Media Center

Remove It. Prove It.

The purpose of this video is to expose the truth about the soil removal capabilities of different cleaning approaches, and to show through scientific measurement that not all cleaning tools deliver healthy results.

Copy code below to embed:

Norovirus, E. coli, staph infections, and now MRSA. Fairly small words, that represent even smaller organisms. In fact, microscopic in size. But, their impact can be enormous. They can close schools, hotels, casinos, cruise ships. They can even take human life. In fact, over 90,000 people a year in the US alone die from infections they acquired after being admitted to the hospital. The obvious first response to these health alarms is to clean all potentially affected surfaces. In fact, the more we understand about how disease is transferred, the clearer the importance of cleaning in protecting human health becomes. The reality is that cleaning is considered by many healthcare professionals and environmental scientists as our first line of defense against infectious disease. <Charles Gerba>�I think people in this industry don�t realize they�re really, in a way, in the healthcare industry. Particularly when it comes to public restrooms. We know that they are involved in the transmission of infectious diseases like hepatitis A, Shigella, Salmonella. It�s been shown epidemiologically you can transmit disease by public facilities. So if we want to reduce illness and really save lives too � people do die from these types of infections � it does become important to maintain proper hygiene in these facilities.� A widely-accepted definition of cleaning is the removal of all unwanted soils and substances. And, if cleaning is truly to protect our health, this definition must also include the invisible. Regardless of whether cleaning a restroom, kitchen, classroom, shop floor, or surgery suite the goal must be to remove the maximum amount of soils and bio-pollution, both seen and unseen. Then, validate through proper measurement. The purpose of this video is to expose the truth about the soil removal capabilities of differing cleaning approaches, and to show through scientific measurement that not all cleaning tools deliver healthy results. Specifically, we�ll compare high flow fluid extraction technologies from Kaivac with the most prevalent tools today that rely on entanglement for their removal capabilities. To compare results, we will use an ATP monitor, which measures adenosine triphosphate, the universal energy molecule found in all animal, plant, bacteria, yeast and mold cells. While relatively new to the cleaning industry, these instruments are used in a number of other industries, including healthcare and food processing, to ensure that surfaces have been properly sanitized. They show just how clean surfaces are by quantifying microbial surface contamination in just seconds, making it perfect for showing �before and after� cleaning results. Our first test compares Kaivac�s No-Touch Cleaning process with microfiber mopping on a restroom floor. No-Touch Cleaning vs. microfiber mop demo process Before we began our comparison, we cleaned the test site thoroughly and then measured for ATP to establish a benchmark. The level was 25. Next, we spread juice from a fresh grape, which contains a high amount of ATP, to safely contaminate a section of the test area. This produced a reading of 7,267. To begin the comparison we cleaned the floor according to commonly taught practices using a new microfiber mop pre-soaked with a hospital-grade disinfectant. A measurement was taken immediately at the area contaminated by the grape. The ATP level dropped to 1,479. We then took a second measurement on a nearby tile that was cleaned during the test. One would expect this reading to be lower than the initial 25 level. However, the ATP actually increased from 25 to 686 -- over 27 times (2700%) greater than the initial readings. Why such a great increase? Let�s take a closer look to see what�s actually happening. As the mop head passes over the contaminated surface, some of the soils and contaminants are entangled in the mop fibers. However, much of the bio-pollutants have simply been re-distributed across the surface as well as deposited and trapped in the grout line. This tendency of mops to spread bio-contaminants, also called dissemination, ultimately cross-contaminates any surface they touch. Interestingly, there�s a common belief today that microfiber is extremely effective at removing bio-pollution. In fact, some claim that it actually eliminates cross contamination. However, the data from this test indicates otherwise. It�s also important to note here that these results were achieved with a brand new microfiber head. The problem is actually much worse if the mop head becomes saturated with soils and germs, which is what typically happens in the real world. <Gerba> �I think most people don�t realize � the cleaning tools you�re using contain millions of bacteria. Particularly mops and dishcloths, and they�re giving germs a free ride around your facility. That�s why it�s really important to recognize this, that you can actually make things worse with what you perceive is a cleaning tool. It is actually a germ transfer facility for them. And a good place to eat and live too.