#Cleaning Services Cambridge

[cambridgecleaners]

Efficient Tips for Outsourcing School Cleaning Services in Cambridge

Maintaining a clean and hygienic environment is crucial for the health and well-being of students and staff in schools. With the demanding schedules and responsibilities of educators and administrators, outsourcing school cleaning services has become a popular solution to ensure that facilities remain clean and sanitary. In Cambridge, schools rely on trusted cleaning professionals like Cambridge Cleaners to uphold high standards of cleanliness. Here are some efficient tips for outsourcing school cleaning services in Cambridge to ensure a safe and healthy learning environment for all.

1. Define Your Cleaning Needs: Before outsourcing school cleaning services, it's essential to define your cleaning needs and expectations. Determine the scope of cleaning required, including areas to be cleaned, frequency of service, and any specific cleaning protocols or standards to be followed. By clearly communicating your cleaning requirements to potential cleaning companies like Cambridge Cleaners, you can ensure that they can meet your needs effectively.

2. Research Cleaning Companies: Conduct thorough research to identify reputable cleaning companies in Cambridge that specialize in school cleaning services. Look for companies with experience in cleaning educational facilities, certifications in cleaning and sanitation standards, and positive reviews or testimonials from satisfied clients. Cambridge Cleaners, for example, has a proven track record of delivering high-quality cleaning services to schools in the Cambridge area.

3. Inquire About Cleaning Protocols: When considering potential cleaning companies, inquire about their cleaning protocols and procedures to ensure they align with your school's needs and standards. Ask about the products and equipment they use, their adherence to health and safety regulations, and their approach to addressing specific cleaning challenges commonly found in school environments. Cambridge Cleaners employs eco-friendly cleaning products and utilizes advanced cleaning techniques to ensure thorough and effective cleaning while minimizing environmental impact.

4. Discuss Customization Options: Every school has unique cleaning requirements based on factors such as size, layout, and usage patterns. When outsourcing school cleaning services, discuss customization options with the cleaning company to tailor their services to meet your specific needs. Whether you need daily cleaning, deep cleaning services, or specialized cleaning for high-traffic areas, Cambridge Cleaners can customize their services to accommodate your school's schedule and budget.

5. Ensure Open Communication: Effective communication is essential for a successful partnership between schools and cleaning companies. Maintain open lines of communication with the cleaning company to address any concerns, provide feedback, and make adjustments to cleaning schedules or procedures as needed. Regular communication helps ensure that cleaning services remain consistent and responsive to the evolving needs of the school community.

Conclusion: Outsourcing school cleaning services in Cambridge offers numerous benefits, including maintaining a clean and sanitary environment conducive to learning, relieving educators and staff of cleaning responsibilities, and ensuring compliance with health and safety regulations. By following these efficient tips and partnering with a trusted cleaning company like Cambridge Cleaners, schools can uphold high standards of cleanliness and create a safe and healthy learning environment for students and staff alike. Contact Cambridge Cleaners today to learn more about their comprehensive school cleaning services and experience the difference of working with a professional cleaning team committed to excellence.

[mintmaintenance]

Mint Maintenance

Searching for reliable cleaning services in Boston? Mint Maintenance delivers exceptional residential and business cleaning solutions to maintain a pristine and inviting environment. Our skilled professionals provide a range of options, including routine tidying, thorough deep cleans, move-in/move-out support, post-renovation spruce-ups, and specialized care for upholstery and carpets. Fully insured and bonded, we prioritize outstanding service and offer adaptable scheduling for single visits or regular upkeep. Enjoy transparent pricing with no surprise fees for a seamless, stress-free process. Trust Mint Maintenance to tackle the dirt, leaving your space refreshed, hygienic, and cozy every time!

house cleaners boston ma

[ronqueenservices]

Worried about your messy and dirty property filled with unwanted junk in Cambridge? Welcome to Ron Queen Services – where cleanliness meets perfection! Our experienced cleaners and junk removal experts will be readily available to give the best junk removal and cleaning services in Cambridge.

[trans-girl-uchiha-itachi]

a whistle-stop tour of wizarding history of the british isles

(or, a cleaned-up version of the conspiracy theory corkboard i word-vomited into the groupchat instead of writing umbridge + hinata interactions)

the wizengamot was originally convened sometime in the 600s in a similar mold to the icelandic althing (or the anglo-saxon witenagemot, which is possibly where jkr got the idea from): both a legislative and a judicial body, but governing wizards exclusively. the wizengamot governed the wizarding population of the entire british isles, not only england, because the british isles are pretty small if you have teleportation magic or even just broomsticks and the wizard population is just not that large. pre-statute of secrecy, wizards were governed by both their local muggle government and by Wizengamot Compacts; wizards who did mundane crimes went to muggle court and wizards who broke the wizengamot compacts went before the wizengamot (e.g., in the creepy trial room harry goes to in ootp).

post-statute, this worked... less well. wizarding families did a LOT of regulatory arbitrage by sliding between the wizard and muggle worlds as needed. hence the formation of the ministry of magic, which is a normal-ish UK government ministerial department that bolted itself onto the wizengamot for legitimacy. there are all KINDS of weird edge cases for regions that are within the area governed by the wizengamot but outside the area governed by the UK civil service or vice versa. one of these is...

hogwarts! originally constructed in an unplottable location in the scottish highlands circa 970 as a small defensive keep for protection of wizarding children and families against viking raids. (hence why it has all this nuclear-grade secrecy magic and defensive warding on it.) the families living there self-established schooling/training programs of an informal nature, since they were all living together anyway.

meanwhile, in england, a few wizarding schools were established loosely following the oxbridge model in the 1200s. these were disbanded in 1333ish (when oxford/cambridge petitioned the king to shut down the fledgling university at stamford). some of the teaching staff were absorbed into the magical colleges at oxford and cambridge, but some of them (and their students) went up north to hogwarts, which was then significantly expanded (in the collegiate gothic architectural style) to accommodate. in the oxbridge model, "public" schools like eton were formed as feeders, but given the wizarding world's lower population hogwarts operated as both a secondary and a postsecondary school at this point.

at the same time, the viking threat being more or less dissipated, most of the original families moved out of the keep proper and founded the town of hogsmeade. (many of their descendants still live there, because wizards are nothing if not traditionalists.)

in the 1700s, as formal wizarding education became more popular, hogwarts' size could no longer support both secondary and tertiary education. the "colleges" (tertiary education) were split off into a different, formerly abandoned castle in the wizarding town of thursala (a former norse settlement, ironically). the keep at thursala no longer operates as a university on the oxbridge model, but continues to be a small research center focusing on runic and ritual magic until the present day. remaining at hogwarts after the split were the "houses" of 11-17 year olds.

in 1863, the plumbing system was completely rebuilt and modernized. perfidious gaunt took the opportunity to build the chamber of secrets after getting caught in his first three attempts at hatching basilisks in his dorm room. (because hermione memorized all of hogwarts: a history, when she looked for the chamber of secrets she looked in the original 970s keep, not the modern pipes!)

because hogwarts is old as balls (technically speaking), it is technically only answerable to the wizengamot and the board of governors, not the muggle UK government and therefore also not the ministry of magic. (so all hogwarts professors randomly have diplomatic immunity to a bunch of stuff. please do not tell hinata about this.) as well as hogwarts castle and grounds, a few other places (like the original meeting place of the wizengamot) have this Wizarding Neutral Territory legal status, but hogwarts is the only one that actually has a population. (the wizarding world does love its enclaves! e.g., gringotts bank is legally Goblin Country.)

