Traub-DargatzJL, DargatzDA, MorleyPS, et al. An overview of infection control strategies for equine facilities, with an emphasis on veterinary hospitals. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract2004;20:507–520.
Traub-DargatzJLDargatzDAMorleyPS, et al. An overview of infection control strategies for equine facilities, with an emphasis on veterinary hospitals. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract2004;20:507–520.)| false
van de GiessenAW, BloembergBP, RitmeesterWS, et al. Epidemiological study on risk factors and risk reducing measures for campylobacter infections in Dutch broiler flocks. Epidemiol Infect1996;117:245–250.
van de GiessenAWBloembergBPRitmeesterWS, et al. Epidemiological study on risk factors and risk reducing measures for campylobacter infections in Dutch broiler flocks. Epidemiol Infect1996;117:245–250.)| false
Objective—To compare the efficacy of a peroxygenbased disinfectant used in footbaths with the efficacy of the same disinfectant used in footmats for reducing bacterial contamination of footwear in a large animal hospital.
Sample Population—Bacteria recovered from the soles of rubber boots after experimental microbial contamination and exposure to disinfectant solutions or water (water-treated control boots) or no treatment (untreated control boots).
Procedures—Investigators contaminated boots by walking through soiled animal bedding. Swab samples were collected from the sole of 1 untreated boot (right or left); the other boot was treated as investigators stepped through a disinfectant-filled footbath, a disinfectant-filled footmat, or water-filled footmat. Samples were collected 10 minutes after each treatment. Differences in numbers of bacteria recovered from treated and untreated boots were analyzed.
Results—Mean bacterial counts from peroxygentreated boots were 1.3 to 1.4 log10 lower (95.4% to 99.8%) than the counts from untreated boots. Results were similar for footmat- and footbath-treated boots. In contrast, there were no statistically detectable differences in mean bacterial counts in samples collected from water-treated or untreated boots.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggest that footmats and footbaths containing peroxygenbased disinfectant are effective in reducing bacterial contamination on the soles of boots when used in conditions representative of large animal hospitals. Similar results were achieved with use of either footmats or footbaths. The use of footbaths and footmats containing effective disinfectants may help decrease the risk for spread of nosocomial infection but should not be expected to sterilize footwear.
Supported by the Animal Population Health Institute through a grant from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and by the James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital.