A new electric filter has been designed to reduce the spread of viruses and provide enhanced norovirus  and swine flu protection. The filter is specifically designed to be fitted onboard commercial aircraft in an effort to reduce the international spread of these highly contagious viruses.

According to the systems designers it is able to destroy around 99.9 per cent of known infectious diseases onboard an aircraft. The swine flu filtering system has been designed and constructed by the aerospace giant BAE Systems, alongside a smaller firm, Quest International.

The swine flu protection system is know as “AirManager” and relies upon an electrical field to destroy germs and other pollutant particles circulating in the air. This is quite unlike a conventional air filtration system which seeks solely to remove the particles from the air.

Alongside its ability to destroy swine flu and the norovirus the system is also proven to reduce the spread of dreaded “superbugs” like MRSA and C.difficile. Due to this it is also being considered for use by the NHS in an attempt to reduce the spread of these killer “superbugs” and enhance the current standards of hospital cleaning.

The swine flu filter is especially effective onboard aircraft as the air inside the cabin can be recirculated up to 30 times in a single hour. This could lead to passengers being exposed to infected air numerous times on a flight. Introduction of the swine flu filters may also put an end to the practice of pre-take off disinfectant spraying on long haul flights.

The swine flu filtration system was recently tested onboard numerous aircraft including a Boeing 757. After these successful tests one airline has already placed a firm order. One downside to the filters is their price tag. At £10,000 the price tag may not seem that steep when compared to the operating costs of an aircraft, however a large aircraft would require up to eight swine flu air filtration systems to deal with the volume of air inside the cabin. Regardless of this it is clear that these swine flu protection filters are a break through in the battle against infectious diseases.

A landmark payout has been awarded to a pensioner after he suffered severe burns from sitting on his “toxic sofa”. Maurice Heminsley, a 68 year old from the West Midlands was awarded an undisclosed four figure payout after he was left with severe chemical burns from his imported leather sofa. Upholstery cleaning firms should be aware that there are large numbers of these sofas amongst the population as a whole.

Mr Heminsley purchased the sofa from Furniture Warehouse unaware that it was packed with a toxic fungicide now banned in the EU. The dehumidifier dimethyl fumerate (DMF) was contained within the “toxic sofa” and lead to the pensioner developing a rash across his neck, back and legs after just a couple of days. Within three months the rash had developed into a set of agonising open sores requiring hospital treatment.

The pensioner’s settlement has paved the way for thousands of similar claims from others who have also suffered due to imported furniture containing DMF. It is quite likely that there are many more people suffering in silence from injuries like Mr Heminsley’s. Upholstery cleaning companies should be on the look out for these imported sofas and inform owners of the potential danger contained within them. Doing so will hopefully prevent others from suffering in the way Mr Heminsley has.

His sister, Joyce Barham described him as being “in a terrible state” before comparing his wounds to those of a burns victim. Mr Heminsley was taken to hospital to be treated for acute contact dermatitis as a result of his “toxic” Chinese sofa. His entire ordeal could have been avoided if his sofa came to the attention of trained upholstery cleaners.

Alongside the undisclosed payout Furniture Warehouse also provided a full refund for the sofa which housed the toxic dehumidifier. The sofas were sold by numerous retailers throughout 2007 and 2008. These included Land of Leather, Argos and several independent furniture retailers. The DMF sachets were intended to prevent the leather furniture from going mouldy while it was being stored.

Since May 1st 2009 the European Commission has banned all products containing DMF. The biocide should no longer be found on the market within the EU and it is hoped that the larger furniture retailers will find a swift resolution to the claims lodged against them. Despite the illegality of DMF upholstery cleaners should remain vigilant, it is likely many people still own sofas containing the toxic dehumidifier and are completely oblivious of what it can do.

Last year I was sitting in a monthly BDM (Business development meeting) with the rest of our management team discussing replacing one of our Bane-Clene truck mounted carpet cleaning units’ when it struck me that we had been operating the same machine for over twenty years!

Wow! That made me feel my age but it also brought back fond memories of my very first visit to America and Indianapolis, home of the Bane family. Yes these machines and the whole Bane system are the brainchild of a real life family firm who live and breath carpet cleaning and put into practice on a daily basis their principles, which make them the acknowledged leader in the field of carpet and soft furnishing cleaning.

