预防细菌和病毒感染的空气消毒方法比较分析

O. Prylutskyi, S. V. Kapranov, K. Y. Tkachenko, L. I. Yalovega
{"title":"预防细菌和病毒感染的空气消毒方法比较分析","authors":"O. Prylutskyi, S. V. Kapranov, K. Y. Tkachenko, L. I. Yalovega","doi":"10.34215/1609-1175-2023-4-82-85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim. To compare the effectiveness of two methods for indoor air disinfection, i.e., those based on ultraviolet (UV) irradiation sources of open and closed types.Material and methods. Two main indoor air disinfection methods were compared – an open-type UV irradiator and a closed-type recirculating irradiator– based on the parameters of total bacterial contamination and the content of staphylococci and mold spores in the air (n = 30).Results. UV disinfection using an open-type bactericidal lamp, both for 15 and 30 min, is significantly more effective than disinfection using a recirculating irradiator in terms of reducing the total bacterial contamination (p < 0.001), the content of viable staphylococci (p < 0.001 – p = 0.026), and mold spores (p < 0.001) in the air.Conclusion. The use of bactericidal lamps of open type is a more effective tool for indoor air disinfection compared to the use of closed-type recirculating irradiators. It is advisable to use UV disinfection with open type sources in the absence of people followed by ventilation and subsequent use of recirculating irradiators in the presence of people.","PeriodicalId":19705,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Medical Journal","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of air disinfection methods for prevention of bacterial and viral infections\",\"authors\":\"O. Prylutskyi, S. V. Kapranov, K. Y. Tkachenko, L. I. Yalovega\",\"doi\":\"10.34215/1609-1175-2023-4-82-85\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim. To compare the effectiveness of two methods for indoor air disinfection, i.e., those based on ultraviolet (UV) irradiation sources of open and closed types.Material and methods. Two main indoor air disinfection methods were compared – an open-type UV irradiator and a closed-type recirculating irradiator– based on the parameters of total bacterial contamination and the content of staphylococci and mold spores in the air (n = 30).Results. UV disinfection using an open-type bactericidal lamp, both for 15 and 30 min, is significantly more effective than disinfection using a recirculating irradiator in terms of reducing the total bacterial contamination (p < 0.001), the content of viable staphylococci (p < 0.001 – p = 0.026), and mold spores (p < 0.001) in the air.Conclusion. The use of bactericidal lamps of open type is a more effective tool for indoor air disinfection compared to the use of closed-type recirculating irradiators. It is advisable to use UV disinfection with open type sources in the absence of people followed by ventilation and subsequent use of recirculating irradiators in the presence of people.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"2 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34215/1609-1175-2023-4-82-85\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34215/1609-1175-2023-4-82-85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的。比较两种室内空气消毒方法的有效性,即基于开放式和封闭式紫外线(UV)照射源的方法。根据细菌污染总量、空气中葡萄球菌和霉菌孢子的含量等参数,比较了两种主要的室内空气消毒方法--开放式紫外线照射器和封闭式循环照射器(n = 30)。在减少空气中细菌总数(p < 0.001)、存活葡萄球菌含量(p < 0.001 - p = 0.026)和霉菌孢子(p < 0.001)方面,使用开放式杀菌灯进行紫外线消毒(15 分钟和 30 分钟)的效果明显优于使用循环照射器消毒。与使用封闭式循环照射器相比,使用开放式杀菌灯是一种更有效的室内空气消毒工具。建议在没有人的情况下使用开放式紫外线源进行消毒,然后进行通风,在有人的情况下再使用循环辐照器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative analysis of air disinfection methods for prevention of bacterial and viral infections
Aim. To compare the effectiveness of two methods for indoor air disinfection, i.e., those based on ultraviolet (UV) irradiation sources of open and closed types.Material and methods. Two main indoor air disinfection methods were compared – an open-type UV irradiator and a closed-type recirculating irradiator– based on the parameters of total bacterial contamination and the content of staphylococci and mold spores in the air (n = 30).Results. UV disinfection using an open-type bactericidal lamp, both for 15 and 30 min, is significantly more effective than disinfection using a recirculating irradiator in terms of reducing the total bacterial contamination (p < 0.001), the content of viable staphylococci (p < 0.001 – p = 0.026), and mold spores (p < 0.001) in the air.Conclusion. The use of bactericidal lamps of open type is a more effective tool for indoor air disinfection compared to the use of closed-type recirculating irradiators. It is advisable to use UV disinfection with open type sources in the absence of people followed by ventilation and subsequent use of recirculating irradiators in the presence of people.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using flow-vacuum-washing isolation device for comprehensive treatment of maxillofacial purulent-inflammatory wounds Difficulties in the diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis (clinical observation) Clinical case of median arcuate ligament syndrome in the practice of a pediatric surgeon Open educational resources for medical community Case of successful treatment of spinal infection in a patient with high comorbidity and septic manifestations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1