) and by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (Lowell, MA)
REFERENCES 1. Arif AA, Delclos GL. Association between cleaning-related chemicals and work-related asthma and asthma symptoms among healthcare professionals. Occup Environ Med 2012;69(1):35-40. 2. Vizcaya D, Mirabelli MC, Antó JM, Orriols R, Burgos F, Arjona L, Zock JP. A workforce-based study of occupational exposures and asthma symptoms in cleaning workers. Occup Environ Med 2011;68(12):914-9. 3. Zock JP, Plana E, Jarvis D, Anto JM, Kromhout H, Kennedy SM, Kunzli N, Villani S, Olivieri M, Toren K. et al. The use of household cleaning sprays and adult asthma: an international longitudinal study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176:735–741. 4. Tanner BD. Reduction in infection risk through treatment of microbially contaminated surfaces with a novel, portable, saturated steam vapor disinfection system. Am J Infec Control 2009;37:20 – 7. 5. Sexton JD, Tanner BC, Maxwell SL, Gerba CP. Reduction in the microbial load on high-touch surfaces in hospital rooms by treatment with a portable saturated steam vapor disinfection system. Am J Infec Control 2011;39:65562. 6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Microbiology laboratory antimicrobial testing methods and procedures. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/methods/atmpa2z.htm Accessed March 15, 2012. 7. ASTM E1153-03(2010 )e1. Standard Test Method for Efficacy of Sanitizers Recommended for inanimate Non-Food Contact Surfaces, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
UMLJUR 51