Originally their equipment was distributed in the UK by an American called Bob Kelly who used to flog up and down the country in a big Renault Master van doing demo’s for anyone interested in truck mounts. You have to remember back in the 80’s a truck mount was a really unusual piece of equipment when most operators were still using small portables and Bob found it really hard to make users realise the benefits the Bane system would bring them.

Whenever Bob was passing through the North of England I used to always give him a bed for the night and we would yarn about carpet cleaning and the industry in general over a few beers. In a typical example of ‘what goes around comes around’ when Bob eventually decided he couldn’t afford to continue his one man crusade to turn British carpet cleaners onto the merits of truck mounts, he gave me the opportunity of buying one of his demo models at a discount in return for the support we had given him.

It was all well and good getting the truck mount at a discounted price but at the time we couldn’t afford to buy the van for the gear to go in and there was resistance to investing ten grand in buying one just to have it dedicated solely to carpet cleaning. Just as it does now the market appeared to be dominated by “blow-and-suck” merchants who advertise that they clean a room for a fiver and your whole house for twenty-five quid so the idea of using a twenty thousand pounds set up to clean carpets appeared total madness.

It was then that I visited Bane-Clene’s Indianapolis facility for their annual convention. This was an awe inspiring visit as I saw at first hand the devotion and belief our fellow operators had in Bane-Clene as suppliers and as a force for good in the carpet cleaning industry. Messianic is the only word I could use to describe the atmosphere. Remember this is a bunch of self employed small business owners, the archetypal independent type of person and they were so committed to being the best at what they do that it was, to a Brit, almost embarrassing as was the almost a religious fervour.

Here I heard for the first time that Bane-Clene guaranteed their equipment for 5 years. So what you might think but you have to remember that at that time even when you bought a new car in the U.K. you were lucky to get a one year guarantee never mind 5 years. It was this simple fact – belief in how good their gear was, combined with everything I has seen and heard from the operators at the convention that persuaded me I had to really push the system and prove that it would work in the UK as well as it did in the States.

Returning home, I took the first step towards getting the equipment mobile. Initially using a twin wheeled trailer, aka ‘The Painted Wagon’ as it had a canvas cover, we used to take just the base unit out to do domestics. After months of towing ‘The Painted wagon’ around we realised that there was enough business to warrant a Merc van Our big break through came though when we purchased a small carpet cleaning company called Maple Leaf that had gone into liquidation. They already operated a couple of truck mounts but they were massive, noisy jet engined machines that ran on diesel and operated at far too high a temperature and pressure to clean carpets safely.

We moved them on as fast as we could then installed Bane equipment instead. The effect this had on the Operators who had transferred to us from Maple Leaf was immediate. They realised straight away the benefits of the new equipment far more readily than other Newlife personnel as they had more experience operating truck mounts and couldn’t believe the results being achieved by simply plugging in a three-pin plug. No screaming engines, no smelly dangerous derv, and no high pressure hoses which constantly split spitting out scalding water.

That was twenty years ago and yes we did order a new machine. Infact we went one better and visited Mr and Mrs Bane Snr. both at their Indianapolis offices and at their home. When we told them this story it delighted them so much they offered us distributorship rights for their range in the UK. We haven’t taken them up on their offer yet but who knows what the future holds.

The moral of the tale though is that by setting your stall out as a specialist then setting your standards and aspirations at the highest level possible you can grow a business which is recognised all around the world as the acknowledged leader in it’s field.

www.baneclene.com

Yet again it appears health scares are being used to drive the sale of specialist vacuum cleaners and mattress protectors to asthma suffers desperately searching for a “silver-bullet”, magical cure to breathing problems thought to be caused by the common house mites found in their bedding and soft furnishings.

A review by experts concluded that they failed to curb the allergens commonly held to be the trigger to asthma attacks.

Ordinary house dust contains innumerable allergens but the major cause for concern is considered to be the mites and their waste products.

Many asthmatics are allergic to these mites that live in the dust around the house, such as in bedding, carpets and soft furnishings.

Heavily promoted methods of tackling the mites include mattress and pillow protectors, washing soft furnishings at high temperatures (60C+), special cleaning agents, encapsulation in dry-ice baths and high powered vacuum cleaners fitted with very fine exhaust filters.