� Now, let�s compare the Kaivac No-Touch Cleaning system. Again, juice from a fresh grape was spread across the same area of the restroom floor and another measurement was taken. This time the reading was 7,844. Next the same hospital-grade disinfectant was applied to the floor using the KaiVac�s chemical injection system. The surface was then vacuumed with its built-in wet vacuum system. Immediately after cleaning the ATP level at the spot where the grape juice was applied dropped from 7,844 to 27. This represents a dramatic improvement over mopping (show side by side). Just as important, another measurement was taken at the spot where the microfiber mop had increased the ATP reading to 686. This time, the ATP level fell from 686 to 20, indicating a lack of cross-contamination. Just as important, another measurement was taken at the same spot on the nearby tile to test for cross-contamination. This time, the ATP level fell from 686 to 20, indicating a lack of cross-contamination. Why was the Kaivac so much more effective at removing soils? First, diluted cleaning solution is applied through the built-in chemical injection system in a low pressure fan spray. As the solution dwells, it loosens and lifts soils in preparation for vacuum extraction. In addition, the fluid brings residual dehydrated soils, such as dried urine, into liquid solution. Then, all liquid and contaminants are suctioned, or extracted, from the surface with the system�s built-in wet vacuum. This high-flow fluid extraction process creates a liquid current that transports the unwanted matter into a recovery tank where it is contained and quarantined. The power of the vacuum removes unwanted matter from surface areas including grout lines, leaving the floor clean and dry. As the ATP readings confirmed, the result is a clean, dry floor, with no cross-contamination. KaiFly Segment Next we�ll compare the cleaning effectiveness of Kaivac�s patent pending flat surface cleaning system, KaiFly, with microfiber rags or towels. We�ll conduct the test on a student desktop, which is an often overlooked disease transfer point. In fact, recent research shows that when classroom surfaces, including desktops, are cleaned, illness-related absenteeism is reduced by approximately 50%. KaiFly vs. microfiber cloth demo process To start, we cleaned a desk top thoroughly and then took an ATP reading to establish a benchmark. The level was 7. Then, as before, a grape was spread across one area of the desk surface to simulate bio-contamination, which measured 6,907. (Show reading over video.) Next, a hospital-grade disinfectant was applied to the entire surface of the desk and it was cleaned with a new microfiber rag. A measurement was taken where the grape had been smeared and the ATP level dropped from 6,907to 768. A second measurement was taken away from the contamination area to test for cross contamination. Again, as with the mop, the reading increased drastically from 7 to 71 � over 10 times. Let�s take a look at why this is happening. As the microfiber rag comes across a contaminated area some of the soils and contaminants become entangled and absorbed in the rag fibers, explaining the reduction in ATP levels in the artificially contaminated area. However, just like the mop, much of the bio-load is not truly removed, but simply spread across the surface. The problem is compounded as more surfaces are cleaned. As the rag collects contaminants, it disseminates them across each surface it comes into contact with, leaving students and other building occupants at high risk for infectious diseases such as influenza, Norovirus and MRSA. <Gerba>�We�ve actually found in several of our studies that sponges and rags used to clean surfaces end up being microbial compost heaps because bacteria can grow to large numbers in those � both in the home and restaurants you�re actually laying down a thin layer of E.Coli when you�re wiping a surface without really realizing it.� Now let�s compare Kaivac�s KaiFly technology following the same procedure. Again, a fresh grape was spread across one area of the desktop resulting in an ATP reading of 6,936. (Show reading over video.) The surface was then cleaned with the KaiFly. First, a microfiber pad attached to a trowel was pre-soaked with the same hospital-grade disinfectant. The cleaning solution was then applied to the entire surface of the desk. Next, the cleaning solution was removed from the desk�s surface with a squeegee. This time, when measured, the ATP level in the area where the grape was applied dropped from 6,936 to 28 A second measurement was taken at the same spot as the rag�s second reading to test for cross-contamination. This time, the ATP reading was was 3, indicating zero cross-contamination. Let�s take a look at what�s happening in more detail. KaiFly uses the same principles as Kaivac�s No-Touch Cleaning systems to remove unwanted matter from flat surfaces. After cleaning solution is applied to the target surface with the trowel, the squeegee blade removes soils and contaminants through high-flow fluid extraction. The blade literally scrapes all residues and contaminants from the surface which are carried away in the liquid current. And, because all of the liquid is removed from the surface, unlike the rag, there�s no risk of cross-contamination. The rapid drying action actually aids in the killing of bacteria. Summarize findings. As you can see, not all cleaning processes produce the same results and, just because a surface looks clean, or even smells clean, doesn�t necessarily mean that it is clean. And it�s a known fact that what you can�t see is often far more dangerous than what you can see. That�s why it�s so important that surfaces be cleaned properly and tested regularly in order to achieve healthy results. <Charles Gerba>�That�s one of the things that we�ve observed in our research, it�s probably better not cleaning than cleaning improperly. Because you can spread microorganisms around the facility without realizing it. So, you have to realize you can actually create more of a problem if you�re not cleaning properly.� Regardless of what method you choose to clean your facility, when it comes to potentially harmful microbial contamination, it�s important that you remove it, then prove it.

Media Center

Remove It. Prove It.

Categories

Related Videos

Sitemap