In vitro study of the effect of wound dressings on planktonic and biofilms from diabetic foot isolates

The management of wound bioburden has previously been evaluated using various antimicrobial wound dressings on bacterial pathogens isolated from various wounds. In this present study, the antimicrobial effect of silver-impregnated dressings (Acticoat and Silvercel) and honey-impregnated dressing (Medihoney™ Apinate) on both planktonic bacteria and quasi-biofilms by Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis were assessed using a 6-well plate and standard agar technique. In the 6-well plate assay, a bacterial suspension of 108 colony forming unit (CFU)/mL was inoculated on each dressing in excess Luria-Bertani broth and incubated at 35 – 37°C for 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours. After each incubation time, bacteria were recovered in sodium thioglycolate solution (STS) and the CFU/mL determined on LB agar. Dressings were cut into circular shapes (2cm diameter and placed on Mueller Hinton agar plates pre-inoculated with bacterial suspensions to determine their zones of inhibition (ZOI) after 24 hours incubation. None of the dressings was effective to significantly inhibit bacterial growth or biofilm formation at all the times tested. Acticoat and Medihoney™ Apinate produced ZOIs between 1.5 – 15 mm against both Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis. It is possible that, dressings augmented with antibiotics can significantly reduce quasi-biofilms on standard agar.

The in vitro assessment of the synergistic effects of antibiotics and wound dressings on biofilms from diabetic foot pathogens

The impact of biofilm in the effective control of wound microbiome is an ongoing dilemma which has seen the use of different treatment strategies. The effects of wound dressings and antibiotics on both planktonic bacteria and biofilms have been separately evaluated in previous studies. In this current study, the combined antimicrobial effects of some selected wound dressings (silver-impregnated: Acticoat and Silvercel; and honey-impregnated: Medihoney™ Apinate) and antibiotics (ceftazdime and levofloxacin) on Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis in their quasi-biofilm state were assessed using zone of inhibition (ZOI) test. Before the addition of the wound dressings, bacterial suspension of 108 colony forming units per mL and different concentrations of ceftazidime and levofloxacin (256, 512, 1024 and 5120µg/mL) of a final volume of 1mL were inoculated on Mueller Hinton agar and allowed to dry. Wound dressings cut into circular shapes (2cm diameter) were aseptically placed on the agar plates and incubated at 35 – 37°C for 24 hours. ZOIs associated with Acticoat, Silvercel and Medihoney™ Apinate dressings were compared with that of Atrauman (non-medicated control) dressing. All three dressings showed significant (p < 0.05) biofilm-inhibiting activity against both bacteria at antibiotic concentrations of 1024 and 5120µg/mL with ZOI between 17.5 and 35mm.

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.

Comparison of virus dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying devices

Background World Health Organization and EU 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 hand-drying 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.