Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22 (2010) 12–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajoms

Original Research

Blood contamination of environmental surfaces in outpatient oral surgery

operatory
Takenobu Wada, Kohji Ishihama ∗ , Koji Yonemitsu, Satoshi Sumioka,
Chiaki Yamada, Masataka Higuchi, Mikihiko Kogo
First Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, 1-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High-speed instruments potentially produce large amounts of contaminated splatters and aerosols during
Received 22 May 2009 dental procedures. To evaluate the dissemination of blood and distribution of frequent contaminations,
Accepted 2 July 2009 we investigated blood contamination on environmental surfaces of equipment in an outpatient procedure
Available online 8 June 2010
room. Test samples were collected with disposable alcohol cotton from 443 portions on the surfaces of
medical equipment, and a leucomalachite green blood detection test was then applied. Positive results
Keywords:
were common for dental chair equipment requiring frequent hand contact, such as the controller of the
Aerosols
electric coagulator (46.2%, 6/13) and armrest (36.4%, 4/11). On the surfaces with minimal hand contact,
Nosocomial infection
Dental settings
positive results were observed on the surface of the light arm (35.7%, 5/14) and bracket table arm (12.5%,
Blood-borne infection 2/16). Housekeeping surfaces with frequent hand contact such as the sliding door knob (22.2%, 4/18) and
Hand hygiene towel case (33.3%, 1/3) also showed positive results. Another 36 samples were collected from surfaces
of the PC system. Positive reactions were observed on the keyboard (14.3%, 1/7) and display (33.3%,
2/6), although no blood was detected on the mouse controller, PC body or desk. Possible routes of blood
contamination seemed to be blood-contaminated splatters and medical staff-associated hand contact. As
blood stains were all invisible on the surfaces of frequent hand-contact equipment, these results appear
useful for cleaning and disinfection protocols.
© 2010 Asian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Hospital infection occurs via percutaneous injury, mucous
membrane contact, and from contaminated environmental sur-
faces. Percutaneous injuries with sharp instruments among
healthcare workers represent a risk of occupational transmission
of blood-borne pathogens from infected patients [1,2]. Regarding
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the average risk of
HIV infection has been indicated to be 0.1–0.3% after percutaneous
injury [3–5]. Dental instruments consist of various sharp, unique
instruments, such as files, bars, explorers, and scaler tips. Most den-
tal professionals (94%) have experienced accidental puncturing of
the skin by instruments used in treating patient [6].
Furthermore, splatters and aerosols are frequently produced
when using power instruments in a surgical operating theatre,
resulting in a risk of occupational infection through conjunctival
contact with infected blood [7]. Transmission of HIV can occur
due to exposure of mucous membranes in the eye, nose, or mouth
[3,8]. In dental settings, the blood exposure ratio of 88% among
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 6 6879 2936; fax: +81 6 6876 5298.
E-mail address: kohji ishi@hotmail.com (K. Ishihama).
lead surgeons during third molar extraction [9] was higher than
that of any other medical specialties, including orthopedic surgery
(86%) [7], cardiovascular surgery (75%) [10], and obstetrics (63%)
[11].
In addition to direct exposure via events such as needlestick
injury and splash exposure, transfer of microorganisms from con-
taminated environmental surfaces to medical staff and patients
occurs indirectly, primarily through hand contact [12,13]. Cer-
tain surfaces with reservoirs of microbial contamination have the
potential for nosocomial infection. For example, HBV has been
demonstrated to survive in dried blood on environmental surfaces
for up to 1 week [14]. HBV transmission through environmental
surfaces has been demonstrated in investigations of HBV outbreaks
[15–17], and strategies for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in
patient-care areas are important and well-documented [18].
