Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;42(4):e39-45.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.12.021.

Environment and body contamination: a comparison of two different removal methods in three types of personal protective clothing

Y P Guo  1 , Yi Li  2 , Peony L H Wong  3
Affiliations

Environment and body contamination: a comparison of two different removal methods in three types of personal protective clothing

Y P Guo et al. Am J Infect Control. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to examine the body contamination rates and environmental contamination levels during the removal of 3 types of personal protective clothing (PPC) by the individual accustomed removal method (IARM) and gown removal methods recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Methods: Fifty participants performed IARM and CDC-recommended gown removal methods to remove 3 types of PPC (ie, cotton gown, water resistant gown, and plastic apron) in random order at 2 separate sessions after applying Glo Germ simulated germ lotion on the gown's surface. A video demonstrating the CDC-recommended gown removal method was shown between the 2 sessions. After PPC removal, fluorescent stains were counted by an ultraviolet scan under dim light.

Results: Following IARM, contaminants were splashed in the surroundings, particularly on the front part of the subject. The plastic apron and cotton gown obtained the highest and lowest contaminative hazards, respectively, to the hands, shoes, and environment. Females, nurses, and senior staff had serious hand or shoe contamination. The CDC removal method more significantly reduced body and environmental contamination of small fluorescent stains (<1 cm(2)), but not of large patches (>1 cm(2)), than IARM.

Conclusion: The effect of gown removal, PPC type, discarding PPC location, training of infection control measures, hand hygiene, and special work shoes should be considered daily.

Keywords: CDC protocol; Cross infection; Fluorescent stain; Isolation gown/apron; Training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Fluorescent stains and patches on the body of the wearer, PPC and surrounding environment under the UV lamp. (A) Fluorescent stains and patches; (B) fluorescent stain and patch seen under UV lamp; (C) contaminated uniform; and (D) contaminated palm.
Fig 2
Fig 2
The environmental contamination level and the body contamination rates. (A) The overall environmental contamination level for 2 removal methods; (B) comparing shoes contamination between female and male for 2 removal methods; (C) comparing hands contamination among different lengths of HCWs experience for 2 removal methods; and (D) comparing shoes contamination among different HCW rankings for 2 removal methods; ∗∗∗P < .001; ∗P < .05 in individual accustomed removal method (IARM); +P = .05 in CDC gown removal procedure (CDC); N.S., not significant in CDC gown removal procedure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/isolation/isolation2007.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2014. - PubMed
    1. Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health and Central Committee on Infectious Disease, Hospital Authority. Section 1: Basic issues in infection control. 1.2 Personal protective equipment. Available from: http://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/icb_icg_1.2_ppe.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2010.
    1. Seto W.H., Tsang D., Yung R.W.H., Ching T.Y., Ng T.K., Ho M. Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) Lancet. 2003;361:1519–1520. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stein A.D., Makarawo T.P., Ahmad M.F. A survey of doctors' and nurses' knowledge and compliance with infection control guidelines in Birmingham teaching hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54:68–73. - PubMed
    1. Boyce J., Potter-Bynoe G., Chenevert C., King T. Environmental contamination due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; possible infection control implications. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:622–627. - PubMed

Publication types