FEATURE HYGIENE in the bucket’s dirty water. Microfibre is an advanced option, but is similarly compromised, as the science shows. Independent tests in the US using ATP meters and floor plates contaminated with E. Coli revealed that microfibre mopping initially removed up to half of the bacteria. But as cleaning progressed, soil was dragged back into cleaned areas so its effectiveness overall dropped to 24 per cent. Mopping is also painfully slow, and fails to dislodge ingrained dirt in grout lines or crevices. Nor can it be used for non-floor surfaces unlike other cleaning systems. The clear evidence that this common cleaning method is so unproductive and ineffective inspired our campaign to Chop the Mop. The health risk is greatest where mopping is used most often, in toilets. Their intensive use, especially by people who are already ill; the location of many touch points; and bio-hazardous wastes combine to make toilets a breeding ground for germs and bacteria. If toilets flood, bacteria normally found in the human gut may be mixed with organisms already on the floor from people’s shoes. These contaminated liquids can soak into porous floors and grout lines, creating a real health hazard, not to mention a foulsmelling environment. All too often the evidence is there for our eyes or nose, when cleaning standards in a building break down in the gents or ladies’ facilities. Even when a washroom looks and smells clean, it may be hosting colonies of harmful bacteria; cleaners and facility managers will be no wiser. So visitors or employees can take away more than just a bad impression from their visit. Toilets and washrooms often consume up to 70 per cent of a building’s cleaning budget. But it’s not corner-cutting that undermines hygiene, though we can 12 SEPTEMBER 2016 CLEANING HYGIENE TODAY understand why operatives – illequipped for a grim task – fail to achieve or sustain high standards. Antiquated methods are the problem. A system that sprays a cleaning solution – with brushing to remove stubborn soil where required – rinses with clean water under high pressure, and removes dirt and contaminants by vacuuming, has to be more effective and hygienic. And the science proves it. Other US studies have shown that the Kaivac No-Touch Cleaning system is up to 60 times more effective at removing bacterial contamination than mops. Additionally, it’s more productive, taking between one half and a third of the time. Another advantage is that all washroom surfaces (and touch points), from urinals, basins and taps to handles and push plates, can be cleaned hygienically in the same way. Bacteria can be removed even from grout lines and crevices that are hard if not impossible to clean with traditional methods. This labour-saving approach is more cost-effective for the client, more dignified for staff, and healthier for washroom users. The system is suited to wet rooms, such as toilets, bathrooms and leisure centres. But similar levels of hygiene and efficiency can be achieved in other applications with variants of this cleaning technology. Take kitchens and other areas where food is prepared and served, for example. While safety procedures will cover handling of raw and cooked ingredients, utensils and work surfaces, the contamination risk from floors is not so well appreciated. Kitchens generate greasy soils that coat floor surfaces. In this warm and damp environment bacteria multiply. Workers’ footwear also tracks dirt and invisible microbes from other areas. So whether floors look clean or not, they can end up harbouring a stomach-churning mix of microbes. Studies also show there are many direct and indirect transmission routes from floor to staff’s hands. These include tying a trailing shoe lace, picking up a dropped utensil, or lifting a carton of food placed there. This can easily then be transferred in food preparation. Again, there are more effective cleaning practices than mopping for food service areas and floors generally. In the independent mopping tests already mentioned, a scrubber-dryer reduced bacterial contamination by more than 99 per cent, and this performance was matched by a more low-tech ‘crossover’ cleaning system. The testers attributed the unit’s high performance to its wet vacuuming capability, which takes the modular OmniFlex ‘crossover’ system from a basic hygienic mopping tool for small premises to a fully-fledged floorcare machine suited to most applications and budgets. Another important consideration in hygienic cleaning, sometimes overlooked, is the need to keep the equipment itself free of contamination. The AutoVac is simple to disassemble, making it easy to clean and rinse, unlike many scrubber dryers that can trap soils in their recovery tanks. This is another advantage of using simple yet proven technology. Cost-effective cleaning should be within the means of any cleaning budget. An outbreak will demand additional contingency measures and decontamination may be necessary. But everyday routine hygienic cleaning is fundamental to infection control. Eff ective cleaning of surfaces, including hightouch surfaces, signifi cantly decreases the number of pathogens present and reduces the spread of infection.”
Cleaning Hygiene Today September 2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above