Splatters produced during dental procedures include oral fluid
and tissue debris, exposing operating personnel to potentially haz-
ardous pathogens [19–23]. Additionally, aerosolized oral bacteria
were detected as far as 2 m from procedure field [24]. However,
little has elucidated the dissemination of blood and distribution
of frequent contaminations. We conducted a series of surveil-
lances around the dental chair unit using the leukomalachite green
blood presumptive test to evaluate distributions of dissemina-

0915-6992/$ – see front matter. © 2010 Asian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ajoms.2009.07.001
 T. Wada et al. / Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22 (2010) 12–16
Fig. 1. The dental chair unit. (A) An overview of the dental chair unit. The arrowhead and arrow indicate the light arm and bracket arm, respectively. (B) The light. Arrows
indicate the light handle, which is categorized as a site of frequent hand contact. Invisible blood stains were detected from one sample. (C) The bracket table. The arrow and
arrowhead indicate the bracket table handle and the syringe holder, respectively. Panel switches are shown in the dashed circle.
tion. The results provide novel information for the prevention
cross-infection at dental settings and oral surgery operatories.
2. Materials and methods
This study was designed as a prospective, single center trial to
survey imperceptible blood contamination on the surfaces of dental
chair units and nearby equipment in an outpatient oral surgery
environment. All samples were collected in the outpatient clinic
room of the Oral Surgery Department at Osaka University Dental
Hospital, Japan.
2.1. Contamination of dental chair unit surfaces
At the end of clinic hours, surfaces of the various parts of the
dental chair unit were wiped with ethanol sterile absorbent cot-
ton (4 cm × 4 cm, STERI COTTO alpha; Kawamoto, Osaka, Japan)
to collect well-diluted invisible blood contamination. For detailed
analysis, the ethanol sterile cotton was used with one sheet by one
limited portion; for example, one sterile cotton sheet for the hand
piece of the air turbine and one sheet for the light handle of the
dental chair unit. The blood presumptive test was then applied for
each test cotton sheet. Cotton sheets displaying positive reactions
on the blood detection test were considered as positive results.
Environmental surfaces comprised clinical contact surfaces and
housekeeping surfaces [25]. Equipment was further divided into
two groups according to the frequency of hand and finger contact
by clinicians [26]. The frequent hand-contact group included con-
troller panel switches, and built-in instruments of the dental chair
unit. The minimal hand-contact group contained the surfaces of
light arms, and chair covers.
2.2. Contamination of equipment and environmental surfaces
With same procedure, surfaces of the various parts of nearby
equipment were wiped with ethanol sterile absorbent cotton. The
13
frequent hand-contact group included cabinet handles, the key-
board and mouse controller of personal computers, and telephones.
The minimal hand-contact group contained the surfaces of cabinet
sliding doors, wagon frames, and most house keeping surfaces, such
as walls and the floor.
2.3. Contamination of walls
Drawing paper (Japanese calligraphic drawing paper,
95 cm × 180 cm, three sheets) was affixed to the wall 1.5 m
from the dental chair unit for the detection of contaminated
splatters on the wall as a housekeeping surface. This paper was
applied for 5 consecutive days. The presumptive test solution was
then sprayed directly onto each paper.
2.4. Contamination of the dental chair unit in third molar surgery
Before each surgery, surfaces of the dental chair light arm
(Fig. 1A, arrowhead) and bracket table arm (Fig. 1A, arrow) were
cleaned with ethanol disinfection cloths (Alwety disinfection cloth,
#72100; Osaki Medical, Nagoya, Japan). These parts are minimal
hand-contact surfaces. Impacted mandibular third molar extrac-
tions were then performed under our standard procedure, as
described previously [9]. After surgery, surfaces of the light arm
and bracket table arm were carefully wiped with the ethanol sterile
absorbent cotton. The blood detection test was then performed.
2.5. Leucomalachite green presumptive test for blood
Cottons used in both surveillances were dried naturally, and
then leucomalachite green solution was applied according to a
method previously established for presumptive testing for blood
[9]. We recorded chemical reactions on the sterile cotton and
grouped the results as positive or negative. The leucomalachite
green solution comprised 0.1 g of leucomalachite green (#125660;
Sigma–Aldrich, MO, USA), 10 ml of acetic acid (#017-00251; Wako
14 T. Wada et al. / Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22 (2010) 12–16

Table 1 Table 2
Results of blood detection testing of the dental chair unit. Results of blood detection testing of equipment and environmental surfaces.

