4.4 Article

Effect of Variation in Test Methods on Performance of Ultraviolet-C Radiation Room Decontamination

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 555-560

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2015.349

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. Clorox

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. To determine the effect of variation in test methods on performance of an ultraviolet-C (UV-C) room decontamination device. DESIGN. Laboratory evaluation. METHODS. We compared the efficacy of 2 UV-C room decontamination devices with low pressure mercury gas bulbs. For 1 of the devices, we evaluated the effect of variation in spreading of the inoculum, carrier orientation relative to the device, type of organic load, type of carrier, height of carrier, and uninterrupted versus interrupted exposures on measured UV-C killing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile spores. RESULTS. The 2 UV-C room decontamination devices achieved similar log(10) colony-forming unit reductions in the pathogens with exposure times ranging from 5 to 40 minutes. On steel carriers, spreading of the inoculum over a larger surface area significantly enhanced killing of both pathogens, such that a 10-minute exposure on a 22-mm(2) disk resulted in greater than 2 log reduction in C. difficile spores. Orientation of carriers in parallel rather than perpendicular with the UV-C lamps significantly enhanced killing of both pathogens. Different types of organic load also significantly affected measured organism reductions, whereas type of carrier, variation in carrier height, and interrupted exposure cycles did not. CONCLUSIONS. Variation in test methods can significantly impact measured reductions in pathogens by UV-C devices during experimental testing. Our findings highlight the need for standardized laboratory methods for testing the efficacy of UV-C devices and for evaluations of the efficacy of short UV-C exposure times in real-world settings.

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

4.4
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