4.8 Review

Literature review -: efficacy of various disinfectants against Legionella in water systems

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 18, 页码 4433-4444

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00188-4

关键词

Legionnaires' disease; Legionella; disinfection; disinfectant; biocide; inactivation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been reported outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease at hospitals and industrial facilities, which prompted the development of various preventive measures. For example, Ford has been developing and implementing such a measure at its facilities worldwide to provide technical guidance for controlling Legionella in water systems. One of the key issues for implementing the measure is the selection of a disinfectant(s) and optimum conditions for its use. Therefore, available publications on various disinfectants and disinfection processes used for the inactivation of Legionella bacteria were reviewed. Two disinfection methods were reviewed: chemical and thermal. For chemical methods, disinfectants used were metal ions (copper and silver), oxidizing agents (halogen containing compounds [chlorine, bromine, iodine, chlorine dioxide, chloramines, and halogenated hydantoins], ozone, and hydrogen peroxide), non-oxidizing agents (heterocyclic ketones, guanidines, thiocarbamates, aldehydes, amines, thiocyanates, organo-tin compounds, halogenated amides, and halogenated glycols), and UV light. In general, oxidizing disinfectants were found to be more effective than non-oxidizing ones. Among oxidizing agents, chlorine is known to be effective and widely used. Among non-oxidizing agents, 2,2-dibromo-3-nitropropionamide appears to be the most effective followed by glutaraldehyde. Isothiazolin (known as Kathon), polyhexamethylene biguanide, and 2-bromo-2-nitropropionamide (known as Bronopol) were found to be less effective than glutaraldehyde. Thermal disinfection is effective at > 60degreesC (140degreesF). (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.8
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