However a review of over 50 previous studies – including a survey of over 3000 asthmatics has found no evidence that such methods are effective. Even after such esoteric treatments it was found that the level of allergens were still high enough to trigger asthmatic attacks for the 8% of the British population who are sufferers.

The review, published by Cochrane Collaboration, involved analysing 36 trials involving physical interventions such as mattress protectors designed to block mites out to a further 10 studies using chemical methodology and a further 8 trials combining both chemical and physical interventions.

With Acknowledgement to Daily Telegraph

The UK Cochrane Centre was established at the end of 1992, by the National Health Service Research and Development Programme, ‘to facilitate and co-ordinate the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of health care’. During its initial period of funding (1992-1995), the Centre’s objectives included a number of activities intended to promote international collaboration in this work. Centre staff worked with others to help establish The Cochrane Collaboration, which was launched at the first Cochrane Colloquium in Oxford in October 1993. The UK Cochrane Centre is now one of twelve Cochrane Centres around the world, which provide the infrastructure for co-ordinating The Cochrane Collaboration. The Centre supports contributors to The Cochrane Collaboration in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Turkey and countries in the Middle East.

In the Contract Cleaning industry many of our Green efforts are focused on using less aggressive chemicals or introducing equipment such as foam generators and low-pressure steamers, which maximise cleaning results while minimising chemical inputs. But we also need to have regard for the impact our processes can have on the environment.

Consider for example the phenomenon that our Bane-Clene Carpet cleaning division call “Uglied Out”

Most carpet specifiers and major users don’t realise that carpets are actually designed to hide dirt. When I was a child in the 50’s, the majority of carpeting in most homes was a square of patterned woollen carpet surrounded by a perimeter of “lino”. Once a year the carpet would be taken outside, hung over the washing line then literally beaten to release the dirt and grit that had been absorbed even though the carpet had been ”Hoovered” regularly. It would then be wet cleaned either by hand scrubbing or if you were high-tech using 1001 carpet cleaning detergent. Forget hot water extraction, I don’t think it existed then and if you were going to scrub a commercial installation it was a case of using a high foaming detergent and a low speed polisher fitted with a scrubbing head and tank.

Now most carpeting is made with new generation fibres and man made backing materials. Whereas dust and grit has always fallen to the base of the pile tufts with this new generation, often triangular shaped fibres, the soil is even more hidden from the naked eye. The result is that instead of doing an annual “Spring Clean” now, carpet cleaning only gets done when the carpet can’t physically absorb any more dirt and it becomes visible to the naked eye.

Unlike the natural fibres of yore the dirt and soil abrades the new generation fibres causing them to lose their lustre and distort. The net result is dirty dingy traffic lanes set into a carpet packed with pounds of dirt and grit to the square metre. This is the point where we say the carpet has “uglied out” not worn out. And it’s all due to the lack of a basic maintenance programme.

What happens next though is the environmental disaster. With the carpet past the point that a restoration clean can save it, the only option is dumping it to waste. But unlike natural fibre carpets whose final journey could often be to the bottom of the garden where it was used as a weed suppressant or compost cover, new generation fibres and backing do not degrade and get absorbed back into the soil. Just like plastic bags it is estimated that they can take up to 50 years to rot and disappear.

How can you help stop this waste of resources and damage to the natural environment? Well if up to 80% of the contaminants in a carpet are dry soil, the simple answer is the use of vacuum cleaner on as regular basis as your premises needs. Pay double attention to entrances and high traffic zones, use dust mats to trap dirt and reduce the amount being tracked into your building in the first place. Above all though implement a proper planned maintenance-cleaning programme. Just because your carpets can look clean doesn’t mean that they are.

Columbus Dixon

By Mark Warner on behalf of ISSA

It seems we can’t go a day without more press coverage of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), or the superbug.  Infectious disease control has long been the concern of infection control departments in hospitals and nursing homes but rarely has it been the focus of cleaning staff in schools, colleges, day care centres offices, government buildings or large industrial plants. Now, because of recent deaths, we know that many more pathogenic bacteria have become more deadly than ever – and are cropping up in more places than ever. In fact, beyond MRSA, there are other more horrific diseases on the horizon, things like multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter and others that you may hear about in the future.