the educational decree thing gets its legitimacy from a wizengamot resolution (pushed, of course, by lucius malfoy's faction) that gives the ministry Very Temporary oversight powers over hogwarts; it expires at the end of 1996. that's why umbridge is in such a rush to maneuver herself into being headmistress -- once you are the headmaster/headmistress of hogwarts, you are LITERALLY king of the castle.

hogwarts is certainly not the only wizarding secondary school in the UK, but it's the only one that has this level of legal independence. also there is for SURE tuition -- most of the rich wizengamot families just pay it, because what are you gonna do, not send your kids to hogwarts?? how embarrassing. some families (like the weasleys) had ancestors who received, as a boon for their significant assistance to hogwarts, the right to send "children of their name" there in perpetuity. there are also some merit and some lottery scholarships; in both cases there is a magical lottery (for merit scholarships instead of a test there's just a divination spell that assesses your Objective Level of Merit, as conceived by the guy who developed the merit spell in 1680 or whatever). the admissions spells are old as fuck and difficult to modify -- usually this is only done when the tuition/scholarship proportions or student population size need to be tweaked. the hogwarts letters are, of course, produced fully formed by a magical stone frog statue which extends its long tongue and spits out the letters.

[avastrasposts]

The British Connection - ch. 5

Summary: Grace Mallory makes a reluctant Billy Butcher and The Boys team up with an MI6 operative sent over from London to track down a dangerous supe killing people on both sides of the pond. Billy is being his usual arsehole self but maybe opposites attract?

It's 14 chapters and complete and 'll be posting a new chapter every day

Warnings: canon typical violence, smut, fluff, Butcher being his usual grumpy and unreasonable self, nasty supes, guns etc.

“Right”, Butcher says, “Frenchie and Hughie, I need you two to sweep the office for bugs. Just to make sure we’re not being fucked by our own side. Until it’s clean, not a word of this inside that building. Get on it.” 

Frenchie gives a sloppy salute and starts off at a jog back towards the Flatiron, Hughie and Kimiko in tow.

“Edwards, have you got access to the CCTV footage of the attacks on the PM and the Chief of the Defence staff?”

“Not yet,” Eve replies, “I’m working on it, my CO at Vauxhall will send it over as soon as he has it.”

“Can you trust him?” Butcher asks. 

“Yes, Cochran’s reliable.” 

Butcher nods and looks over at MM. “I need you to ask around our connections, discreetly, for any word on the attacks on the two US politicians. You know the drill, no traces.”

“Sure thing, Butcher,” MM replies, “I’ll get on it straight away. You wanna bring Mallory in on this too? She’s got the best connections and you know this kinda fucked up shit is generating a lot of buzz that she’ll hear.” 

“No, I need to see Mallory about some other business, I’ll see what she knows, if she’s got the same info Edwards does.”

“Do you want me to come with you to see Mallory?” Eve asks. 

“Get that CCTV footage, that’s your priority, Edwards. It’s still office hours in the UK, get on to your CO and get that footage before this cunt supe kills someone else. I’ll ring ya when the office is clean.” 

Eve nods, “Keep me posted.” She raises her hand in a wave to MM and leaves them in the park. 

“Do you trust her, MM?” Butcher asks, watching Edwards retreating back as she makes her way to the subway.

“No more or less than I would any other government agent.”

“Ye, we’re gonna need to keep an eye on her, see what her game is.” 

“Does it make a difference that she’s British, Butcher?” MM asks. 

“Na, MI6 or CIA, they’re pretty much all the same type of cunts. And with her background…” he trails off, still watching Edwards. “I’m not sure Mallory clocked it but Edwards and I don’t exactly speak the same type of English, you know wha’ I mean?” 

“Yeah, you sound like Michael Caine, she sounds like Lady Mary Crawley.”

“She’s posh alright, probably went to Cambridge and got recruited to the service straight from the local Tory meetings thanks to a tip from a well connected daddy. And I’ve never had any good experiences with blokes of her background, served with a couple of right cunts who thought they could order me and the other lads around just ‘cause we didn’t grow up with bleedin’ silver spoons. But I’ve never served with a woman from that background, had a couple of higher ups of course, but never in the field.” 

MM hunches his shoulders against the creeping cold. “I say we let her prove herself before we make any judgments. At least maybe now you’ll have someone to bitch about American tea with.” 

“Fucking ‘erbal shite.”

Butcher claps MM on the shoulder, “Right, I’m off to see Mallory. Let me know if you dig up something I need to know. I’ll see you at the office later.” 

“See ya, Butcher.” 

Grace Mallory’s house is located in the countryside outside the city, surrounded by forest and hills. The usually lush green drive up to the house is grey and slushy this January afternoon as Butcher approaches the house in his beat up car. Mallory is already at the door, expecting him. 

“Two meetings in one day, William, what an honour,” she says in a dry voice as he walks up to her. She steps aside and lets him in. 

“Well, you set up the first one, and I’m here for some more information about Ms Edwards, so blame yourself,” Butcher says and walks over to the large windows overlooking the hills, trailing slush on the floor. Mallory stops by the fireplace. 

“I know that her CO, James Cochran, wanted her on this case and contacted the CIA Deputy Director directly and arranged for her to be flown over on a military flight. He vouched for her discretion and capabilities and the Deputy Director passed her on to me for the enviable task of convincing you to take her onboard. Cochran has worked with the CIA on multiple occasions and has a solid reputation, we have no reason to doubt his recommendations.” 

“I don’t need her CO’s bloody letter of recommendation,” Butcher scoffs. “I want her background info. Why her on this case? Where has she served and with who? Who’s she connected to? I need to see her bloody file, Mallory.”

“You don’t have that clearance, Butcher,” Mallory sighs. “Your job is to find the supe, with her help. You don’t need to know more about her than what the Deputy Director thinks you need to know.”

“Don’t give me that bullshit, Mallory,” Butcher snarls, “She showed us the videos MI5 picked up. That supe can control anyone to do anything by the looks of it, so I bloody well need know who the fuck I’m letting on to my team.” 

“That doesn’t make any difference, Butcher.”

“The hell it does! I have no doubt she’ll be able to put a bullet in Hughie’s head if he suddenly tries to kill me, but will she? Or will she focus on nabbing the fuckin’ supe alive and get MI6 a new superweapon while me and the boys are tearing each other’s throats out?”

Butcher steps up to Mallory next to the fireplace, staring down at her. “Show me her fuckin’ file, Mallory, or I walk.”

“You walk away from this and you can kiss your budget and office goodbye, Butcher.” 

“We’ve done just fine in underground basements before, I’m sure we can find some new crack den to clear out and use as a base away from the fuckin’ cunts at the CIA.” 

When Mallory doesn’t move Butcher makes for the door, digging up his car keys from the pocket, jangling them loudly.

“Last chance, Mallory. Or you’ll have to explain to the Deputy Director that you lost The Boys.” 

Mallory tilts her head back and looks at the ceiling for a few seconds before cursing under her breath. 

“Wait Butcher, just wait.”

She disappears further into the house and Butcher stops by the door. After a few minutes Mallory returns with a USB stick. 

“This is the file I got from the Deputy Director on Eve Edwards. Parts of it are censored, not my doing, so you’ll need to go higher up to get your answers there. Or ask Edwards directly.” She hands the stick to Butcher who pockets it. 

“Knew you’d get there in the end, Grace,” he replies, giving her his best bullshitting smile. He takes a few steps out of the door but as Mallory is pulling it closed he turns, as an afterthought, and stops her from closing it. 

“By the way, I heard on the radio on my way over that the Speaker of the House died yesterday morning, you wouldn’t know anything about that, would ya?”