Sample site Number of Total number Positive Sample site Number of Total Positive
positive result of sample ratio (%) positive number of ratio (%)
result sample
Frequent hand contact
Light handle 1 13 7.7 Frequent hand contact
Head rest 0 12 0.0 Writing desk board 0 9 0.0
Back rest 3 12 25.0 Sliding door knob 4 18 22.2
Arm rest 4 11 36.4 Rack board 0 20 0.0
Sheet 1 3 33.3 Gauze can 0 5 0.0
Bracket table 5 14 35.7 Mobile extra-oral vacuum 1 3 33.3
Bracket table handle 3 14 21.4 Printer 0 6 0.0
Syringe holder 4 17 23.5 Phone 0 6 0.0
Hand piece, 3 way syringe 1 8 12.5 Air conditioner switch 0 3 0.0
Panel switch Dr side 6 24 25.0 Door knob 0 3 0.0
Controller for electric coagulator 6 13 46.2 Paper towel case 1 3 33.3
Panel switch Assist side 3 20 15.0
Total 6 76 7.9
Syringe holder Assist side 0 7 0.0
Vacuum 2 8 25.0
3 way syringe Assist side 0 6 0.0 Minimal hand contact
Xp panel screen 0 7 0.0 Sliding door of shelf 1 11 9.1
Frame of shelf 0 4 0.0
Total 39 189 20.6 Rack frame 0 12 0.0
Gauze can base 2 3 66.7
Minimal hand contact Disposal basket for sharp instrument 2 4 50.0
Light arm 5 14 35.7 Wall 0 10 0.0
Bracket table arm 2 16 12.5 Door 0 3 0.0
Xp panel screen arm 0 6 0.0 Frame of hand washing cabinet 3 15 20.0
Spittoon base 7 25 28.0
Total 8 62 12.9
Chair cover 8 15 53.3
Foot switch 1 4 25.0

Total 23 80 28.8 with minimal hand contact, such as the rack frame, walls, and doors,
62 samples were examined (Table 2). Results were negative for the
walls, door, and rack frame.
Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan), 0.5 ml of 30% hydro- A total of 36 samples were collected from PC surfaces (Table 3).
gen peroxide (#081-04215; Wako Pure Chemical Industries), and Positive reactions were most often observed for the keyboard
19.5 ml of distilled water. (14.3%, 1/7; Fig. 2D) and display (33.3%, 2/6), and no blood was
detected from the mouse controller, PC body, or desk.
3. Results
3.3. Contamination of walls
3.1. Contamination of dental chair unit surfaces (Table 1)
Drawing papers affixed to the walls for 5 consecutive days 1.5 m
From the surfaces of frequent hand-contact equipment of the from the unit showed no blood-contaminated splatters in any cases.
dental chair unit, such as the light handle (Fig. 1B, arrowhead), panel
switches (Fig. 1C, dashed circle), syringe holder (Fig. 1C, arrow- 3.4. Contamination of the dental chair unit in third molar surgery
head), and bracket table handle (Fig. 1C, arrow), 189 samples were
examined (Table 1). A total of 39 samples showed positive results Forty samples from the light arm and bracket table arm were
for the blood detection test. Positive results were most frequently collected from 20 cases. Of the 20 samples from the light arm, 16
seen for doctor-side panel switches (25%, 6/24), the controller for (80%) showed positive results for the blood presumptive test. In
the electric coagulator (46.2%, 6/13), the arm rest (36.4%, 4/11), and addition, of the 20 samples from the bracket table arm, 15 (75%)
the bracket table (35.7%, 5/14). were positive. Only three cases displayed no positive reactions to
From the surfaces of minimal hand-contact equipment of the the blood detection test on either surface.