The cleaning industry has been fighting the MRSA superbug for years. Stories about MRSA and other “flesh-eating bacteria” appeared in many of the broadsheets 15 years ago. To deal with MRSA and other superbugs, it is extremely important we understand what the threat level is so we can adjust our cleaning programme accordingly. What we need to do and when are totally dependent on the environmental degree of danger and on having a complete understanding of the different types of contagious pathogens that we need to confront.

The Degree of Danger

To assess the environmental degree of danger, we have to understand how to identify the degree of threat levels and adjust the procedures, chemistries and tools to fit the situation. To better explain this philosophy; let’s use the DEFCON ranking system

DEFCON 1: No Threat

Normal, everyday cleaning procedures can best be described as a DEFCON 1 threat level-no threat. Although there are minor adjustments that can be made, most of these adjustments are related to the facility’s appearance. One can assume that the existing cleaning programme is adequate if the facility looks and smells clean. Regular neutral floor cleaners or half ounce per gallon disinfectant cleaners are usually preferred to keep end use costs minimised. The biggest concern is not to allow any used cleaning solution to sit in a mop bucket or the recovery tank of a machine. Bacteria can thrive and multiply around moisture on ex[posed bucket or recovery tank surfaces. If the used solution is a disinfectant solution yet is highly soiled, it’s disinfections capabilities can be severely compromised, allowing a massive explosion of the growth of bacteria in the used solution itself!

• Everyday housekeeping procedures may not need to change, assuming that all the proper procedures are already in place.

DEFCON 2 Threat in the Community

The most important time to ramp up the game is when there is a threat in our community (DEFCON 2). At this point, normal procedures need to be more aggressive. Basic chemical disinfectants need to be replaced with hospital grade disinfectants that are specific to the pathogenic threat. It is generally preferred to use a disinfectant cleaner concentrate with a rich mixture ratio such as 2 ounces per gallon to increase the cleaning efficacy of the disinfectant. Hard floor cleaning procedures need to be exemplary. Traditional mop buckets need to be monitored in regard to frequent and consistent solution changes. Disinfectant solutions lose their killing efficacy, as they are loaded with bacteria and soil picked up from the floors. Even solution that looks clean can be overloaded with bacteria. There are several answers to this dilemma, including the use of auto scrubber driers and pressurised self-contained flat mop systems. Both focus on the use of clean, fresh solution being applied to the floor, without the danger of used solution being introduced to the clean solution.. In addition different chemistries are needed for soft, porous surfaces such as carpeting and upholstery. Because carpets and upholstery are porous they can’t be disinfected like hard non-porous surfaces, but using a carpet sanitiser can help. Try to use low moisture systems. The goal is to have the carpets or fabrics dry within two hours to greatly minimise the chances of the formation of bacteria colonies or mould or mildew.. Tools and equipment may need to be upgraded, but more importantly, all the tools and equipment need to be disinfected on a daily basis. Also supply carts, storage areas and the housekeeping offices need to be completely cleaned and disinfected, since they are at the hub of activities that reach into all areas of the facility.

• Speciality disinfectants, disinfected cleaning equipment, and more aggressive procedures need to be implemented.

DEFCON 3 Threat in The Facility

When there is an outbreak in the facility (DEFCON 3), we need to use the strongest disinfectants possible, preferably a tuberculocidal-rated disinfectant. It is critical to use the appropriate procedure for different types of contamination. We may be facing contaminated blood or body fluids, as well as contaminated surfaces and substrate.

Since few people are trained to properly identify body fluids, cleaning personnel should assume that all fluids are potentially infectious and treat them accordingly. To clean up blood or bodily fluid it is recommended that the fluid be saturated with disinfectant cleaner to re-emulsify any dried material and to reduce the viscosity of any thickened fluid. This procedure creates a safer environment for the cleaning person, as well as reducing the possibility of surface-to-surface cross contamination on the soles of the cleaner’s shoes. After absorbing the material, and putting it into a yellow biohazard bag disinfect the surface and allow the disinfectant 10 minutes dwell time.

For general surface disinfection, it is critically important to focus on all the largest environmental reservoirs of bacteria. Obviously, most people are preoccupied with touch points. Although they are important to disinfect, the largest reservoirs of bacteria tend to be the largest horizontal surfaces in a facility: floors, desks and countertops.

