↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of various cleaning and disinfectant products on Clostridium difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 010, 014 and 027

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of various cleaning and disinfectant products on Clostridium difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 010, 014 and 027
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13756-017-0210-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Kenters, E. G. W. Huijskens, S. C. J. de Wit, I. G. J. M. Sanders, J. van Rosmalen, E. J. Kuijper, A. Voss

Abstract

In healthcare facilities, Clostridium difficile infections spread by transmission of bacterial spores. Appropriate sporicidal disinfectants are needed to prevent development of clusters and outbreaks. In this study different cleaning/disinfecting wipes and sprays were tested for their efficacy against spores of distinctive C. difficile PCR ribotypes. Four different products were tested; 1) hydrogen peroxide 1.5%; 2) glucoprotamin 1.5%; 3) a mixture of ethanol, propane and N-alkyl amino propyl glycine; and 4) a mixture of didecyldimonium chloride, benzalkonium chloride, polyaminopropyl, biguanide and dimenthicone as active ingredients. Tiles were contaminated with a test solution containing a concentration of 5x10(6)CFU/ml spores of C. difficile strains belonging to PCR ribotypes 010, 014 or 027. The tiles were left to dry for an hour and then wiped or sprayed with one of the sprays or wipes as intended by the manufacturers. When products neutralized after 5 min, microbiological cultures and ATP measures were performed. Irrespective of the disinfection method, the microbial count log10 reduction of C. difficile PCR ribotype 010 was highest, followed by the reduction of C. difficile 014 and C. difficile 027. Overall, the wipes performed better than the sprays with the same active ingredient. On average, although not significantly, a difference in relative light units (RLU) reduction between the wipes and sprays was found. The wipes had a higher RLU log10 reduction, but no significant difference for RLU reduction was observed between the different C. difficile strains (p = 0.16). C. difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 014 and 027 strains are more difficult to eradicate than non-toxigenic PCR ribotype 010. In general, impregnated cleaning/disinfection wipes performed better than ready-to-use sprays. Wipes with hydrogen peroxide (1.5%) showed the highest bactericidal activity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#518,267
of 13,560,201 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#54
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,767
of 269,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,560,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.