dental chair unit, such as the light arm, spittoon base, and foot
controller, 80 samples were tested (Table 1). Overall, 23 samples 4. Discussion
showed positive results. The chair cover and foot controller were
not usually cleaned, so positive ratios for these surfaces were rel- This represents the first study to methodically investigate blood
atively high, at 53.3% (8/15) and 25% (1/4), respectively. However, contamination of the surfaces of environmental equipment in out-
positive reactions were also observed on the surface of the light patient oral surgery using a presumptive test for imperceptible
arm (35.7%, 5/14) and bracket table arm (12.5%, 2/16), which were well-diluted blood.
close to the reclining patient in the dental chair (Fig. 1A).
Table 3
3.2. Contamination of equipment and environmental surfaces Results of blood detection testing of PC systems.
(Tables 2 and 3)
Sample site Number of Total number Positive
positive result of sample ratio (%)
From housekeeping surfaces with frequent hand contact, such
Keyboard 1 7 14.3
as sliding door knobs (Fig. 2A), air conditioning switches, and tele- Display 2 6 33.3
phones, a total of 76 samples were examined (Table 2). Positive Mouse controller 0 7 0.0
results were detected on the sliding door/cabinet knob (22.2%, 4/18; PC body 0 9 0.0
Fig. 2A and B), the mobile extra-oral evacuator system (33.3%, 1/3), Desk 0 7 0.0
Total 3 36 8.3
and towel case (33.3%, 1/3, Fig. 2C). From housekeeping surfaces
 T. Wada et al. / Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22 (2010) 12–16
Fig. 2. Equipment and environmental surfaces. (A) The sliding door knob. (B) The cabinet door knob. Invisible blood contamination was collected from these knobs, but no
blood contamination was seen on the surfaces of these doors. (C) The paper towel case. Blood detection testing revealed contamination on the lateral surface of the case
frame. The frame does not receive frequent hand contact. However, this portion should be kept clean. (D) The keyboard. Blood contamination was detected from the frame,
but not on the keys.
Environmental surfaces around the dental chair unit seem likely
to be exposed to contaminated particles and aerosols during patient
care [24,27]. In the present study, positive results were observed
from frequent hand-contact surfaces, such as light handles, panel
switches, syringes and syringe holders. All of these surfaces are
both within the range of contaminated splattering during the use of
high-speed instruments and receive frequent hand contact. These
surfaces are strictly cleaned and disinfected with every patient,
so visible contaminations should be excluded. Although no visi-
ble blood stains were seen on surfaces with frequent hand contact
during the study period, the blood detection test revealed contami-
nation with imperceptible blood stains diluted up to 4000-fold [9].
Understanding the range and frequency of dissemination seems
crucial for designing routine cleaning and disinfection processes,
and our results provide information on the distribution of fre-
quently contaminated surfaces.
Housekeeping surfaces with frequent hand contact such as the
sliding door knob, mobile extra-oral evacuator, and towel case
commonly showed positive results in the present study. These
surfaces are far from where dental procedures and oral surgery
are performed using high-speed rotating instruments, which pro-
duce contaminated splatters and particle mists in the surgical
field. Contamination of these surfaces would thus seem to be
caused by contaminated hand contact and medical staff-associated
contamination. Transfer of microorganisms from contaminated
environmental surfaces to patients occurs primarily through hand
contact [12,13]. When these surfaces are touched, microbial agents
can be transferred to instruments, other environmental surfaces,
or the nose, mouth, or eyes of workers or patients [18]. Certain
surfaces can serve as reservoirs of microbial contamination, thus
carrying a potential for outbreaks in the hospital. Hand hygiene
plays a crucial role in minimizing the transfer of pathogens, and
should be well-known by all healthcare workers, including stu-
dents and assistants.
