Revolutionizing Hospital Cleanliness: How Color Additives Transform Infection Prevention

Environmental hygiene professional wiping doorknob with an antibacterial disinfecting wipe.

(Adobe Stock 335076729 by Shi)

Recently, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) posted a new study in The American Journal of Infection Control. A case-control study conducted across four New York City hospitals analyzed the risk of health care-associated infections (HAIs) from prior bed occupants or roommates with positive cultures for specific pathogens.

The findings highlight the critical role of enhanced terminal and intermittent cleaning protocols in mitigating HAI risks from environmental and interpersonal transmission in health care settings.

To learn more, Infection Control Today^® (ICT^®) interviewed Olayinka Oremade, MD MPH, CIC, the infection control manager at Griffin Hospital, Derby, Connecticut, and Jason Kang, the cofounder and CEO of Kinnos.

ICT: How do you see using disinfectant wipes with a color additive changing the standard protocols for hospital room cleaning, especially in terms of infection prevention?

Olayinka Oremade, MD MPH, CIC: One of the great things about the Kinnos Highlight color additive we studied is that it integrates directly with ready-to-use disinfectant wipes that many hospitals already have. This means it can be immediately incorporated into standard protocols as a best practice for infection prevention, and the data from our study also shows that the quality improvements from the color additive did not require a sacrifice in operational efficiency.

ICT: The study’s authors found a 69.2% improvement in cleanliness with the color-additive wipes. How significant is this improvement in reducing the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs)?

OO: While our study did not look at HAI rates directly, previous landmark studies by Susan Huang, Mary Hayden, and others have shown that ~40-80% improvements in cleanliness have been correlated to approximately 30 to 50% reductions in HAIs like methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE).

ICT: Given that microbial presence was reduced from 60% to 31% with the color additive, what are the most critical factors that make the color additive approach more effective?

OO: For a long time, we’ve recognized that it’s not only about the disinfectant itself but also about how those disinfectants get used, which is critical for preventing infections—and solving the human behavior and [adherence] piece has historically been a challenge. We know that training and feedback only work when it’s consistent and constant, which is difficult to maintain, especially with high turnover rates among staff and managers. The advantage of the color additive approach is the real-time feedback it provides during cleaning and disinfection. It reinforces the concept of fully wiping every part of a surface with effective mechanical action. The real-time feedback is self-administered, making it scalable.

ICT: How can hospitals integrate visual feedback tools, like color additive wipes, into existing infection control programs without disrupting the workflow of environmental services teams?

OO: The lowest-hanging fruit for environmental services teams would be incorporating the color additive into processes where wipes are already being used, whether daily, terminal, or isolation cleans.

ICT: The study highlighted a slight decrease in cleaning time with the color-additive wipes. How important is cleaning efficiency in maintaining infection prevention standards, particularly in high-traffic areas like inpatient wards?

OO: Many hospitals around the country are routinely at or over capacity, so preserving efficiency and throughput is key to ensuring patient access to high-quality care. From a practical standpoint, great technologies sometimes won’t get used if they add extra effort or time, so it’s an important result that the color additive was able to uphold our high-efficiency standards.

ICT: What are the aesthetic drawbacks to seeing surfaces colored, however briefly, during the study?

OO: Our study did not include EVS personnel or patients’ perception of the color additive. However, we did not find color additive residue on surfaces cleaned during our study.

ICT: What advantages does it offer over the invisible fluorescent marking of high-touch locations with the black light revealing missed spots for retraining?

OO: The color additive provides real-time user feedback as the user immediately sees surfaces that have been effectively cleaned and missed spots. Monitoring cleaning practices and training EVS personnel with fluorescent markers and black light, on the other hand, is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process that requires an additional person to go into the room to mark surfaces before they are cleaned and later return to inspect the same surfaces with the black light to identify missed areas.

Jason Kang: We are unaware of any long-term health impacts, and third-party testing of our product indicates it is safe, nontoxic, and nonirritating. There are no known carcinogens in our formula. This data has been independently reviewed and validated with ISSA’s Global Biorisk Advisory Council STAR registration. Third-party testing has also confirmed that the color additive does not impact the microbicidal activity of disinfectants. The present study and other data sets indicate that utilizing the color additive technology reduces the level of bioburden on surfaces as opposed to fostering microbial growth.