TABLE 2
Results of t -Tests Comparing High-Touch Surfaces in the Bed Area
Surface
Aerobic Plate Count
Coliforms
Staphylococcus aureus M SD SEM t
ATP Meter
M SD SEM t
M SD SEM t
M SD SEM t
1.97 0.49 0.15 3.179 ** 0.51 0.34 0.11 -0.980 1.67 0.80 0.25 1.552 81 64 20 0.872
Bedside lamp switch before Bedside lamp switch after
1.09 0.91 0.29
0.74 0.67 0.21
1.08 0.90 0.28
56 53 17
Phone handset before 1.21 1.05 0.33 0.461 0.54 0.56 0.18 -1.036 1.04 0.88 0.28 0.718 84 111 35 1.413 Phone handset after 1.00 0.82 0.26 0.84 0.78 0.25 0.77 0.69 0.22 38 22 7 Phone dial pad before 1.21 0.99 0.31 0.079 0.30 0.00 0.00 -1.881 * 1.08 0.92 0.29 0.163 43 35 11 -0.508 Phone dial pad after 1.18 0.91 0.29 0.74 0.74 0.23 1.01 0.86 0.27 49 46 15 TV remote control before 1.75 0.97 0.31 0.987 0.37 0.22 0.07 -2.641 * 1.28 0.95 0.30 0.851 337 436 138 1.806 TV remote control after 1.35 0.93 0.29 0.91 0.68 0.21 0.97 0.71 0.22 125 140 44 Bedside clock/phone dock before 2.19 0.81 0.26 2.118 * 0.56 0.62 0.20 -0.687 1.92 1.02 0.32 2.483 * 118 60 19 2.995 ** Bedside clock/phone dock after 1.37 0.76 0.24 0.82 0.87 0.27 1.02 0.68 0.21 60 41 13 Pillowcase before 1.79 0.73 0.23 2.231 * 0.30 0.00 0.00 -1.321 1.71 0.84 0.26 3.243 ** 383 866 274 1.385 Pillowcase after 1.05 1.01 0.32 0.57 0.65 0.20 0.99 0.94 0.30 4 5 1 Nightstand top before 2.21 1.30 0.41 1.83 0.51 0.66 0.21 -1.168 1.69 1.37 0.43 2.301 * 160 89 28 0.867 Nightstand top after 1.31 0.91 0.29 0.93 0.75 0.24 0.82 0.73 0.23 131 68 21 Nightstand handle before 1.05 1.10 0.35 -1.649 0.47 0.37 0.12 -1.464 1.06 1.08 0.34 1.707 67 67 21 0.043 Nightstand handle after 1.56 0.87 0.27 0.95 0.92 0.29 0.75 0.98 0.31 66 41 13
* p < .05, ** p < .01, n = 10, df = 9. Note. ATP = adenosine triphosphate.
sampled in this area increased an average of 0.37 log CFU/cm 2 . For S. aureus , microbial counts detected before cleaning ( M = 1.61, SD = 0.60) sig- nificantly decreased after the bathroom was cleaned ( M = 0.82, SD = 0.28, t (14) = 6.187, p < .001). While all the high-touch surfaces decreased for this microorganism after the bathroom was cleaned, the surfaces that had significant decreases in the average log CFU/ cm 2 were the toilet handle ( M = 1.00, SD = 0.76, p = .001); toilet seat ( M = 0.84, SD = 0.90, p = .008); sink faucet handles ( M = 0.97, SD = 0.61, p < .001); bathroom floor ( M = 1.13, SD = 1.12, p = .005); shower floor ( M = 1.91, SD = 1.29, p < .001); toilet paper holder ( M = 0.68, SD = 0.79, p = .011); bathroom light switch ( M = 0.82, SD = 0.81, p = .006); doorknob inside bathroom ( M = 1.05, SD = 0.68, p < .001); doorknob outside bathroom ( M = 0.69, SD = 1.12, p = .042); and vanity surface ( M = 1.37, SD = 0.76, p = .002). All
the other surfaces decreased an average of 0.26 log CFU/cm 2 . Our analysis of the ATP meter data col- lected in the bathroom area indicates that the RLUs detected before cleaning ( M = 158.88, SD = 175.47) significantly decreased after the room was cleaned ( M = 51.23, SD = 24.90, t (14) = 2.285, p = .019). The surfaces that had a significant decrease in RLU/cm 2 included the toilet handle ( M = 45.50, SD = 69.50, p = .034); sink faucet handles ( M = 122.30, SD = 63.75, p < .001); shower floor ( M = 76.30, SD = 112.63, p = .030); toilet paper holder ( M = 9.50, SD = 14.80, p = .037); light switch in the bathroom ( M = 84.20, SD = 140.83, p = .046); and doorknob outside bathroom ( M = 46.3, SD = 78.59, p = .048). Our results also indi- cate that the doorknob inside of the bathroom and the hair dryer increased in average RLUs detected after the bathroom was cleaned by 16 RLU/cm 2 and 20 RLU/cm 2 , respectively. All other surfaces decreased an average of
163 RLU/cm 2 after the bathroom was cleaned. The results for the paired samples t -test in the bathroom area are shown in Table 3. Discussion Previous research has addressed public health concerns due to potential sources of community-associated infections resulting from microorganisms found in hotel environ- ments (Jaradat et al., 2020; Xu, Mkrtchyan, et al., 2015; Xu, Weese, et al., 2015). Spe- cifically, high-touch surfaces found in hotel rooms could serve as fomites that can trans- mit potentially pathogenic microorganisms through either direct contact (e.g., surface- to-mouth) or indirect contact (e.g., surface- to-hand-to-eye, surface-to-hand-to-mouth) (Lopez et al., 2013). Although microbio- logical testing of hotel rooms might not be practical for day-to-day operations, the find- ings from our study show that the number of environmental and potentially pathogenic
13
March 2025 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook