Number

298-EN

Section

General Section

Use

Abstract

Floor cleaning in hospitals is often done using cleaning agents containing disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium chlorides, formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde. Through microfiber mopping it is possible to eliminate or reduce the number of disinfectant cleaners.

Substituted substances

Reliability of information

Evidence of implementation: there is evidence that the solution was implemented and in use at time of publication
Internet information: data are from an internet document and only a basic and partial evaluation could be performed

Reason substitution

other toxic effects
CMR
skin/respiratory sensitizing

Other type of alternative

Microfiber cleaning

Hazard Assessment

Substances to be substituted: Formaldehyde may cause cancer cat. 1B, according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). It fulfils the criteria to be listed in the Substance Database according to SUBSPORTplus Screening Criteria (SDSC). Glutaraldehyde is a Substance of very high concern and is included on the REACH candidate list for authorization, according to Article 59 of Regulation (EG) No. 1907/2006. (REACH Regulation). Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-C12-16 alkyl dimethyl, chlorides has no harmonised classification according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). They are restricted for use as disinfectants under the Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) No. 528/2012 according to the implementing decision 2016/1950/EU. Alternative substance: Non-chemical alternative. Hazards not assessed in SUBSPORTplus.

Description of Substitution

Microfiber mops and cloths are made of extremely fine synthetic fibres, hundred times finer than human hairs. There are many different types and qualities of microfibers with different capabilities to attract dirt and contaminated particles. Ultrafine microfibers are finer than 0.7 denier (denier is a unit of measure for the linear mass density of fibres. It is defined as the mass in grams per 9,000 meters). The most effective material is the split microfiber .Each fibre is split during manufacturing, which gives a much greater effective cleaning capacity, and enables an extremely efficient removal of microscopic particles. Microfibers are naturally electrostatically charged and can pick up small particles, such as dust, without the use of cleaning solvents. Floor cleaning in hospitals and other public facilities with increased demand of hygiene is often done using cleaning agents containing disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium chlorides, formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde. According to Rutala et al. (2007) microfiber cleaning demonstrates a superior microbiological removal compared to cotton string mops used with a detergent cleaner. Split microfiber products provide the best pathogen removal: They remove up to 98% of bacteria and 93% of viruses (Barnes, 2011). The use of a disinfectant does not significantly improve microbiological elimination demonstrated by microfiber mops. Microfiber mops or cloths are not used for more than one patient room or area (such as bathrooms or toilets), this prevents the transfer of infections from one room to another (cross-contamination). Microfiber mopping was compared with conventional mopping with disinfectants in a hospital (Boston). Much less water and cleaner was required using microfiber mops. Microfiber mopping was also compared with conventional mopping in the University of California Davis Medical Centre: Microfiber mopping use 95% less water and chemicals (EPA, 2002). Benefits of microfiber mopping:

• Reduced or no chemicals use,
• reduced water use
• no need to wring the mops,
• no change of water or cleaning solution,
• no cross-contamination.

Case/substitution evaluation

Microfiber mops are an alternative for daily cleaning of patient rooms and entrance areas. They are designed to be used as part of a well-coordinated and tightly controlled cleaning system. Highly sensitive areas (such as intensive care units, emergency and operating rooms) need special hygiene standards, this may not be reached with microfiber mopping. Microfiber mops do not perform so well on old and damaged surfaces. Costs: less water and cleaner use result in lower overall costs.

State of implementation

Full capacity

Date and place of implementation

1995, Sweden

Availability of Alternative

The alternative is available on the market.

Further information

Barnes, S., Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection: What Infection Preventionists Need to Know. ASC Quality & Infection Control (2011). Website retrieved on 11 January 2013 ">http://www.beckersasc.com/asc-quality-infection-control/environmental-cleaning-and-disinfection-what-infection-preventionists-need-to-know.html"> here Rutala, W., Gergen, M.F., Weber, D.J., Microbiologic evaluation of microfiber mops for surface disinfection, Am.J. Infect. Control., Vol 35, No.9, 2007, pp. 569-74. Abstract available here">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17980233">here Quan, X., Joseph, A., Jelen, M., Green Cleaning in Health Care: Current Practices and Questions for Future Research,  Center for Health Design, 2011, 56 pages. Available here">https://noharm-uscanada.org/documents/green-cleaning-healthcare-current-practices-and-questions-future-research">here

Publication source: author, company, institute, year

Desa, JH., Bello, A., Galligan, C., Fuller, T., Quinn, M., Case study: Are Microfer Mops Beneficial for Hospitals?, Sustainable Hospitals Project, Lowell Centre for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2003. Available here EPA, Using Microfiber Mops in Hospitals, Environmental Best Practices for Health Care Facilities, 2002. Available here

Date, reviewed

November 26, 2021