A quantitative evaluation of three hand drying methods and the potential for dissemination of virus particles into the environment

The importance of hand hygiene in reducing the spread of pathogens has been long established and this has been highlighted recently in initiatives such as the NHS’s ‘clean your hands’ campaign. However, much of the focus on hand hygiene has concerned effective hand washing; there has been less emphasis on hand drying and its role in hygienic practices. This study aimed to compare three hand drying methods namely paper towels, a warm air dryer and a jet air dryer for their relative ability to disseminate virus particles into the washroom environment during hand drying. A bacteriophage model was used to compare these methods; hands were artificially contaminated with MS2 phage and dried using each device. Both air sampling and contact plates were assessed and a plaque assay was used to quantify virus dissemination. Samples were collected at set times, heights, angles and distances around each device. Both air sampling and contact plate results indicated that the jet air dryer produced significantly more virus dispersal than either paper towels or the warm air dryer in terms of quantity, distance travelled and the time spent circulating in the air around the device and potentially in the washroom environment.

Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods

Aims To use a MS2 bacteriophage model to compare three hand-drying methods, paper towels (PT), a warm air dryer (WAD) and a jet air dryer (JAD), for their potential to disperse viruses and contaminate the immediate environment during use. Methods and Results Participants washed their gloved hands with a suspension of MS2 bacteriophage and hands were dried with one of the three hand-drying devices. The quantity of MS2 present in the areas around each device was determined using a plaque assay. Samples were collected from plates containing the indicator strain, placed at varying heights and distances and also from the air. Over a height range of 0.15-1.65 m, the JAD dispersed an average of >60 and >1300-fold more plaque-forming units (pfu) compared to the WAD and PT (P <0.0001), respectively. The JAD dispersed an average of >20 and >190-fold more pfu in total compared to WAD and PT at all distances tested up to 3 m (P <0.01), respectively. Air samples collected around each device 15 minutes after use indicated that the JAD dispersed an average of >50 and >100-fold more pfu compared to the WAD and PT (P <0.001), respectively. Conclusions Use of the JAD lead to significantly greater and further dispersal of MS2 bacteriophage from artificially contaminated hands when compared to the WAD and PT. Significance and Impact of Study The choice of hand drying device should be considered carefully in areas where infection prevention concerns are paramount, such as healthcare settings and the food industry.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.

Molecular docking and geographical information systems as tools to assess the potential impact of veterinary medicines on non-target organisms and the environment