“I heard it was lunchtime today,” she replies, “Heart attack.” 

“Oh, was it today? I must’ve misheard it, could’ve sworn it was yesterday,” Butcher walks towards his car again, giving Mallory a wave over his head with his back turned. 

A couple of miles down the road Butcher pulls into a pit stop and pulls out a laptop from under the rubbish littering the back seat. Firing it up he puts the USB from Mallory into the slot and opens the file contained within. He tabs through the first page, past all the standard text about classified information and finds what he’s looking for.

Title: The Honourable 

First name(s): Genevieve Horatia Daphne (Eve)

Surname(s): **** Edwards (Edwards)

DOB: 1977-03-14 Father: Name redacted for security

Mother: Name redacted for security

Brother: Name redacted for security

“Fuckin’ the honourable Genevieve Horatia Daphne…” Butcher mumbles darkly as he scans the first page. Her first surname is redacted and he can see that it’s been redacted in several places. He skims through her background, she went to Christchurch College, Oxford, modern languages, was on the college rowing team, the PolSci club, recruited by SIS as intelligence analyst while still at Oxford, recommended by her father, name redacted. She speaks five foreign languages; French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Farsi and Butcher makes a mental note to tell Frenchie that she speaks French, just to be safe. Both French and Russian are listed as “native level”. 

Her first foreign posting seems to have been in Chechnya in the late 90’s. She was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in -01 and -02, Iraq in 2003. Injured and on leave for most of 2004, the injury is redacted. He skims through the pages of her history, and starts paying attention when she moves from the SRR to MI6 in 2011 but finds nothing suspicious until he gets to the end of the file and present day events. Big chunks have been redacted and the file stops making sense. The last two pages are wiped completely. 

“Someone made sure Mallory didn’t see this, or wanted to make sure she didn’t pass it on to us,” Butcher thinks. He’s tapping his fingers on the steering wheel, trying to piece together the fragments of the file that haven’t been redacted. Scrolling backwards towards the beginning again he re-reads the file. Something at the back of his brain is itching, he’s missing a detail, and he can feel it trying to break through. He re-reads it again and his eyes catch on her redacted surname and it hits him.

“Why the fuck are they keeping her father’s name secret?” he says out loud in the car. “Who the fuck is her dad?” He scrolls back to the top and sees that her parent’s and brother’s names have been redacted for security reasons. 

Suddenly his phone rings, breaking his train of thought. The display shows Frenchies name and Butcher picks up. 

“ ‘Sup, Frenchie, we clean?” 

“Qui, Monsieur Charcutier, we found nothing, only deux cafards. We can return to the office but we may need to bring gas masks, MM has emptied two cans of Bug-Off in there.”

In the background Butcher can hear Kimiko cough as Hughie yells at MM to open the window before they all die of chemical poisoning.

“I’m on my way back, I’ll ring Edwards and get her back to the office too.”

“She is quite something, Monsieur Charcutier, I did not expect MI6 women to look like this, she is very attractive no?”

“Be careful Frenchie, get too close and she’ll slice your French cock off just like at Agincourt.” 

“Ah non, I will not try anythin’, I am a professional!”

“Right, Frenchie, just keep your game face on. And that reminds me, she speaks French fluently, so mind what you mumble, alright?” 

“Elle parle français aussi? Mon Dieu…”

Butcher hangs up on Frenchie while he’s still speaking and hits the dial on Edward’s number as he shuts down the laptop and starts up the car. She picks up after a couple of rings. 

“Hi Butcher, secure line?” 

“Should be but you never know. You got what we’re after?”

“Yes, he came through for us and sent it over. I’ll bring it over to the office if it’s clear?” 

“No, not yet,” Butcher lies, “I’ll come ‘round your place and we can review it. Should be there in about an hour.”

Eve gives him the address to an apartment hotel downtown and he hangs up. 

Chapter 6

[northerncopse]

As of today, STEM science has been officially disbanded. The UN committee "On The Matters of All Relating To The Exact Scientific" has declared that humanity no longer requires the services of STEM sciences. It will take the world a few years to de-fund STEM research, university faculties, laboratories, and such. The Hadron Collider, as an example made by the jury of the UN committee, "has not been in use for 37 years now, do we really need it?" It has now become home to tea parties, a promenade, and philosophical departments.

The next few years will be a "clean-up operation" with small independent research groups double and triple checking all of the answers to the scientific questions. If something weird comes to light, the research groups will immediately perform an emergency correction operation (ECO) to solve for the incorrect answer. If they do not solve it during the next year, the UN will have to officially reinstate STEM sciences for the duration of further research. However, officials say that it is quite unlikely that "anything weird" will come up.

The first to go are the chemical departments, according to the UN's ruling. Professors will be recycled into straws and one-time-use cups, while students will be transferred to another field. The two most popular options of major-switching are archeology and philosophy departments.

For those unfamiliar with the current philosophical situation, the philosophical departments have been keeping to themselves ever since an anonymous individual proclaimed loudly outside one of their faculty: "I think you are a bunch of losers." The philosophical departments then proceeded to debate their status as "Losers," first by defining, and arguing on what it means and implies to be a "loser" and whether such state can be achieved.

In their 889-page response to such a baseless claim, the Coalition of Philosophical Departments (CoP) said, "It is… untrue… that… philosophy… can be considered… a 'loser'… study." A few hours after the publication of the 889-page response, an Anti-Coalition of Philosophical Departments (Anti-CoP) provided a counter-argument, saying that philosophy can, in fact, be considered to consist of "a bunch of fucking wusses." The full 1,578-page response can be accessed on the anticop.org website. The debate has been going for 37 years now with a total of 17,896,351,653 words being written as of now.

The archeological departments, on the other hand, have been quite self-sufficient, with the previous generations of archeologists entombing themselves in crypts, leaving anachronistic artefacts, and defending their graves with a series of puzzles and booby-traps. The current generation of archeologists continue to research the remnants of their professors to then pass on the legacy after dying.

While many find the decision to be quite controversial, researches and scholars all over the world voice out their agreement. David Jones, a professor of particle physics specialising in teaching the Theory of Absolutely-Fucking Everything, was overjoyed when he heard the news.

"We are finally free," he said in an interview with NCNC. "I have been teaching the same thing for 64 years and the university was preparing me for another de-ageficiation cycle to continue my tenure, but then the news hit and boy, I can't wait to finally throw myself into the Canadian black hole and let my soul be shredded into quarks."

A microbiology student, who preferred to remain anonymous, also commented on the dissolution of science, saying that they "couldn't see any prospective future" for themselves and were "considering on becoming a sex worker instead."

Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and many other top universities across the world decided to celebrate the "completion of science" by burning down their sprawling STEM faculties (some of which take up the size of New York City and include their own, personalised particle accelerators). Oxford released a statement that they will use the money from the now obsolete departments to "buy a bunch of dynamite and throw it into the Canadian black hole just to see what will happen." When asked about the future of humanities, Oxford's president was confused and asked "what is that?"

[tanvijaiswalsstuff]

Stansted Airport Taxi – The Smart Traveller’s Guide to Stress-Free Airport Transfers

Getting to or from an airport shouldn’t feel like another leg of your journey—it should be smooth, reliable, and stress-free. If you’re travelling via London’s Stansted Airport, you’ve probably already realised it’s a bit off the beaten path. Unlike Heathrow or Gatwick, Stansted sits over 40 miles northeast of Central London, which means public transport can be a time-consuming hassle. That’s where a Stansted Airport taxi comes in.

