Monday, August 30, 2010

Study: Bulk Soap in Schools Contaminated

The following article is an illustration of the vulnerability of chemical products. Whether it’s hand soap, or hospital disinfectants, there is a lack of stability through the production, delivery, application and storage processes. A benefit of choosing Steam Disinfection is that even if there were a contamination of the water, the boiling process to create steam eliminates bacteria – just as we would boil unsafe tap water for drinking.

Cleanlink News February 16 2010
Study: Bulk Soap in Schools Contaminated
Approximately 23% of the soap from open refillable (bulk soap) dispensers in public restrooms is highly contaminated with bacteria. A recent study confirms that bulk soap dispensers in schools are similarly tainted.
The findings of a study of bulk soap dispensers in a school were recently presented at a meeting of the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) held in Boston. Among other things, the study found that washing with soap from bulk dispensers left ten times as many bacteria on students’ hands as was found on hands washed with soap from sealed refills. The research also suggests that contaminated bulk soap may play a role in the transmission of bacteria in schools, particularly among children.
Problem:
Bulk dispensers are refilled by pouring soap from a large container into an open reservoir. Typically the nozzle that dispenses the soap is not replaced. In contrast, sealed dispensing systems utilize sealed bags or cartridges that contain soap, along with a new nozzle.
Soap in bulk dispensers is prone to contamination because the soap is constantly exposed to bacteria from the environment, such as from the hands and body of the person refilling the soap, the spray of toilet water after flushing, or even from dust in the air.
In previous studies, soap from more than 500 dispensers across the United States was tested to evaluate the prevalence of contaminated soap in public restrooms.1 “We were surprised to learn that the soap from one in four bulk dispensers are contaminated with an average of more than three million bacteria, many of which are known to be opportunistic pathogens,” said Carrie Zapka, microbiology scientist, GOJO Industries. She continued, “Exposure to such high levels of these organisms can be a significant health risk to individuals with compromised immune systems – estimated to be at least 20% of the population.2 In contrast, soap from sealed dispensing systems was free from contamination.”
In addition to Zapka, others who were involved in helping to conduct the study include Dr. Charles P. Gerba and Sheri L. Maxwell, both from the University of Arizona; David R. Macinga, microbiology principal scientist; Michael J. Dolan, senior advisor/science and technology vice president and James W. Arbogast, skin care science and technology director, all from GOJO Industries.
Since contaminated bulk soap has caused outbreaks in hospitals, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends against the use of “topping off” dispensers in healthcare settings. However, no such guidelines exist to protect patrons of public restrooms in the community or students in schools.
Test Methodology:
To determine whether or not bulk soap dispensers in a school setting contain bacteria, 10 staff members and 10 students in an elementary school participated in a hand washing study. The objective of this study as to evaluate bacterial hand contamination and hand transmission among children and adults in an lementary school with a contaminated bulk soap problem.
In a particular elementary school in Ohio, it was determined that the antibacterial soap in all of the schools dispensers were highlight contaminated with 19 different species of bacteria, including seudomonas, Providencia, Citrobacter, Stenotrophomonas, Aeromonas, Enterobacter, Pasteurella, andSerratia.
Each of the 20 students and staff participated in up to four hand washes each, using one of 14 contaminated bulk soap. Participants were instructed to wash and dry their hands as they normally would after using the restroom. All hands were tested both before and after handwashing using two different methods: the number of bacteria on one hand of each participant was measured; and the bacterial transfer to a surface was measured with the opposite hand using a technique known as “the hand stamp procedure”.
In a follow-up study conducted four months after the contaminated bulk soap dispensers were replaced with sealed soap dispensing systems, 11 staff participated in up to two hand washes each.
Results:
The results of the school study demonstrated that washing with contaminated bulk soap increased the number of bacteria on hands, and also increased the number of bacteria transferred from hands to surfaces. Among the findings:
• Washing with contaminated bulk soap significantly increased the number of pathogenic bacteria per hand from 179 to 2047 on average for all students and staff. Students’ hands retained significantly more bacteria than the staff.
• Washing with contaminated bulk soap significantly increased the number of bacteria transferred to a surface from one before washing to 27 after washing on average for all students and staff. Also, students transferred significantly more bacteria to the surface they touched after washing with contaminated bulk soap than the staff did, specifically 38 vs. 9 bacteria.
• Washing with sealed soap significantly reduced the number of bacteria from 821 to 135.
• Hands washed with contaminated bulk soap transferred a significantly higher number of opportunistic pathogens to touched surfaces compared to hands washed with soap from a sealed refill.
The study also concluded that contaminated bulk soap may play a role in the transmission of bacteria in schools, particularly among children. It was noted that schools using bulk soap dispensers could reduce the spread of bacteria simply by changing to dispensers which utilize only sealed soap refills.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Violations up in Canadian flight kitchens

By: Bert Archer

As if being charged for the bland airplane food we once choked down for free wasn’t reason enough for business travelers to pack a lunch, a Health Canada report reveals inspectors found more significant violations in the preparation of food in this country’s massive flight kitchens this past year than in the year before.
Health Canada inspectors found what the report terms “critical violations” in four out of the ten of the facilities that prepare meals for both domestic and international airlines operating out of Canada from April 2009 to March 2010. Given the recent industry trend away from in-flight meals for short flights, the food prepared in these kitchens is mostly consumed by long-haul travelers.
Though Health Canada refused to divulge specific details about the violations or offending kitchens, citing a non-disclosure agreement it has with the flight kitchens, spokeswoman Ashley Lemire did say that it was a “noted increase.”
Last week a USA Today story, based on Freedom of Information Act requests to the U.S Food and Drug Administration, reported on inspections of flight kitchens in the United States that found ants, flies, live cockroaches and roach carcasses “too numerous to count.”
According to Lemire, in 22 announced inspections of 10 flight kitchens here, Health Canada found six critical violations (compared with just one in the previous 12-month period), including raw and cooked food being stored together, best-before dates not being properly marked, staff unfamiliar with how long and what temperatures the food they were handling had to be stored, and improper disinfecting of washing equipment. Sightings of insects or rodents, and the proper documentation of such sightings are considered critical violations – there were none.
Though there is no reported evidence of passenger illness directly linked to any of these six violations, Brita Ball, interim director of the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph, says that’s not the point. “In food safety, we talk about the potential,” she says. “It’s all about risk.”