ICM Commentary - The Best Thing to Have Happened ...

By Dr. Bob Powitz

We in the public health industry have been agonizing over 'Clean to sight and touch' for decades. Subjective evaluations of cleaning outcomes have certainly not prevented disease transmission. My concept of 'clean' (through my coke-bottle glasses) is quite different from someone else looking at the same surface. So from our industry's standpoint, the best thing to have happened is the development of a comparative, open-source cleaning evaluation system, better known as Integrated Cleaning and Measurement (ICM).  

For the first time, it allows us to objectively evaluate our performance from two critical viewpoints: First, measuring the actual removal of biopollutants (which includes microbes) through the use of ATP monitoring, and secondly, to objectively judge cleaning outcomes from an administrative standpoint by comparing cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency of materials, methodologies and the rating of customer satisfaction.

Now [a few comments] on disinfection: Basically, disinfection is a probability number. Disinfectants must demonstrate a five-log (10x10x10x10x10) reduction of microbes under laboratory conditions. This means that any disinfectant, at a minimum, must remove 10,000 organisms from a given area of surface. Logically, it follows that if we can remove more microbes through better cleaning, the probability of leaving behind disease-causing germs decreases. It's sort of like working odds at a casino. A good hand will increase the odds of winning. Likewise with cleaning.

Through ICM, we can evaluate microfiber versus cotton, electrically activated water versus chemical surfactants, touchless cleaning versus traditional mopping, ceramic versus vinyl tile ... and the list goes on and on. Therefore, by using ICM, we can continually improve what we do, and demonstrate through objective measurements, how we got there.