Whether you’re jetting off for business or touching down after a family holiday, a pre-booked taxi can turn your journey from chaotic to calm. In this blog, we’ll explore why more people are choosing private transfers, how to book a Stansted Airport taxi with ease, and what you should expect from a high-quality service like Great Britain Cars.

✈️ Why Choose a Stansted Airport Taxi Over Public Transport?

It’s tempting to opt for a train or a coach when you’re looking for cheap airport transfers—but the truth is, what you save in money, you often lose in time, comfort, and reliability. Here’s how a taxi service gives you the upper hand:

1. Door-to-Door Convenience

One of the biggest advantages of taking a taxi to Stansted Airport is the door-to-door service. No navigating the Tube with heavy bags, no dashing across platforms for a connecting train. Your driver picks you up at your exact location and drops you right at the airport terminal entrance—or vice versa.

2. Perfect for Early or Late Flights

Public transport runs on limited schedules. If your flight is at 6am or lands at midnight, options become scarce. A Stansted Airport taxi is available 24/7, giving you the flexibility you need, no matter the hour.

3. No Delays or Missed Connections

Train strikes, engineering works, and delays are all too common. With a private transfer, your journey is direct and reliable. Plus, if you book with a provider like Great Britain Cars, your driver monitors your flight in real-time and adjusts pickup accordingly.

🚖 What to Expect from a Stansted Airport Taxi Service

If you’ve never booked a private airport taxi before, you might be wondering what the experience is like. Here’s what’s included when you choose a trusted provider:

✅ Fixed Fares

No meter running. No surge pricing. You get a quote at the time of booking, and that’s exactly what you pay—no hidden fees, no surprises.

✅ Comfortable Vehicles

From solo travellers to large families, the fleet has you covered. Choose from standard saloons, spacious estates, executive cars, or MPVs for up to 8 passengers. All vehicles are clean, climate-controlled, and maintained to the highest standard.

✅ Professional Drivers

Your driver will be courteous, well-presented, and knowledgeable about the best routes to avoid delays. Most importantly, all drivers are fully licensed and DBS-checked for your peace of mind.

✅ Flight Monitoring

If your flight is delayed or arrives early, your driver will know. With live flight tracking, your ride is always waiting when you are.

💼 Ideal for Every Kind of Traveller

A Stansted Airport taxi isn’t just for business executives or tourists with extra luggage. It’s a smart choice for:

Business travellers needing punctual, smooth rides

Families with children and suitcases galore

Groups heading to or from events

International visitors unfamiliar with London’s complex transport network

Child seats are available on request, and the driver can assist with your luggage, making the experience even easier.

🧾 Transparent Pricing: What Will a Stansted Taxi Cost?

Prices will vary depending on your pickup location, the vehicle type, and travel time, but here’s a rough idea:

From

To Stansted Airport

Estimated Fare

Central London

Stansted

£65 – £90

Heathrow Airport

Stansted

£100 – £130

South London

Stansted

£70 – £95

Cambridge

Stansted

£80 – £110

Booking in advance not only locks in your price but ensures availability, especially during peak travel seasons.

For an exact quote, you can use the instant pricing tool on Great Britain Cars and book in less than 2 minutes.

🛒 How to Book Your Stansted Airport Taxi

Booking a taxi with Great Britain Cars is simple and fast. Just follow these steps:

Visit greatbritaincars.co.uk

Enter your pickup and drop-off details

Choose your preferred vehicle

Get an instant fare

Confirm and pay securely online

Receive confirmation via email and SMS with your driver’s details

You can also call or email for group bookings or special requests like child seats or multiple stops.

🧠 Travel Tips for a Smooth Taxi Experience

Want to make the most of your Stansted transfer? Here are some pro tips:

Book at least 24–48 hours in advance, especially during holidays or weekends

Share your flight number so your driver can track your status

Confirm the terminal at Stansted you’ll be using

Let the company know about extra luggage, baby seats, or any specific requirements

🌟 Why Great Britain Cars Stands Out

There are plenty of taxi services out there—but not all are created equal. Here’s why customers keep coming back to Great Britain Cars:

✅ Over 10 years in the airport transfer business

✅ Thousands of 5-star reviews

✅ Fully licensed, insured, and regulated

✅ Friendly, English-speaking support available 24/7

✅ Fleet options for every group size and budget

And unlike ride-hailing apps, you always get a fixed price upfront, so you can budget your journey confidently.

💬 Real Reviews from Real Passengers

“I booked a taxi from my hotel in Kensington to Stansted at 4:30 am—driver was on time, friendly, and the car was spotless. Made it to the airport with time to spare!” – Jason W.

“Travelling with kids can be hectic. The driver brought a child seat, helped with bags, and was super patient. Will definitely use them again.” – Amira R.

“Used Great Britain Cars for both Heathrow and Stansted during my UK trip—smooth booking, great service, and affordable.” – Daniela K.

🔚 Final Thoughts: Make the Smart Choice with a Stansted Airport Taxi

Stansted might be one of London’s less-central airports, but that doesn’t mean getting there has to be difficult. Whether you're flying solo or with a full entourage, a Stansted Airport taxi offers a blend of comfort, efficiency, and peace of mind that’s hard to beat.

Forget dragging your luggage through stations or stressing over train times—book a taxi and arrive relaxed, refreshed, and right on time.

[cambridgehospital]

Maternity Hospital in Bangalore – Discover Cambridge Hospital

Choosing the right maternity hospital in Bangalore is one of the most important decisions during pregnancy. At Cambridge Hospital, we specialize in delivering safe, supportive, and advanced maternity care tailored to every expecting mother’s needs.

Why Cambridge Hospital is a Top Maternity Hospital in Bangalore

Cambridge Hospital stands out as a trusted maternity care center in Bangalore. Here's what makes us the preferred choice:

Renowned Team of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Experienced in handling normal and high-risk deliveries with utmost care.

Modern Maternity Infrastructure Fully-equipped labor rooms, advanced fetal monitors, and emergency care support.

Affordable Maternity Packages Transparent pricing and insurance-friendly billing for stress-free maternity care.

Comprehensive Mother & Baby Care From prenatal to postnatal – we cover every stage of your pregnancy journey.

Our Maternity Services

1️. Prenatal Care

Personalized pregnancy tracking and consultations

Nutrition, fitness, and mental wellness support

Risk assessments and timely interventions

2️. Labor & Delivery

Natural, water birth, and C-section delivery options

Round-the-clock labor and delivery care

Pain management including epidurals

3️. Postnatal & Neonatal Support

Breastfeeding guidance and maternal recovery plans

NICU support for premature or medically critical newborns

Pediatric checkups, immunizations, and baby care guidance

Safe & Hygienic Maternity Environment

Our hospital follows strict hygiene protocols and uses the latest medical equipment for the safest maternity experience. Mothers can expect:

Clean, private maternity suites

Expert neonatal doctors and nurses

A calming and supportive birthing environment

What Mothers Say About Cambridge Hospital

“I had a wonderful delivery experience at Cambridge Hospital. The doctors and nurses were exceptional and made me feel safe and cared for throughout my pregnancy.”

