Page 18 - spaces4learning, January/February 2020

spaces4learning K-12 & HIGHER EDUCATION FEATURE
HEALTHY CLEANING
Can more effective cleaning reduce student absenteeism? The evidence seems to say that it can. By Robert Kravitz
A RECENT STUDY FOUND THAT DAILY disinfection of a public school could reduce absenteeism signifi- cantly. The two-year study involved two schools in the Flagler Schools County School District in Bunnell, FL.
In the 2017-2018 school year, the district began using an electrostatic sprayer in one school oncer per month to help im- prove the health of the facility and, hopefully, reduce infection rates. The electrostatic sprayer is designed to release a disin- fectant spray onto surfaces, killing a wide range of pathogens. In a second school, that regime was beefed up considerably by performing disinfecting strategies daily.
As to the results, according to a report in CleanLink, “the school that received daily treatment from the electrostatic tech- nology reported \[a\] 14 percent reduction in absenteeism and no outbreaks of illness. The other school saw a decline in absentee- ism, though it was less significant.”
Taking this a step further, another study was conducted in Canada and reported by Bunzl, a multinational distribution and outsourcing company based in London. This study involved Southview Public School, which is part of the Limestone School District in Ontario, Canada.
According to the researchers, schools are home to many harm- ful pathogens that can cause viral respiratory illnesses, coughs, colds and influenza. “They are responsible for most of the absen- teeism in K–12 schools, not only in Canada, but in many parts of the world.”
To conduct this study, the researchers once again used an electrostatic sprayer disinfecting system. But this time, two other cleaning technologies were brought into the picture. These were:
• Microfiber cleaning cloths, and
• “no-touch” or “spray-and-vac” cleaning systems — a name coined
by ISSA, the worldwide cleaning association.
Themicrofibercleaningcloths
were selected because they are high-
ly absorbent. When compared to traditional terrycloth towels, not
only are they more absorbent, they
also tend to hold soils and patho-
gens longer, so that they are less
likely to spread contaminants from
one surface area to another. Further-
more, many terrycloth towels release
lint. When used in cleaning, the
lint fibers from terrycloth towels can
absorb pathogens that then become deposited on surfaces in the cleaning process.
The no-touch/spray-and-vac cleaning system was added because it helps remove soils from surfaces instead of spreading them. When used to clean floors, these systems eliminate the need for mops, whether microfiber or traditional. While microfiber has proven to be a more effective cleaning tool than conventional cleaning cloths, once it becomes saturated with soil and contaminants, it can spread pathogens instead of removing them.
To conduct the study, five locations were selected in three different classrooms at the Southview school. A total of 40 dif- ferent surfaces were tested before cleaning. This helped deter- mine the amount of contamination on the surfaces and provided a benchmark for tests. Researchers now had a general idea of how contaminated these surfaces can become on a regular basis. The same surfaces were then tested again after cleaning to see if cleaning effectiveness improved using the three cleaning tech- nologies. This is what they reported:
• The number of live bacteria, referred to as colony-forming units (CFUs) in the classrooms, decreased by 93 percent; this indicated that the cleaning effectiveness using the three
18 JAN/FEB 2020