4.5 Article

Environmental sampling of particulate matter and fungal spores during demolition of a building on a hospital area

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 70, 期 3, 页码 259-264

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.07.010

关键词

Airborne particulate matter; Fungal count; Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Demolition or renovation works adjacent to hospitals pose risks of fungal airborne infections. During November 2005 and March 2006 an old building with three floors was demolished on the area of University Hospital of Essen. To prevent dust exposure the building was seated up by impermeable plastic foil and mechanical disruption of structures was accomplished using excavators. Dust emission was minimised by water jet. To determine if there were any infectious risks for patients from emissions from the demolition work we monitored particle and fungal concentration of the air before and during demolition. Air sampling was performed at seven positions around the building and weather conditions were monitored at the same time. Concentrations of ultrafine particles, particles >= 0.3, >= 0.5 and >= 1 mu m were significantly higher during demolition than before, but only by small factors (ultrafine particles 1.6-fold, particles >= 0.3 mu m 1.6-fold, particles >= 0.5 mu m 2.9-fold and particles >= 1 mu m 3.3-fold). Concentrations of moulds which could be cultured at 37 degrees C did not differ between the two periods (median before demolition: 66 cfu/m(3); median during demolition: 80 cfu/m(3)). Concentrations of moulds which grew at 22 degrees C correlated significantly with temperature and humidity and were significantly higher before (median: 510 cfu/m(3)) than during the demolition period (median: 210 cfu/m(3)). We conclude that the fungal infection risks for patients during demolition work in hospital areas is not increased by demolition if protective measures are in place. (c) 2008 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据