Book Your Consultation Today

Whether you are planning your first baby or need expert care for a high-risk pregnancy, Cambridge Hospital is your trusted maternity hospital in Bangalore

[tameblog]

Cambridge University Press released a study that evaluated the efficacy of automated disinfected dispenser systems in hospitals. The results of the study — which oversaw 10 unique hospitals and four additional healthcare systems across five states — highlighted the importance of improved dispenser monitoring to ensure the correct concentrations of disinfectants are dispensed. Here is the full report:  Abstract  Automated dispensers that dilute concentrated disinfectants with water are commonly used in healthcare facilities. In a point-prevalence product evaluation, nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals using dilutable disinfectants had one or more malfunctioning dispensers. Twenty-nine of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Introduction  Environmental services (EVS) and infection prevention personnel consider factors such as efficacy, wet-contact and kill times, safety, ease of use, and cost when selecting cleaning and disinfection products. Many products are distributed as a concentrate that is diluted to in-use concentrations. The use of dilutable products may reduce costs and can be beneficial for disinfectants that are more stable as a concentrate than at in-use concentrations. Dilutable disinfectants are often dispensed from automated wall-mounted systems that mix concentrated disinfectant and water. However, monitoring is required to ensure that the dispensers are working correctly. Boyce et al. found variations in the concentration of a dilutable quaternary ammonium disinfectant delivered by an automated dispenser; the issues were resolved after installation of water-pressure regulators and modifications of the flow-control devices in concentrate containers. It was recommended that hospitals utilizing dispensing stations conduct periodic testing to verify that appropriate concentrations are being dispensed. Others have demonstrated that automated systems sometimes deliver lower-than-predicted disinfectant concentrations. In a culture survey, we found high rates of surface contamination after completion of post-discharge cleaning and disinfection in some hospitals using automated dispensers. Therefore, we conducted an evaluation of automated dispensing systems in several hospitals.  Methods  The study protocol was approved by the Cleveland VA Medical Center’s Research and Development Committee. We conducted a point-prevalence evaluation of automated disinfectant dispensing systems in a convenience sample of 10 hospitals from four healthcare systems in five states. For a minimum of five medical-surgical wards and/or intensive care units, we collected 10mL disinfectant samples from dispensers and buckets of in-use disinfectant. The disinfectants included quaternary ammonium disinfectant cleaners, and a peracetic acid/hydrogen peroxide product.  For the peracetic acid product, pH was measured with Micro Essential Lab Single-Roll Hydrion pH Test Paper. Peracetic acid concentrations were also measured using a dropper-bottle method with a lower limit-of-detection of 300 ppm. The expected in-use concentration of peracetic acid is roughly 1300 ppm (0.13 percent) with pH roughly 3; 8 samples with more than1,800 ppm were considered to have higher-than-expected concentrations.   For the peracetic acid product, the manufacturer recommends quarterly calibration of the systems and provides posters with user instructions (Supplementary material). The instructions include guidance to check a Green/Red low product indicator for when the concentrate bottle should be changed (i.e., change when indicator window shows three-fourths red) and an optional intermittent pH check.   For the quaternary ammonium disinfectants, quaternary ammonium concentrations were measured using Micro Essential Lab Hydrion Quaternary Test Paper Kits; the expected in-use concentrations of the products are roughly 700–800 parts per million (ppm) with pH 8–9.  To assess the efficacy of samples with lower-than-expected disinfectant levels, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard quantitative carrier disk test method was used with five percent fetal calf serum as soil load. The test organisms included a clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain for the quaternary ammonium product and Clostridioides difficile American Type Culture Collection strain 43598 for the peracetic acid product. The exposure times were 5 and 10 minutes for the peracetic acid and quaternary ammonium disinfectants, respectively.  For one hospital using the quaternary ammonium product, additional point-prevalence evaluations were conducted after EVS implemented interventions that included increased monitoring of quaternary ammonium concentrations of dispensed product. The supplementary material provides details on the intervention.  Results Table 1 Table 2   None of the hospitals reported conducting routine monitoring of disinfectant dispensers. Nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals had one or more systems dispensing lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, and 8 (80 percent) had dispensers that delivered product with no detectable disinfectant (See Table 1). Overall, 29 of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Of 45 samples of peracetic acid product, 26 (57.8 percent) had higher-than-expected peracetic acid concentrations (≥1800 ppm; peak 2,100 ppm), 9 (20 percent) had expected concentrations (1,200–1,500 ppm), 4 (8.9 percent) had lower-than-expected concentrations (300–900 ppm), and 6 (13.3 percent) had undetectable concentrations. pH measurements distinguished dispensers with expected or higher-than-expected peracetic acid disinfectant concentrations (pH around 3) versus those with lower-than-expected concentrations (pH 3.5–5) versus no detectable disinfectant (pH around 6).  A second table (See Table 2) shows reasons for malfunction of the 15 systems that dispensed undetectable levels of disinfectant. The identified reasons included concentrate container not being connected correctly (n = 7), concentrate container top being damaged (n = 3), low product indicator not functioning correctly resulting in use of an empty concentrate container (n = 1), and personnel not changing the container when the low product indicator indicated that a change was due (n = 1). In three cases, the reason for the malfunction was not clear.  Of 80 in-use disinfectant samples obtained from EVS carts, 27 (33.8 percent) had lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, including 14 (17.5 percent) with no detectable disinfectant. One sample with no detectable disinfectant was from a functioning dispenser but the EVS worker acknowledged not obtaining fresh product for days.   Of nine employees using product with no detectable disinfectant who were interviewed, three had not noticed that the product was incorrect, whereas six noticed that the product did not smell or appear right but had not notified their supervisor. In four instances, in-use products that EVS personnel identified as disinfectants were dilutable detergents intended for floors.  ASTM testing demonstrated that samples with ≤900 ppm of peracetic acid and ≤400 ppm of quaternary ammonium disinfectant resulted in

[cambridgecleaners]

The Importance of Regular Factory Cleaning in Cambridge

In the industrial landscape of Cambridge, factories play a vital role in driving economic growth and innovation. Amidst the hustle and bustle of production, the cleanliness and hygiene of a factory are often overlooked. However, regular factory cleaning is crucial for various reasons, ranging from ensuring a safe working environment to improving operational efficiency. In this blog post, we explore the significance of regular factory cleaning and how Cambridge Cleaners can be your trusted partner in maintaining a clean and productive industrial space.

The Importance of Regular Factory Cleaning:

1. Ensuring Workplace Safety: Safety is paramount in a factory setting, where machinery, materials, and personnel coexist. Regular cleaning helps remove dust, debris, and other potential hazards, reducing the risk of accidents and injuries. A clean and organized workspace is conducive to a safer working environment for all employees.

2. Optimizing Operational Efficiency: A clean and organized factory floor contributes to improved operational efficiency. Unobstructed pathways, organized workstations, and clean equipment enhance workflow and productivity. Regular cleaning also prevents the buildup of dirt and grime on machinery, reducing the likelihood of breakdowns and ensuring that equipment operates at peak performance.

3. Compliance with Regulations: Factories are subject to strict health and safety regulations. Regular cleaning is essential for compliance with these regulations, ensuring that the factory meets the required cleanliness standards. Non-compliance can lead to penalties, legal issues, and a tarnished reputation.

Cambridge Cleaners: Your Partner in Factory Cleaning: Cambridge Cleaners understands the unique cleaning challenges faced by industrial facilities and offers comprehensive cleaning services tailored to the specific needs of factories in Cambridge.

1. Expertise in Industrial Cleaning: Cambridge Cleaners boasts a team of professionals with expertise in industrial cleaning. They are trained to handle the unique challenges posed by factory environments, including the cleaning of large machinery, high-ceiling areas, and specialized surfaces.

2. Flexible Cleaning Schedules: Recognizing that factory operations often run around the clock, Cambridge Cleaners provides flexible cleaning schedules to minimize disruptions to production. Whether it's daily, weekly, or monthly cleaning, they can tailor a cleaning plan that aligns with the factory's operational needs.

