Efficacy of a Filtered Far-UVC Handheld Disinfection Device on Reducing Microbial Bioburden of Hospital Surfaces

Introduction

Prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has proven challenging, as the occurrence of HAIs among patients continues despite several initiatives undertaken to curb them. Earlier studies have shown that improved surface disinfection can decrease environmental contamination of healthcare-associated pathogens and subsequently decrease the likelihood of patients acquiring HAIs.¹

The current methods of disinfecting healthcare surfaces mainly rely on manual processes using appropriate disinfectant wipes. In recent years, manual disinfection of inpatient rooms is often followed by use of no-touch disinfection (NTD) technologies such as ultraviolet (UV) light emitting devices.² The NTD technologies used in conjunction with manual cleaning can improve the overall disinfection of the surfaces. However, both manual and NTD methods have drawbacks. Manual methods of disinfection are prone to human errors, and studies have shown that up to 50% of surfaces may not receive adequate levels of disinfection during the cleaning process.³ NTD technologies, such as the pulsed-xenon or mercury bulb-based technologies, can only be used in unoccupied patient rooms due to adverse effects of UV, predominantly on the human skin and eyes.^4,5 Hence, disinfection of surfaces in occupied patient rooms or common areas such as nurses’ stations, breakrooms, and portable medical equipment (PME) rely on manual disinfection and cannot benefit from disinfection by whole room UV devices or other NTD devices due to the risk of personnel exposure.

The Filtered Far-UV-C (FFUV) handheld disinfection device produces UV light at a wavelength of 222nm that is germicidal with short contact time but without the drawbacks of traditional UV devices. At 222nm wavelength, FFUV has been shown in numerous studies to be germicidal and safe for human exposure because of the very low penetration depth of FFUV to human skin and eyes at 222nm.^6-12 In vitro evaluations indicate 222nm wavelengths are effective in deactivating a multitude of pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Bacillus cereus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus thuringiensis, Clostridioides difficile and Herpesvirus.^13,14 However, no data are available that attempt to determine if the FFUV handheld disinfection device will be effective or practical to use on different types of surfaces in healthcare settings to eliminate bacterial pathogens.

In this study, we evaluated the ability of a FFUV handheld disinfection device to kill bacteria on commonly used hospital objects in the healthcare setting and compared the FFUV device to that of a manual disinfection using disposable germicidal sodium hypochlorite disinfectant wipes. In addition, we identified the bacterial flora present on the surfaces studied.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with institutional regulatory approvals received from the Research and Development committee at a Veterans Affairs Health Care Center.

The FFUV handheld disinfection device

The FFUV handheld disinfection device used for the study was developed by Freestyle Partners, LLC, and its affiliate, FSP Innovations, LLC which included the Ushio Care222 lamp technology (Figure 1A-D). The 222 nm emitting lamps, produced by Ushio Inc are Care222 excimer lamps containing a chamber filled with a noble gas mixture (Kr-Cl gas) that does not use inner electrodes or contain mercury. When high voltage is applied across the outside of the glass, it “excites” the gaseous mixture inside, causing UV light to be emitted which is then filtered to allow any wavelength below 230nm. The devices emit ∼3.6 mW/cm² at 1 inch distance. A green light (Figure 1D) on the handheld device indicates when the intended operating distance of 1” inch (2.54 cm) from the target surface is reached. Prior to each use, both the dosage and the wavelength of emission of the FFUV handheld disinfection device were validated.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

The portable battery-operated FFUV handheld disinfection device A) side view showing the “on” button (round black) on the device that needs to be held down during operation B) side view of the device showing the glass surface area in the bottom that emanates the UV-C light C) The “red indicator light” suggests the correct distance for the surface to be disinfected has been not yet achieved. D) The “green indicator light” indicates the correct distance has been reached.

Results

Efficacy of Disinfection

The distribution of colony counts in the analysis dataset is shown in Figure 2. For an average surface and experiment, the model-estimated mean colony counts for the sodium hypochlorite control & treatment groups were 20.5 (11.7 – 36.0) and 0.1 (0.0 – 0.2) colony forming units (CFUs), respectively. Similarly, for the UV control & treatment groups the mean colony counts were 22.2 (12.5 – 40.1) and 4.1 (2.3 – 7.2) CFUs, respectively (Figure 2). Samples in the sodium hypochlorite group had an estimated 99.4% (99.0% – 99.7%) reduction in colony counts, while the samples in the FFUV group had an estimated 81.4% (76.2% - 85.7%) reduction in colony counts.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Histogram of colony counts per treatment group, sodium hypochlorite and FFUV. Dark blue indicates the colony counts after treatment and light blue the colony counts in the control group. The left panel is the sodium hypochlorite and the right panel the FFUV groups, respectively.

