4.5 Article

Investigations on the Efficacy of Ozone as an Environmental Sanitizer in Large Supermarkets

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11050608

关键词

ozone; environmental sanitizer; disinfection; fungi; bacteria; air; surface

资金

  1. Megamark, Trani, Apulia, Italy [0001849]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Awareness of the importance of microbial contamination of air and surfaces has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluated the presence of bacteria and fungi in the air and on surfaces in critical areas of supermarkets with and without an ozonation system. The presence of bacteria and fungi differed significantly between supermarkets with and without the ozonation system. This is the first study in Italy to evaluate the effect of ozone on commercial structures.
Awareness of the importance of the microbial contamination of air and surfaces has increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of bacteria and fungi in the air and on surfaces within some critical areas of large supermarkets with and without an ozonation system. Surveys were conducted in four supermarkets belonging to the same commercial chain of an Apulian city in June 2021, of which two (A and B) were equipped with an ozonation system, and two (C and D) did not have any air-diffused remediation treatment. There was a statistically significant difference in the total bacterial count (TBC) and total fungal count (TFC) in the air between A/B and C/D supermarkets (p = 0.0042 and p = 0.0002, respectively). Regarding surfaces, a statistically significant difference in TBC emerged between A/B and C/D supermarkets (p = 0.0101). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the effect of ozone on commercial structures in Italy. Future investigations, supported by a multidisciplinary approach, will make it possible to deepen the knowledge on this method of sanitation, in light of any other epidemic/pandemic waves.

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