3. Use of Industrial-Grade Cleaning Equipment: To ensure thorough cleaning in a factory setting, Cambridge Cleaners utilizes industrial-grade cleaning equipment and environmentally friendly cleaning agents. This combination effectively removes tough stains, grease, and contaminants, leaving the factory space clean and sanitized.

Conclusion: Regular factory cleaning is not just a matter of aesthetics; it is a fundamental aspect of maintaining a safe, efficient, and compliant industrial workspace. Cambridge Cleaners, with its expertise in industrial cleaning, stands as your trusted partner in ensuring that your factory in Cambridge operates at its best. By investing in regular cleaning, you not only prioritize the safety and well-being of your workforce but also contribute to the overall success and longevity of your industrial operations. Choose Cambridge Cleaners for a cleaner, safer, and more efficient factory environment in the heart of Cambridge. Your factory deserves nothing less.

[mintmaintenance]

Top Benefits of Hiring a Professional Cleaning Service for Your Boston Office

In a bustling city like Boston, businesses thrive on efficiency and professionalism. Your office isn't just a place where work happens—it's an extension of your brand. A clean office isn't about perfection; it's about creating an environment that supports focus, fosters health, and leaves a lasting impression on clients and employees.

While some businesses may manage cleaning in-house, a professional cleaning service offers the expertise and attention to detail essential for maintaining a productive, positive workspace. Here's why hiring a professional cleaning service for your Boston office is a wise investment.

1. Boosts Employee Productivity

A chaotic, unclean office space causes problems beyond visual aesthetics, negatively affecting employee focus levels and decreasing workplace productivity. Scientific evidence shows that clean surroundings improve employee focus and other benefits, including elevated spirits and lower employee absence levels.

To achieve peak business performance, your team needs maximum attention towards core business functions, and outsourcing cleaning services makes this possible. The commitment to professional cleaning services ensures that office workstations, communal areas, and restroom facilities maintain clean and fresh conditions, allowing space for meaningful work to take priority.

2. Makes a Strong First Impression

First impressions are everything, especially in a competitive city like Boston. A well-maintained office speaks volumes about your company's professionalism and commitment to quality. Whether it's a potential client, investor, or partner walking through the door, a clean office helps establish trust and credibility from the moment they step in. With expert cleaning, every area of your office—from the reception to meeting rooms—is spotless, setting your business apart from the competition.

3. Reduces Illness and Absenteeism

Employing professional cleaning services delivers benefits beyond cosmetic office improvements since they work to decrease illness transmission. Many commonly used surfaces, such as doorknobs, desks, and keyboards, are germ repositories, resulting in employee illness. Regular disinfection of your office through professional cleaning keeps the environment free from infection, thereby reducing work absences and creating an optimal work atmosphere.

4. Frees Up Time and Resources

While assigning cleaning duties to your team might seem cost-effective, it's a productivity drain. Employees hired for their skills should not be interrupted by cleaning tasks. Bringing in a professional service lets your team focus on their core responsibilities. Plus, you'll save on cleaning supplies and equipment, which are no longer necessary.

5. Expertise and Quality You Can Rely On

Professional cleaning services provide an experience beyond standard cleaning tasks. Their expertise allows them to handle various surfaces together with specialized equipment and achieve deep cleaning standards that limit the ability of internal cleaning personnel.

The combination of office carpet maintenance and kitchen cleaning services from professionals ensures your workplace looks professional while creating spaces where employees and customers can perform optimally.

6. Eco-Friendly Cleaning Solutions

Sustainability is a growing priority for many businesses in Boston. Today's cleaning services often use eco-friendly, non-toxic products that maintain a safe, healthy environment for your employees while minimizing your carbon footprint. Choosing a green cleaning service aligns your business with the values of corporate responsibility, enhancing your brand image.

7. Customized Cleaning Plans to Fit Your Needs

Each business requires its own specific office cleaning approach. Professional services design their cleaning schedules to meet every office need, whether daily maintenance or periodic deep cleaning requirements. These cleaning services remain flexible enough to adapt when your workspace requirements change, and they keep your area spotless through every transformation in need.

8. Improved Air Quality

The quality of the air in your office has a direct effect on employee health and performance. Dust, allergens, and pollutants can lead to respiratory issues, reduced focus, and allergies. Professional cleaners use high-quality equipment to minimize airborne particles, ensuring the air is fresh, and your office environment supports health and productivity.

9. Compliance with Health and Safety Standards

Your office must adhere to local health and safety regulations. Professional cleaning services ensure that your workspace always complies with the necessary hygiene standards, reducing the risk of legal issues. This is especially important for healthcare, hospitality, or food service businesses, where cleanliness is not just a preference—it's a requirement.

10. Prolongs the Life of Your Office Equipment

Regular cleaning helps preserve your office's furniture and equipment, extending their lifespan and reducing long-term maintenance costs. Dust and grime can cause wear and tear, leading to costly repairs or replacements. Keeping your office clean protects your assets, ensuring they remain in excellent condition for years.

Final Thoughts

Investing in a professional cleaning service for your Boston office is more than just about maintaining cleanliness—it is about optimizing productivity, improving employee well-being, and ensuring a lasting positive impression on clients.

With customized cleaning plans, eco-friendly solutions, and expert attention to detail, professional cleaners help streamline your business operations and provide a healthier work environment. By outsourcing cleaning, you're saving time and investing in your business's future.

Ready to Book? Get a Quote Today!

Take cleaning off your to-do list and let Mint Maintenance handle the hard work.

[ramestoryworld]

