4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

An outbreak of legionnaires disease caused by long-distance spread from an industrial air scrubber in Sarpsborg, Norway

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 61-69

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/524016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. On 21 May 2005, the Norwegian health authorities were alerted by officials from a local hospital that several recent patients had received the diagnosis of legionnaires disease; all patients resided in 2 neighboring municipalities. We investigated the outbreak to identify the source and to implement control measures. Methods. We interviewed all surviving case patients and investigated and harvested samples from 23 businesses with cooling towers and other potential infection sources. The locations of the businesses and the patients' residences and movements were mapped. We calculated attack rates and risk ratios among people living within various radii of each potential source. Isolates of Legionella pneumophila were compared using molecular methods. Results. Among 56 case patients, 10 died. The case patients became ill 12-25 May, resided up to 20 km apart, and had not visited places in common. Those living up to I km from a particular air scrubber had the highest risk ratio, and only for this source did the risk ratio decrease as the radius widened. Genetically identical L. pneumophila serogroup I isolates were recovered from patients and the air scrubber. The air scrubber is an industrial pollution-control device that cleans air for dust particles by spraying with water. The circulating water had a high organic content, pH of 8-9, and temperature of 40 degrees C. The air was expelled at 20 m/s and contained a high amount of aerosolized water. Conclusions. The high velocity, large drift, and high humidity in the air scrubber may have contributed to the wide spread of Legionella species, probably for > 10 km. The risk of Legionella spread from air scrubbers should be assessed.

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

4.7
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