Veterinary medicines (VMs) from agricultural industry can enter the environment in a number of ways. This includes direct exposure through aquaculture, accidental spillage and disposal, and indirect entry by leaching from manure or runoff after treatment. Many compounds used in animal treatments have ecotoxic properties that may have chronic or sometimes lethal effects when they come into contact with non-target organisms. VMs enter the environment in mixtures, potentially having additive effects. Traditional ecotoxicology tests are used to determine the lethal and sometimes reproductive effects on freshwater and terrestrial organisms. However, organisms used in ecotoxicology tests can be unrepresentative of the populations that are likely to be exposed to the compound in the environment. Most often the tests are on single compound toxicity but mixture effects may be significant and should be included in ecotoxicology testing. This work investigates the use, measured environmental concentrations (MECs) and potential impact of sea lice treatments on salmon farms in Scotland. Alternative methods for ecotoxicology testing including mixture toxicity, and the use of in silico techniques to predict the chronic impact of VMs on different species of aquatic organisms were also investigated. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) provided information on the use of five sea lice treatments from 2008-2011 on Scottish salmon farms. This information was combined with the recently available data on sediment MECs for the years 2009-2012 provided by SEPA using ArcGIS 10.1. In depth analysis of this data showed that from a total of 55 sites, 30 sites had a MEC higher than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) as set out by SEPA for emamectin benzoate and 7 sites had a higher MEC than MAC for teflubenzuron. A number of sites that were up to 16 km away from the nearest salmon farm reported as using either emamectin benzoate or teflubenzuron measured positive for the two treatments. There was no relationship between current direction and the distribution of the sea lice treatments, nor was there any evidence for alternative sources of the compounds e.g. land treatments. The sites that had MECs higher than the MAC could pose a risk to non-target organisms and disrupt the species dynamics of the area. There was evidence that some marine protected sites might be at risk of exposure to these compounds. To complement this work, effects on acute mixture toxicity of the 5 sea lice treatments, plus one major metabolite 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3PBA), were measured using an assay using the bioluminescent bacteria Aliivibrio fischeri. When exposed to the 5 sea lice treatments and 3PBA A. fischeri showed a response to 3PBA, emamectin benzoate and azamethiphos as well as combinations of the three. In order to establish any additive effect of the sea lice treatments, the efficacy of two mixture prediction equations, concentration addition (CA) and independent action ii(IA) were tested using the results from single compound dose response curves. In this instance IA was the more effective prediction method with a linear regression confidence interval of 82.6% compared with 22.6% of CA. In silico molecular docking was carried out to predict the chronic effects of 15 VMs (including the five used as sea lice control). Molecular docking has been proposed as an alternative screening method for the chronic effects of large animal treatments on non-target organisms. Oestrogen receptor alpha (ERα) of 7 non-target bony fish and the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis were modelled using SwissModel. These models were then ‘docked’ to oestradiol, the synthetic oestrogen ethinylestradiol, two known xenoestrogens dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and bisphenol A (BPA), the antioestrogen breast cancer treatment tamoxifen and 15 VMs using Auto Dock 4. Based on the results of this work, four VMs were identified as being possible xenoestrogens or anti-oestrogens; these were cypermethrin, deltamethrin, fenbendazole and teflubenzuron. Further investigation, using in vitro assays, into these four VMs has been suggested as future work. A modified recombinant yeast oestrogen screen (YES) was attempted using the cDNA of the ERα of the zebrafish Danio rerio and the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Due to time and difficulties in cloning protocols this work was unable to be completed. Use of such in vitro assays would allow for further investigation of the highlighted VMs into their oestrogenic potential. In conclusion, VMs used as sea lice treatments, such as teflubenzuron and emamectin benzoate may be more persistent and have a wider range in the environment than previously thought. Mixtures of sea lice treatments have been found to persist together in the environment, and effects of these mixtures on the bacteria A. fischeri can be predicted using the IA equation. Finally, molecular docking may be a suitable tool to predict chronic endocrine disrupting effects and identify varying degrees of impact on the ERα of nine species of aquatic organisms.

Barriers to working with people affected by cancer: Preliminary qualitative data from a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Nutrition may affect occurrence, recurrence and survival rates and many cancer patients and survivors seek individualized nutrition advice. Appropriately skilled nutritional therapy (NT) practitioners may be well-placed to safely provide this advice, but little is known of their perspectives on working with people affected by cancer. This mixed-methods study seeks to explore their views on training, barriers to practice, use of evidence, and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice. Preliminary data on barriers to practice are reported here. Methods: Two cohorts of NT practitioners were recruited from all UK registered NT practitioners, by an on-line anonymous survey. 84 cancer practitioners (CP) and 165 non-cancer practitioners (NCP) were recruited. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the survey. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on the use of evidence, barriers to practice and perceived needs for working with clients with cancer, for further exploration using interviews and focus groups. Preliminary results: For the NCP cohort, exploring themes of perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer suggested that perceived complexity, risk and need for caution in this area of practice were important barriers. Insufficient specialist knowledge and skills also emerged as barriers. Some NCPs perceived opposition from medical practitioners and other mainstream healthcare professions as an obstacle to starting cancer practice. To overcome these barriers, specialist training emerged as most important. For the CP cohort, in exploring the skills they considered enabled them to undertake cancer work, specialist clinical and technical knowledge emerged strongly. Only 10% CP participants did not want more work with people affected by cancer. 10% CPs reported some NHS referrals, whereas most received clients by self-referral or from other practitioners. When considering barriers that impede their cancer practice, the dominant categories for CPs were hostility or opposition by mainstream oncology professionals, and lack of dialogue and engagement with them. To overcome these barriers, CPs desired engagement with oncology professionals and recognized specialist cancer NT training. For both NCPs and CPs, evidence resources, practice guidelines and practitioner support networks also emerged as potential enablers to cancer practice. Conclusions: This is the first detailed exploration of NT practitioners’ perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer. Acquiring specialist skills and knowledge appears important to enable NCPs to start cancer work, and for CPs with these skills, the perceived barriers appear foremost in the relationship with mainstream cancer professionals. Further exploration of these themes, and other NT practitioner perspectives on working with people affected by cancer, is underway. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice, training and other resources.