Cambridge University Press released a study that evaluated the efficacy of automated disinfected dispenser systems in hospitals. The results of the study — which oversaw 10 unique hospitals and four additional healthcare systems across five states ��� highlighted the importance of improved dispenser monitoring to ensure the correct concentrations of disinfectants are dispensed. Here is the full report:  Abstract  Automated dispensers that dilute concentrated disinfectants with water are commonly used in healthcare facilities. In a point-prevalence product evaluation, nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals using dilutable disinfectants had one or more malfunctioning dispensers. Twenty-nine of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Introduction  Environmental services (EVS) and infection prevention personnel consider factors such as efficacy, wet-contact and kill times, safety, ease of use, and cost when selecting cleaning and disinfection products. Many products are distributed as a concentrate that is diluted to in-use concentrations. The use of dilutable products may reduce costs and can be beneficial for disinfectants that are more stable as a concentrate than at in-use concentrations. Dilutable disinfectants are often dispensed from automated wall-mounted systems that mix concentrated disinfectant and water. However, monitoring is required to ensure that the dispensers are working correctly. Boyce et al. found variations in the concentration of a dilutable quaternary ammonium disinfectant delivered by an automated dispenser; the issues were resolved after installation of water-pressure regulators and modifications of the flow-control devices in concentrate containers. It was recommended that hospitals utilizing dispensing stations conduct periodic testing to verify that appropriate concentrations are being dispensed. Others have demonstrated that automated systems sometimes deliver lower-than-predicted disinfectant concentrations. In a culture survey, we found high rates of surface contamination after completion of post-discharge cleaning and disinfection in some hospitals using automated dispensers. Therefore, we conducted an evaluation of automated dispensing systems in several hospitals.  Methods  The study protocol was approved by the Cleveland VA Medical Center’s Research and Development Committee. We conducted a point-prevalence evaluation of automated disinfectant dispensing systems in a convenience sample of 10 hospitals from four healthcare systems in five states. For a minimum of five medical-surgical wards and/or intensive care units, we collected 10mL disinfectant samples from dispensers and buckets of in-use disinfectant. The disinfectants included quaternary ammonium disinfectant cleaners, and a peracetic acid/hydrogen peroxide product.  For the peracetic acid product, pH was measured with Micro Essential Lab Single-Roll Hydrion pH Test Paper. Peracetic acid concentrations were also measured using a dropper-bottle method with a lower limit-of-detection of 300 ppm. The expected in-use concentration of peracetic acid is roughly 1300 ppm (0.13 percent) with pH roughly 3; 8 samples with more than1,800 ppm were considered to have higher-than-expected concentrations.   For the peracetic acid product, the manufacturer recommends quarterly calibration of the systems and provides posters with user instructions (Supplementary material). The instructions include guidance to check a Green/Red low product indicator for when the concentrate bottle should be changed (i.e., change when indicator window shows three-fourths red) and an optional intermittent pH check.   For the quaternary ammonium disinfectants, quaternary ammonium concentrations were measured using Micro Essential Lab Hydrion Quaternary Test Paper Kits; the expected in-use concentrations of the products are roughly 700–800 parts per million (ppm) with pH 8–9.  To assess the efficacy of samples with lower-than-expected disinfectant levels, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard quantitative carrier disk test method was used with five percent fetal calf serum as soil load. The test organisms included a clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain for the quaternary ammonium product and Clostridioides difficile American Type Culture Collection strain 43598 for the peracetic acid product. The exposure times were 5 and 10 minutes for the peracetic acid and quaternary ammonium disinfectants, respectively.  For one hospital using the quaternary ammonium product, additional point-prevalence evaluations were conducted after EVS implemented interventions that included increased monitoring of quaternary ammonium concentrations of dispensed product. The supplementary material provides details on the intervention.  Results Table 1 Table 2   None of the hospitals reported conducting routine monitoring of disinfectant dispensers. Nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals had one or more systems dispensing lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, and 8 (80 percent) had dispensers that delivered product with no detectable disinfectant (See Table 1). Overall, 29 of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Of 45 samples of peracetic acid product, 26 (57.8 percent) had higher-than-expected peracetic acid concentrations (≥1800 ppm; peak 2,100 ppm), 9 (20 percent) had expected concentrations (1,200–1,500 ppm), 4 (8.9 percent) had lower-than-expected concentrations (300–900 ppm), and 6 (13.3 percent) had undetectable concentrations. pH measurements distinguished dispensers with expected or higher-than-expected peracetic acid disinfectant concentrations (pH around 3) versus those with lower-than-expected concentrations (pH 3.5–5) versus no detectable disinfectant (pH around 6).  A second table (See Table 2) shows reasons for malfunction of the 15 systems that dispensed undetectable levels of disinfectant. The identified reasons included concentrate container not being connected correctly (n = 7), concentrate container top being damaged (n = 3), low product indicator not functioning correctly resulting in use of an empty concentrate container (n = 1), and personnel not changing the container when the low product indicator indicated that a change was due (n = 1). In three cases, the reason for the malfunction was not clear.  Of 80 in-use disinfectant samples obtained from EVS carts, 27 (33.8 percent) had lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, including 14 (17.5 percent) with no detectable disinfectant. One sample with no detectable disinfectant was from a functioning dispenser but the EVS worker acknowledged not obtaining fresh product for days.   Of nine employees using product with no detectable disinfectant who were interviewed, three had not noticed that the product was incorrect, whereas six noticed that the product did not smell or appear right but had not notified their supervisor. In four instances, in-use products that EVS personnel identified as disinfectants were dilutable detergents intended for floors.  ASTM testing demonstrated that samples with ≤900 ppm of peracetic acid and ≤400 ppm of quaternary ammonium disinfectant resulted in

[alexha2210]

Cambridge University Press released a study that evaluated the efficacy of automated disinfected dispenser systems in hospitals. The results of the study — which oversaw 10 unique hospitals and four additional healthcare systems across five states — highlighted the importance of improved dispenser monitoring to ensure the correct concentrations of disinfectants are dispensed. Here is the full report:  Abstract  Automated dispensers that dilute concentrated disinfectants with water are commonly used in healthcare facilities. In a point-prevalence product evaluation, nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals using dilutable disinfectants had one or more malfunctioning dispensers. Twenty-nine of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Introduction  Environmental services (EVS) and infection prevention personnel consider factors such as efficacy, wet-contact and kill times, safety, ease of use, and cost when selecting cleaning and disinfection products. Many products are distributed as a concentrate that is diluted to in-use concentrations. The use of dilutable products may reduce costs and can be beneficial for disinfectants that are more stable as a concentrate than at in-use concentrations. Dilutable disinfectants are often dispensed from automated wall-mounted systems that mix concentrated disinfectant and water. However, monitoring is required to ensure that the dispensers are working correctly. Boyce et al. found variations in the concentration of a dilutable quaternary ammonium disinfectant delivered by an automated dispenser; the issues were resolved after installation of water-pressure regulators and modifications of the flow-control devices in concentrate containers. It was recommended that hospitals utilizing dispensing stations conduct periodic testing to verify that appropriate concentrations are being dispensed. Others have demonstrated that automated systems sometimes deliver lower-than-predicted disinfectant concentrations. In a culture survey, we found high rates of surface contamination after completion of post-discharge cleaning and disinfection in some hospitals using automated dispensers. Therefore, we conducted an evaluation of automated dispensing systems in several hospitals.  Methods  The study protocol was approved by the Cleveland VA Medical Center’s Research and Development Committee. We conducted a point-prevalence evaluation of automated disinfectant dispensing systems in a convenience sample of 10 hospitals from four healthcare systems in five states. For a minimum of five medical-surgical wards and/or intensive care units, we collected 10mL disinfectant samples from dispensers and buckets of in-use disinfectant. The disinfectants included quaternary ammonium disinfectant cleaners, and a peracetic acid/hydrogen peroxide product.  For the peracetic acid product, pH was measured with Micro Essential Lab Single-Roll Hydrion pH Test Paper. Peracetic acid concentrations were also measured using a dropper-bottle method with a lower limit-of-detection of 300 ppm. The expected in-use concentration of peracetic acid is roughly 1300 ppm (0.13 percent) with pH roughly 3; 8 samples with more than1,800 ppm were considered to have higher-than-expected concentrations.   For the peracetic acid product, the manufacturer recommends quarterly calibration of the systems and provides posters with user instructions (Supplementary material). The instructions include guidance to check a Green/Red low product indicator for when the concentrate bottle should be changed (i.e., change when indicator window shows three-fourths red) and an optional intermittent pH check.   For the quaternary ammonium disinfectants, quaternary ammonium concentrations were measured using Micro Essential Lab Hydrion Quaternary Test Paper Kits; the expected in-use concentrations of the products are roughly 700–800 parts per million (ppm) with pH 8–9.  To assess the efficacy of samples with lower-than-expected disinfectant levels, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard quantitative carrier disk test method was used with five percent fetal calf serum as soil load. The test organisms included a clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain for the quaternary ammonium product and Clostridioides difficile American Type Culture Collection strain 43598 for the peracetic acid product. The exposure times were 5 and 10 minutes for the peracetic acid and quaternary ammonium disinfectants, respectively.  For one hospital using the quaternary ammonium product, additional point-prevalence evaluations were conducted after EVS implemented interventions that included increased monitoring of quaternary ammonium concentrations of dispensed product. The supplementary material provides details on the intervention.  Results Table 1 Table 2   None of the hospitals reported conducting routine monitoring of disinfectant dispensers. Nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals had one or more systems dispensing lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, and 8 (80 percent) had dispensers that delivered product with no detectable disinfectant (See Table 1). Overall, 29 of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Of 45 samples of peracetic acid product, 26 (57.8 percent) had higher-than-expected peracetic acid concentrations (≥1800 ppm; peak 2,100 ppm), 9 (20 percent) had expected concentrations (1,200–1,500 ppm), 4 (8.9 percent) had lower-than-expected concentrations (300–900 ppm), and 6 (13.3 percent) had undetectable concentrations. pH measurements distinguished dispensers with expected or higher-than-expected peracetic acid disinfectant concentrations (pH around 3) versus those with lower-than-expected concentrations (pH 3.5–5) versus no detectable disinfectant (pH around 6).  A second table (See Table 2) shows reasons for malfunction of the 15 systems that dispensed undetectable levels of disinfectant. The identified reasons included concentrate container not being connected correctly (n = 7), concentrate container top being damaged (n = 3), low product indicator not functioning correctly resulting in use of an empty concentrate container (n = 1), and personnel not changing the container when the low product indicator indicated that a change was due (n = 1). In three cases, the reason for the malfunction was not clear.  Of 80 in-use disinfectant samples obtained from EVS carts, 27 (33.8 percent) had lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, including 14 (17.5 percent) with no detectable disinfectant. One sample with no detectable disinfectant was from a functioning dispenser but the EVS worker acknowledged not obtaining fresh product for days.   Of nine employees using product with no detectable disinfectant who were interviewed, three had not noticed that the product was incorrect, whereas six noticed that the product did not smell or appear right but had not notified their supervisor. In four instances, in-use products that EVS personnel identified as disinfectants were dilutable detergents intended for floors.  ASTM testing demonstrated that samples with ≤900 ppm of peracetic acid and ≤400 ppm of quaternary ammonium disinfectant resulted in

