4.1 Article

Disinfection efficiency of hospital infectious disease wards with chlorine dioxide and hypochlorous acid

Journal

AEROBIOLOGIA
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 29-38

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10453-020-09670-8

Keywords

Disinfectant; Chlorine dioxide; Weak acid hypochlorous water; Ward; Bioaerosols

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study in a hospital infectious disease ward in Taiwan found that chlorine dioxide had a stronger disinfection effect compared to weak acid hypochlorous water. Using chlorine dioxide twice daily was the most effective means of satisfying the Taiwan EPA guidelines for indoor air quality in hospital wards.
The disinfection efficiencies of two chemical disinfectants, chlorine dioxide and weak acid hypochlorous water (WAHW), were examined in the soiled room and dishwashing room of a hospital infectious disease ward in Taiwan. The investigations were conducted in two seasons, namely winter and summer, in order to examine the correlation between the bioaerosol concentration and the environmental factors. In addition, a single-daily disinfection mode (SM) and a twice-daily disinfection mode (TM) were applied in this study. The results showed that the bacteria and fungi colony counts were strongly correlated with the temperature. Both disinfectants reduced the bacteria and fungi concentrations in the considered rooms. However, of the two disinfectants, the ClO2 showed a stronger disinfection effect than the WAHW. It means that when using ClO2 as the disinfectant, the disinfection efficiency of the TM treatment mode is significantly better than that of the SM treatment mode. But, when using WAHW as the disinfectant, no significant difference is found between the disinfection efficiencies of the two methods. Overall, the results showed that the application of ClO2 twice daily provided the most effective means of satisfying the Taiwan EPA guidelines for the indoor air quality of hospital medical wards.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available