4.5 Article

Skin decontamination by low-temperature atmospheric pressure plasma jet and dielectric barrier discharge plasma

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 81, 期 3, 页码 177-183

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.02.012

关键词

Atmospheric pressure plasma jet; Dielectric barrier discharge plasma; Skin decontamination; Hand hygiene; Plasma medicine

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [13N9773, 13N9779]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Over the past few years, plasma medicine has become an important field in medical science. Cold plasma has proven anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial and antineoplastic effects. Aim: To test the decontamination power of two cold plasma sources [low-temperature atmospheric pressure plasma jet (APPJ) and dielectric barrier discharge plasma (DBD)] in vivo on human fingertips. Methods: After 3, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210 and 240 s of spot treatment with the APPJ and DBD, the log reduction factors (RFs) of physiological (PF) and artificially (AF) contaminated flora (Staphylococcus epidermidis and Micrococcus luteus) were calculated. The bacterial load was determined after counting. Tolerance (paresthesia, pain and heat) was measured using a numerical rating scale. Findings: Both plasma devices led to a significant reduction in PF and AF. The maximum log reduction factors for PF were 1.3 for the DBD at 210 s and 0.8 for the APPJ at 60 s. For AF, the maximum log reduction factors were 1.7 for the DBD at 90 s and 1.4 for the APPJ at 120 s. Treatment with both devices was well tolerated. Conclusion: Both the APPJ and DBD were highly effective in eradicating PF and AF from the fingertips of healthy volunteers. No plasma-resistant isolates were observed. Cold plasma appears to have potential for skin disinfection. For hand hygiene purposes, plasma exposure times would need to be reduced significantly by technical means. (C) 2012 The Healthcare 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