[angusstory]

Cambridge University Press released a study that evaluated the efficacy of automated disinfected dispenser systems in hospitals. The results of the study — which oversaw 10 unique hospitals and four additional healthcare systems across five states — highlighted the importance of improved dispenser monitoring to ensure the correct concentrations of disinfectants are dispensed. Here is the full report:  Abstract  Automated dispensers that dilute concentrated disinfectants with water are commonly used in healthcare facilities. In a point-prevalence product evaluation, nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals using dilutable disinfectants had one or more malfunctioning dispensers. Twenty-nine of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Introduction  Environmental services (EVS) and infection prevention personnel consider factors such as efficacy, wet-contact and kill times, safety, ease of use, and cost when selecting cleaning and disinfection products. Many products are distributed as a concentrate that is diluted to in-use concentrations. The use of dilutable products may reduce costs and can be beneficial for disinfectants that are more stable as a concentrate than at in-use concentrations. Dilutable disinfectants are often dispensed from automated wall-mounted systems that mix concentrated disinfectant and water. However, monitoring is required to ensure that the dispensers are working correctly. Boyce et al. found variations in the concentration of a dilutable quaternary ammonium disinfectant delivered by an automated dispenser; the issues were resolved after installation of water-pressure regulators and modifications of the flow-control devices in concentrate containers. It was recommended that hospitals utilizing dispensing stations conduct periodic testing to verify that appropriate concentrations are being dispensed. Others have demonstrated that automated systems sometimes deliver lower-than-predicted disinfectant concentrations. In a culture survey, we found high rates of surface contamination after completion of post-discharge cleaning and disinfection in some hospitals using automated dispensers. Therefore, we conducted an evaluation of automated dispensing systems in several hospitals.  Methods  The study protocol was approved by the Cleveland VA Medical Center’s Research and Development Committee. We conducted a point-prevalence evaluation of automated disinfectant dispensing systems in a convenience sample of 10 hospitals from four healthcare systems in five states. For a minimum of five medical-surgical wards and/or intensive care units, we collected 10mL disinfectant samples from dispensers and buckets of in-use disinfectant. The disinfectants included quaternary ammonium disinfectant cleaners, and a peracetic acid/hydrogen peroxide product.  For the peracetic acid product, pH was measured with Micro Essential Lab Single-Roll Hydrion pH Test Paper. Peracetic acid concentrations were also measured using a dropper-bottle method with a lower limit-of-detection of 300 ppm. The expected in-use concentration of peracetic acid is roughly 1300 ppm (0.13 percent) with pH roughly 3; 8 samples with more than1,800 ppm were considered to have higher-than-expected concentrations.   For the peracetic acid product, the manufacturer recommends quarterly calibration of the systems and provides posters with user instructions (Supplementary material). The instructions include guidance to check a Green/Red low product indicator for when the concentrate bottle should be changed (i.e., change when indicator window shows three-fourths red) and an optional intermittent pH check.   For the quaternary ammonium disinfectants, quaternary ammonium concentrations were measured using Micro Essential Lab Hydrion Quaternary Test Paper Kits; the expected in-use concentrations of the products are roughly 700–800 parts per million (ppm) with pH 8–9.  To assess the efficacy of samples with lower-than-expected disinfectant levels, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard quantitative carrier disk test method was used with five percent fetal calf serum as soil load. The test organisms included a clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain for the quaternary ammonium product and Clostridioides difficile American Type Culture Collection strain 43598 for the peracetic acid product. The exposure times were 5 and 10 minutes for the peracetic acid and quaternary ammonium disinfectants, respectively.  For one hospital using the quaternary ammonium product, additional point-prevalence evaluations were conducted after EVS implemented interventions that included increased monitoring of quaternary ammonium concentrations of dispensed product. The supplementary material provides details on the intervention.  Results Table 1 Table 2   None of the hospitals reported conducting routine monitoring of disinfectant dispensers. Nine of 10 (90 percent) hospitals had one or more systems dispensing lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, and 8 (80 percent) had dispensers that delivered product with no detectable disinfectant (See Table 1). Overall, 29 of 107 (27.1 percent) systems dispensed product with lower-than-expected concentrations, including 15 (14 percent) with no detectable disinfectant.  Of 45 samples of peracetic acid product, 26 (57.8 percent) had higher-than-expected peracetic acid concentrations (≥1800 ppm; peak 2,100 ppm), 9 (20 percent) had expected concentrations (1,200–1,500 ppm), 4 (8.9 percent) had lower-than-expected concentrations (300–900 ppm), and 6 (13.3 percent) had undetectable concentrations. pH measurements distinguished dispensers with expected or higher-than-expected peracetic acid disinfectant concentrations (pH around 3) versus those with lower-than-expected concentrations (pH 3.5–5) versus no detectable disinfectant (pH around 6).  A second table (See Table 2) shows reasons for malfunction of the 15 systems that dispensed undetectable levels of disinfectant. The identified reasons included concentrate container not being connected correctly (n = 7), concentrate container top being damaged (n = 3), low product indicator not functioning correctly resulting in use of an empty concentrate container (n = 1), and personnel not changing the container when the low product indicator indicated that a change was due (n = 1). In three cases, the reason for the malfunction was not clear.  Of 80 in-use disinfectant samples obtained from EVS carts, 27 (33.8 percent) had lower-than-expected disinfectant concentrations, including 14 (17.5 percent) with no detectable disinfectant. One sample with no detectable disinfectant was from a functioning dispenser but the EVS worker acknowledged not obtaining fresh product for days.   Of nine employees using product with no detectable disinfectant who were interviewed, three had not noticed that the product was incorrect, whereas six noticed that the product did not smell or appear right but had not notified their supervisor. In four instances, in-use products that EVS personnel identified as disinfectants were dilutable detergents intended for floors.  ASTM testing demonstrated that samples with ≤900 ppm of peracetic acid and ≤400 ppm of quaternary ammonium disinfectant resulted in