• Plos One · Jan 2014

    Comparative Study

    Sorting through the wealth of options: comparative evaluation of two ultraviolet disinfection systems.

    • Michelle M Nerandzic, Christopher W Fisher, and Curtis J Donskey.
    • Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
    • Plos One. 2014 Jan 1; 9 (9): e107444.

    BackgroundEnvironmental surfaces play an important role in the transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens. Because environmental cleaning is often suboptimal, there is a growing demand for safe, rapid, and automated disinfection technologies, which has lead to a wealth of novel disinfection options available on the market. Specifically, automated ultraviolet-C (UV-C) devices have grown in number due to the documented efficacy of UV-C for reducing healthcare-acquired pathogens in hospital rooms. Here, we assessed and compared the impact of pathogen concentration, organic load, distance, and radiant dose on the killing efficacy of two analogous UV-C devices.Principal FindingsThe devices performed equivalently for each impact factor assessed. Irradiation delivered for 41 minutes at 4 feet from the devices consistently reduced C. difficile spores by ∼ 3 log10CFU/cm2, MRSA by>4 log10CFU/cm2, and VRE by >5 log10CFU/cm2. Pathogen concentration did not significantly impact the killing efficacy of the devices. However, both a light and heavy organic load had a significant negative impacted on the killing efficacy of the devices. Additionally, increasing the distance to 10 feet from the devices reduced the killing efficacy to ≤3 log10CFU/cm2 for MRSA and VRE and <2 log10CFU/cm2 for C.difficile spores. Delivery of reduced timed doses of irradiation particularly impacted the ability of the devices to kill C. difficile spores. MRSA and VRE were reduced by >3 log10CFU/cm2 after only 10 minutes of irradiation, while C. difficile spores required 40 minutes of irradiation to achieve a similar reduction.ConclusionsThe UV-C devices were equally effective for killing C. difficile spores, MRSA, and VRE. While neither device would be recommended as a stand-alone disinfection procedure, either device would be a useful adjunctive measure to routine cleaning in healthcare facilities.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.