Housekeeping surfaces such as floors, walls and sinks have lim-
ited risk of disease transmission, and thus can be decontaminated
15
using less rigorous methods than those used on dental patient-care
items and clinical contact surfaces [28]. Strategies for cleaning and
disinfecting surfaces in patient-care areas are documented in the
2003 guidelines for dental settings by the CDC [18] as follows: (1)
potential for direct patient contact; (2) degree and frequency of
hand contact; and (3) potential contamination of the surface with
body substances or environmental sources of microorganisms. Our
investigation aimed to evaluate the range and frequency of poten-
tial blood contamination in line with strategy 3.
We have previously investigated contaminated splatters [9]
and aerosols [27] during oral surgery, and have revealed the high
incidence of blood exposure among oral surgeons. The direction
of splatter appears to be up-forward rather than lateral, as the
light arm (1 m up-forward) and the bracket arm (1.5 m forward)
were frequently contaminated after third molar extraction, at
frequencies of 80% and 75%, respectively. In contrast, no blood con-
tamination was observed from paper affixed to the wall 1.5 m from
the chair unit. The precise risk of transmission after skin exposure
remains unknown, but is believed to be even smaller than that for
mucous membrane exposure. To date, at least two cases of HCV
transmission from a blood splash to the conjunctiva [3,29] and one
case of simultaneous transmission of HCV and HIV after non-intact
skin exposure have been reported [8]. The CDC guidelines for den-
tal settings state that the risk of HIV transmission in dental settings
is extremely low [18], because HIV occupational seroconversion
had been identified among healthcare workers, but not among
dental personal [30,31]. To prevent the advent of novel infectious
pathogens with strong infectious potential, however, minimization
of the dissemination of even trivial amounts of pathogens seems
important.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr. Koichi
Sakurada from the National Research Institute of Police Science,
Japan, for helpful advice and discussions during the preparation of
16 T. Wada et al. / Asian Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 22 (2010) 12–16

presumptive tests for blood; to Prof. Kiyofumi Furusawa and Prof. [14] Bond WW, Favero MS, Petersen NJ, Gravelle CR, Ebert JW, Maynard JE. Survival
Minoru Yamaoka of Matsumoto Dental University, Japan, for help- of hepatitis B virus after drying and storage for one week. Lancet 1981;1:550–1.
[15] Hennekens CH. Hemodialysis-associated hepatitis: an outbreak among hospital
ful suggestions during preparation of manuscript; and finally to Dr. personnel. JAMA 1973;225:407–8.
Kunio Yano, Director of the Infectious Disease Division at Hama- [16] Garibaldi RA, Forrest JN, Bryan JA, Hanson BF, Dismukes WE. Hemodialysis-
matsu Medical Center, Japan, for helpful advice and discussions at associated hepatitis. JAMA 1973;225:384–9.
[17] Snydman DR, Bryan JA, Macon EJ, Gregg MB. Hemodialysis-associated hepatitis:
the beginning of this investigation. a report of an epidemic with further evidence on mechanisms of transmission.
Am J Epidemiol 1976;104:563–70.
References [18] Kohn WG, Harte JA, Malvitz DM, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, Eklund KJ, et al. Guide-
lines for infection control in dental health care settings—2003. J Am Dent Assoc
2004;135:33–47.
[1] Makary MA, Pronovost PJ, Weiss ES, Millman EA, Chang D, Baker SP, et al. Sharp-
[19] Micik RE, Miller RL, Mazzarella MA, Ryge G. Studies on dental aerobiol-
less surgery: a prospective study of the feasibility of performing operations
ogy. I. Bacterial aerosols generated during dental procedures. J Dent Res
using non-sharp techniques in an urban, university-based surgical practice.
1969;48:49–56.
World J Surg 2006;30:1224–9.