Based on this data both treatments had a large effect in reducing bioburden, but the FFUV was comparatively less effective than the sodium hypochlorite (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Model estimated mean (points) and 95% Uncertainty Intervals (whiskers) for the sodium hypochlorite (red) and UV (green) control (left) and treatment (right) groups.

Types of Bacterial Flora

The recovered bacteria on the surfaces of the 5 objects chosen for our study prior to use of either intervention belonged to multiple genera and were grouped into gram-positive, gram-negative, and gram variable categories (Table 1). Common gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus, Bacillus, and Micrococcus were recovered from surfaces of all 5 objects. Different gram-negative bacteria from surfaces of each object such as Acinetobacter, Citrobacter, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Escherichia among others were also found as shown in Table 1. Out of the total bacterial flora recovered, the common HAI causing bacteria (both gram-positive and gram-negative) were plotted, and Figure 4 shows the percentage of objects that were sampled that the organism was found on. For example, Staphylococcus hominis was found on 90% of WOWs that were sampled.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1.

A list of all organisms recovered from surfaces of the 5 objects sampled: bedrails, computer keyboards at nurse’s stations, simulation manikins, breakroom tables, and workstation-on-wheels (WOWs).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Organisms recovered from surfaces of the 5 objects grouped by gram stain and ordered by percentage in descending order within genus.

Discussion

The FFUV handheld disinfection device used in this study demonstrated for the first time the ability to reduce microbial bioburden on surfaces in a real hospital environment. The FFUV handheld disinfection device detects the exact distance from the surface with an indicator for application resulting in a consistent dose during use while providing guidance to the end users for optimal results. In addition, the FFUV dose administered for this study is known to be safe for use.^6,7 Therefore, the FFUV handheld disinfection device has the potential to act as an adjunct to current methods of disinfection for healthcare surfaces, especially for surfaces that are not amenable to the use of sodium hypochlorite or other disinfectant wipes.

Our results indicate that sodium hypochlorite treatment effectively reduced the recovery of bacterial flora on all surfaces of 5 objects studied. In comparison, the FFUV handheld disinfection device also ensured disinfection, albeit not complete, of the contaminated surfaces. Additional factors should be considered when assessing the results of this study. Due to low penetrability of FFUV light, some organisms that may have been clumped together could remain viable. This may have contributed to the slightly higher recovery of bacterial flora on each surface when the FFUV handheld disinfection device was used. The disinfectant sodium hypochlorite wipes have an inherent advantage because of mechanical wiping action which contributes to removal of microbial bioburden. However, the FFUV handheld disinfection device can be used on objects and areas where disinfectant sodium hypochlorite wipe use is not feasible due to non-compatibility or risk of the manufacturer voiding the warranty of equipment if a chemical disinfectant wipe is used.

Several studies have associated surface contamination to transmission of HAIs.^15-18 Bacterial pathogens that can contribute to HAIs, including MRSA, have been recovered from the WOWs and computer keyboards at nurse’s stations in our study. Subsequent studies are needed to confirm the possibility of transmission of pathogens from a contaminated surface to a patient and is not within the scope of this study. Overall gram-positive bacteria were recovered at a higher frequency from the surfaces of all 5 different objects compared to gram-negative bacteria. The pre-and post-disinfection surfaces were adjacent to each other in this study to avoid errors when culturing and processing the samples. For this reason, we have not included data for the bacterial flora recovered following treatment.

Microbial bioburden in the hospital environment may be largely a product of the frequency of touches, thus increased frequency of use of cleaners and disinfectants may have more impact on the bioburden at any given time.¹⁹ Whether more frequent use of a UV device may be more convenient for end users than use of chemical disinfectants, needs to be further evaluated in a larger study. These are questions for future studies but should not be considerations in the evaluation of results here.

Our study has some limitations. The contact plates used for our study to recover viable bacteria from different surfaces may not have been able to capture all bacteria, especially from any uneven surfaces. Moreover, the study data was collected by trained research personnel (not end users) to have consistency of device use but not in a blinded manner.

Conclusions

The FFUV handheld disinfection device can effectively reduce bioburden on surfaces. Sodium hypochlorite disinfectant was more effective than that of a FFUV handheld disinfection device as expected. Additional large-scale studies are needed to determine if the FFUV handheld disinfection device may be useful as an adjunct to standard environmental cleaning measures in healthcare facilities or can be used especially for the surfaces where use of chemical disinfectant wipes may not be possible.

Author contributions

TN, BAC performed research; PC and JDC provided detailed guidance on performing the experiments, JDC analyzed data and prepared figures, HC, MRB, GG, MDW, REK assisted with interpretation of the data, PC, JDC, CJ designed research, PC wrote the manuscript and all authors edited and approved the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This manuscript is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, Temple, TX. The device and funding to conduct the study was provided by Freestyle Partners, LLC, and its affiliate, FSP Innovations, LLC to PC. The study sponsor did not have a role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of this manuscript. The corresponding author has full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.