Hygiene in these spaces is therefore important in order to reduce the risk and consequences of cross-microbial contamination. Good hygiene practice will without a doubt provide an efficient and thorough cleaning of an area. However, developments in antimicrobial technology now offer the possibility to provide materials for indoor spaces that will reduce levels of bacteria that contaminate them, even in cases of less accurate cleaning procedures.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT
In the Autumn of 2014, a medium sized elementary school in the United Kingdom was selected for an environmental study. A classroom was refurbished with objects and accessories that had been treated with BioCote antimicrobial technology. A second room, included in the study, was used as a controlled environment. The demographics of the two classrooms were adequately comparable and both were used and cleaned normally. The typical daily hygiene practice of a classroom included cleaning the desks, sinks and drip. The floor and carpet were cleaned with a vacuum cleaner. In addition, a weekly intervention included cleaning the computers, shelves and work surfaces and washing the non absorbent floors. A weekly collection of samples, using swabs began in November and continued for three weeks. Samples from antimicrobial accessories and surfaces were collected from the antimicrobial room and simultaneously from the control room. The samples were collected before the beginning and at the end of the school day and treated appropriately in the microbiology laboratory to isolate, count and if possible identify the bacteria - data not shown in this newsletter - taken from the classrooms involved in the study. The products used for the study were donated by companies that collaborate with BioCote Ltd.
RESULTS
A comparison of the average number of bacteria collected from all the items treated with BioCote and all the corresponding products in the control room revealed that levels of contamination were 96% lower in the antimicrobial classroom.
CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The two classrooms in the study were chosen for their similarities in terms of use, location and demographics. The only difference between the two classrooms was the presence of antimicrobial technology. It is reasonable to consider that the lower number of bacteria counted on the antimicrobial products, compared to the control room counterparts, is a direct result of the continuous antimicrobial performance of these products. Products in the work place treated with BioCote and having a lower bacterial count should in theory also be compared to equivalent non treated products.
Previous environmental measurement studies of bacterial count on antimicrobial surfaces have reported fewer contaminated surfaces than untreated counterparts. Although antimicrobial technology should not be considered a substitute for cleaning, the repeated observation of a decidedly lower number of bacteria present on antimicrobial products, regardless of the type of product and the timing of the observation, compared to the bacterial count in the controlled classroom, presents a convincing case for the application of antimicrobial technology in areas where hygiene is of great importance.
95.68% bacteria reduction
Table 1
Percentage reduction in the average colony count per product in the classroom treated with Biocote, compared to the non treated classroom