4.1 Article

Effect of ultraviolet C radiation on biological samples

期刊

CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 263-271

出版社

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.263

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of the Interior of Croatia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To examine the influence of ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation on blood, saliva, semen, and naked DNA samples for preventing DNA cross-contamination on working surfaces in laboratories. Methods Blood, saliva, semen, and DNA isolated from buccal swab samples were obtained from a single male donor and applied to the laboratory working surfaces. UVC radiation was applied to these diluted and undiluted samples with or without previous decontamination of the working surfaces with 10% sodium hypochlorite and 20% ethanol. Genomic DNA was extracted using Chelex. After quantification, DNA was amplified using the AmpFISTR (R) NGM (TM) PCR Amplification Kit. We tested and statistically analyzed DNA concentration, UVC dose, sample volume, radiation time, the number of correctly detected alleles on genetic loci, and the number of correctly detected alleles in four groups in which 16 loci were divided. Results When working surfaces were not decontaminated and were treated only with UVC radiation in the laboratory, the genetic profile for naked DNA could not be obtained after 2 minutes of UVC radiation and for saliva after 54 hours. For blood and semen, a partial genetic profile was obtained even after 250 hours of UVC radiation in the laminar. When working surfaces were decontaminated with 10% sodium hypochlorite and 20% ethanol, genetic profile could not be obtained for naked DNA after 2 minutes, for saliva after 4 hours, for blood after 16 hours, and for semen after 8 hours of UVC radiation in the laboratory. Conclusion It is recommended to carefully and thoroughly clean working surfaces with 10% sodium hypochlorite and 20% ethanol followed by minimal 16-hour UVC exposure (dose approximately 4380 mJ/cm(2)) for complete and successful decontamination.

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

4.1
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