In addition, the use of bio-remediation technology can eliminate disease causing bacteria or viruses in the air and inside floor grout lines, concrete and wood floors, under carpeting or vinyl tile or inside the walls. These bacteriological and bio-enzymatic products consume the food sources that the pathogenic bacteria need to survive. In this way, the pathogenic bacteria are displaced with safe, non-pathogenic bacteria that die when the food source is completely gone.

For the air in contaminated buildings, a popular and effective tool is the use of wall mounted or floor standing lamp units that produce UVA or UVC light in a protected vent chamber or tube. These units will sterilise all the air passing through them. Over time they will greatly reduce the airborne bacteria counts to levels less likely to cause infection, literally sanitising the air. Ozone is an effective way to treat the air during times when a room isn’t occupied. It oxidises organic molecules and bacteria in the air by corroding them.

• A three-dimensional approach needs to be used so that the surface, sub-surface and air borne bacteria are addressed effectively, as well as strict adherence to proper procedures for blood and body fluid cleanup.

DEFCON 4: Weapons grade Pathogens in a Facility

The most extreme level is DEFCON 4. There may be a time when we need to completely decontaminate a facility exposed to bio-terrorism or weapons grade pathogens. Keep in mind, any contagious pathogen that has been determined to be lethal to 85% or more of its hosts needs to be handled at this level and there have been naturally occurring diseases that meet this criterion. A good example of this was the Ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1998, with a 90% kill rate.

This decontamination operation is performed on an unoccupied (or evacuated) building. The most common approach for this operation is the use of radiation with Alpha or Beta particle sources or the use of gases and free-radical technology. These technologies are very dangerous and some are explosive, so knowledge and experience are critical.

• This level of decontamination requires special protective equipment, tools and training. It should only be performed by professionals who are experienced in this kind of procedure.

In summary, the most important message is that we need the proper chemistries, the proper tools and the procedural knowledge to have any chance of being successful. Also, we need to have some way to verify or validate that we have accomplished what we wanted to accomplish – the elimination of the disease-causing bacteria or viruses. Equipment like ATP- hygiene monitoring devices and swab cultures may be necessary.

Keep in mind, when the threat is high and the cost of failure is high, we need to clean everything! The enemy in this case is invisible, so we need to assume that what looks clean may not be actually clean. In this day and age, we really can’t be too vigilant. Fore-warned is forearmed.

This article, re-produced with kind permission, is written by Max Warner, international director of disinfection and decontamination certification for Airx Laboratories and appeared in www.ISSA.com

Most sectors of the cleaning industry have been rather scathing about the government’s ‘quick fix’ of throwing £50,000,000+ at the current hygiene problems within the NHS.

Equally vocal have been the usual trades union demands that the funds be spent on introducing more in-house cleaning staff and ‘good old fashioned Matrons’ instead of the work going to the dreaded private sector.

Against this backdrop, every cleaning trade magazine is bursting with articles about the latest gizmos, chemicals or Heath Robinson contraptions, which will save patient’s lives by eradicating every bug and virus known to man.

Where is the voice of reason and common sense amongst all this discordant background noise? New Labour has pumped more money into the NHS over the last 10 years than it’s founder Bevin could possibly ever imagine. Why does it appear to have gone so horribly wrong?

Newlife’s experiences’ travelling around the country carrying out hospital deep cleans for primary care trusts have been shocking and horrifying. Basic standards of day-to-day cleanliness vary dramatically from site to site. Each authority has a different interpretation of the work specification they want achieved to obtain the results they desire under the same Deep Clean programme. In some cases the ultimate cleaning objective appears to have morphed from decontamination to having “clean shiny floors” or simple wall washing with no attention being paid to soft furnishings, fixtures and fittings.

Is this simply Trusts trying to get extra cleaning works completed under the guise of decontaminating their premises or is it a simple fundamental lack of cleaning knowledge?

Surely common Best Practice methods could be adopted by following the methodology of our European neighbours who already have proven lower levels of infection.

Simple screening of incoming patients, staff and other workers would identify carriers and allow isolation and specialist cleaning to be directed more cost effectively straight to where it is most needed.

Further education of patients would allow them to gently dissuade their own casual visitors and empower them to remonstrate with hospital staff and visitors that are not adhering to basic personal hygiene standards.

We believe that seemingly simple steps such as these would reduce bacterial infections to an acceptable level leaving “one-off” deep cleaning budgets free to be focussed on emergency requirements as they arise.

Columbus Dixon