Evaluation of the Efficacy of Disinfectants in Reducing Contamination of Bacterial and Viral Murine Pathogens on Gloved Hands.

Julia P Smachlo, Marcia L Hart, Michael D Evans, Brenda L Kick
{"title":"Evaluation of the Efficacy of Disinfectants in Reducing Contamination of Bacterial and Viral Murine Pathogens on Gloved Hands.","authors":"Julia P Smachlo, Marcia L Hart, Michael D Evans, Brenda L Kick","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-24-038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Disinfectant application to gloved hands before handling SPF mice is standard practice to minimize transmission of pathogens and microbial contamination between cages. The risk of contamination with murine pathogens on gloves as well as the efficacy of disinfectant application for this step is largely unknown. This study aimed to determine if murine norovirus (MNV), Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter spp. are detectable on gloved hands and, if they are, to evaluate how effective the application of a hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectant (Rescue) or 70% ethanol is in reducing the transfer of these pathogens while handling multiple cages of mice. Mice with natural infections of these pathogens were handled without the application of any disinfectant and the gloves were swabbed for PCR testing. All pathogens were detected via PCR with Helicobacter spp. the most frequently transferred in 83% of the cages handled. The mice were then divided into 4 treatment groups based on the product applied to gloves before handling: Rescue, 70% ethanol, sterile water, and no product. Mice in each cage were briefly handled, and the gloves were swabbed with ATP swabs after each cage and swabs for PCR testing after handling 4 and 9 cages, consecutively. All pathogens were detected via PCR in all treatment groups, and neither Rescue nor 70% ethanol was superior to water or no product in reducing contamination. Rescue and 70% ethanol were effective in maintaining lower levels of organic microbial contamination than water and no product for consecutive handling of up to 3 and 4 cages of mice, respectively. This study indicates that exposure to MNV, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter spp. from handling mice is a risk and the application of Rescue or 70% ethanol is not completely effective in eliminating transfer of these pathogens.</p>","PeriodicalId":94111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","volume":"63 6","pages":"644-650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-24-038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Disinfectant application to gloved hands before handling SPF mice is standard practice to minimize transmission of pathogens and microbial contamination between cages. The risk of contamination with murine pathogens on gloves as well as the efficacy of disinfectant application for this step is largely unknown. This study aimed to determine if murine norovirus (MNV), Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter spp. are detectable on gloved hands and, if they are, to evaluate how effective the application of a hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectant (Rescue) or 70% ethanol is in reducing the transfer of these pathogens while handling multiple cages of mice. Mice with natural infections of these pathogens were handled without the application of any disinfectant and the gloves were swabbed for PCR testing. All pathogens were detected via PCR with Helicobacter spp. the most frequently transferred in 83% of the cages handled. The mice were then divided into 4 treatment groups based on the product applied to gloves before handling: Rescue, 70% ethanol, sterile water, and no product. Mice in each cage were briefly handled, and the gloves were swabbed with ATP swabs after each cage and swabs for PCR testing after handling 4 and 9 cages, consecutively. All pathogens were detected via PCR in all treatment groups, and neither Rescue nor 70% ethanol was superior to water or no product in reducing contamination. Rescue and 70% ethanol were effective in maintaining lower levels of organic microbial contamination than water and no product for consecutive handling of up to 3 and 4 cages of mice, respectively. This study indicates that exposure to MNV, Helicobacter spp., and Rodentibacter spp. from handling mice is a risk and the application of Rescue or 70% ethanol is not completely effective in eliminating transfer of these pathogens.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消毒剂减少细菌和病毒性病原体对手套污染的效果评价。
在处理SPF级小鼠之前,将消毒剂涂抹在戴着手套的手上是标准做法,以尽量减少笼子之间病原体和微生物污染的传播。手套被老鼠病原体污染的风险,以及在这一步骤中使用消毒剂的效果,在很大程度上是未知的。本研究旨在确定戴手套的手上是否检测到小鼠诺如病毒(MNV)、幽门螺杆菌和啮齿类细菌,如果检测到,则评估在处理多笼小鼠时使用过氧化氢消毒剂(Rescue)或70%乙醇减少这些病原体传播的效果。自然感染这些病原体的小鼠在不使用任何消毒剂的情况下处理,并擦拭手套进行PCR检测。所有病原体均通过PCR检测到幽门螺杆菌,在处理过的笼子中,有83%的笼子最常转移。然后根据处理手套前涂抹的产品将小鼠分为4个治疗组:救援、70%乙醇、无菌水、无产品。对每个笼子中的小鼠进行短暂处理,每个笼子后用ATP拭子擦拭手套,连续处理4个和9个笼子后用拭子进行PCR检测。所有处理组均通过PCR检测到所有病原体,在减少污染方面,Rescue和70%乙醇均不优于水或无产物。救援液和70%乙醇能有效地维持较低的有机微生物污染水平,而连续处理3个和4个笼子的小鼠时,没有产品。本研究表明,在处理小鼠时暴露于MNV、幽门螺杆菌和啮齿杆菌是一种风险,使用Rescue或70%乙醇并不能完全有效地消除这些病原体的转移。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determination of an Acclimation Period for Swine in Biomedical Research. A New Laboratory Research Model: The Damaraland Mole-rat and Its Managed Care. Corynebacterium bovis Growth in Tissue Culture Conditions and Media. COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on the Activity Levels of Yucatan Mini-Swine (Sus scrofa domesticus). Money, Mentorship, and Misinformation: Barriers and Facilitators to Veterinarians' Pursuit of Postdoctoral Training in Laboratory Animal Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1