[20] Bentley CD, Burkhart NW, Crawford JJ. Evaluating splatter and aerosol contam-
[2] Makary MA, Al-Attar A, Holzmueller CG, Sexton JB, Syin D, Gilson MM,
ination during dental procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:579–84.
et al. Needlestick injuries among surgeons in training. N Engl J Med
[21] Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: a brief review of the
2007;356:2693–9.
literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:429–
[3] Ippolito G, Puro V, De Carli G. The risk of occupational human immunodefi-
37.
ciency virus infection in health care workers. Italian Multicenter Study. The
[22] Al Maghlouth A, Al Yousef Y, Al Bagieh N. Qualitative and quantitative analysis
Italian Study Group on Occupational Risk of HIV infection. Arch Intern Med
of bacterial aerosols. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004;5:91–100.
1993;153:1451–8.
[23] Timmerman MF, Menso L, Steinfort J, van Winkelhoff AJ, van der Weijden
[4] Bell DM. Occupational risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection in
GA. Atmospheric contamination during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol
healthcare workers: an overview. Am J Med 1997;102:9–15.
2004;31:458–62.
[5] Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, Srivastava PU, Marcus R, Abiteboul D, et al.
[24] Rautemaa R, Nordberg A, Wuolijoki-Saaristo K, Meurman JH. Bacterial aerosols
A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after per-
in dental practice—a potential hospital infection problem? J Hosp Infect
cutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick
2006;64:76–81.
Surveillance Group. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1485–90.
[25] Favero MS, Bond WW. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materi-
[6] Klein RS, Phelan JA, Freeman K, Schable C, Friedland GH, Trieger N, et al. Low
als. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. 4th ed.
occupational risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection among dental
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 617–41.
professionals. N Engl J Med 1988;318:86–90.
[26] Garner JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Infec-
[7] Collins D, Rice J, Nicholson P, Barry K. Quantification of facial contamination
tion Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
with blood during orthopaedic procedures. J Hosp Infect 2000;45:73–5.
1996;17:53–80.
[8] Beltrami EM, Kozak A, Williams IT, Saekhou AM, Kalish ML, Nainan OV, et al.
[27] Ishihama K, Koizumi H, Wada T, Iida S, Tanaka S, Yamanishi T, et al. Evi-
Transmission of HIV and hepatitis C virus from a nursing home patient to a
dence of aerosolised floating blood mist during oral surgery. J Hosp Infect
health care worker. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:168–75.
2009;71:359–64.
[9] Ishihama K, Iida S, Koizumi H, Wada T, Adachi T, Isomura-Tanaka E, et al.
[28] CDC. Guidelines for environmental infection control for healthcare facilities:
High incidence of blood exposure due to imperceptible contaminated splatters
recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practises Advi-
during oral surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:704–10.
sory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR 2003;52(No. RR-11).
[10] Endo S, Kanemitsu K, Ishii H, Narita M, Nemoto T, Yaginuma G, et al. Risk of
[29] Sartori M, La Terra G, Aglietta M, Manzin A, Navino C, Verzetti G. Transmission of
facial splashes in four major surgical specialties in a multicentre study. J Hosp
hepatitis C via blood splash into conjunctiva. Scand J Infect Dis 1993;25:270–1.
Infect 2007;67:56–61.
[30] Gooch BF, Cardo DM, Marcus R, McKibben PS, Cleveland JL, Srivastava PU, et al.
[11] Aisien AO, Ujah IA. Risk of blood splashes to masks and goggles during cesarean
Percutaneous exposures to HIV-infected blood. Among dental workers enrolled
section. Med Sci Monit 2006;12:94–7.
in the CDC Needlestick Study. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1237–42.
[12] Maki DG, Alvarado CJ, Hassemer CA, Zilz MA. Relation of the inanimate hospital
[31] Do AN, Ciesielski CA, Metler RP, Hammett TA, Li J, Fleming PL. Occupation-
environment to endemic nosocomial infection. N Engl J Med 1982;307:1562–6.
ally acquired human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection: national case
[13] Danforth D, Nicolle LE, Hume K, Alfieri N, Sims H. Nosocomial infections on
surveillance data during 20 years of the HIV epidemic in the United States.
nursing units with floors cleaned with a disinfectant compared with detergent.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:86–96.
J Hosp Infect 1987;10:229–35.