A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment

Simultaneous air samples were taken from different locations in a hospital using a Reuter centrifugal (RCS) and a slit air sampler (SAS). Colony forming units were counted after 48 h incubation at 37 °C. The average bacterial counts were over 90 per cent higher with the RCS than with the SAS. The RC...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	The Journal of hospital infection 1981, Vol.2 (3), p.261-266
Hauptverfasser:	Nakhla, L.S., Cummings, R.F.
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Air Microbiology Bacteria - isolation & purification Evaluation Studies as Topic Hospitals Microbiological Techniques - instrumentation Ventilation
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	266
container_issue	3
container_start_page	261
container_title	The Journal of hospital infection
container_volume	2
creator	Nakhla, L.S. Cummings, R.F.
description	Simultaneous air samples were taken from different locations in a hospital using a Reuter centrifugal (RCS) and a slit air sampler (SAS). Colony forming units were counted after 48 h incubation at 37 °C. The average bacterial counts were over 90 per cent higher with the RCS than with the SAS. The RCS sampler is more portable, easier to handle and is very quiet in operation producing no disturbance to patients and staff.
doi_str_mv	10.1016/0195-6701(81)90048-7
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73900976</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0195670181900487</els_id><sourcerecordid>73900976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c272t-87f735a9f41e1a965ea4adbc42795c348bdbc733d00de59126d8a067608a67973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFtLwzAYhoMoc07_gUKuZLuoJj0kzY0whicYCE6vQ5Z-dZG2qUm74b83c2PgjVc5PO_3hjwIXVJyQwllt4SKLGKc0HFOJ4KQNI_4ERrSLImjWCTiGA0PkVN05v0nISTcZwM0YJSnmWBDtJlibetWOdWZNWBYq6oPW9tgW2KFG9hgDU3nTNl_qAor47BXdVuBw-PX2WKCN6ZbhaCvTPeXLqaBmiawlfWt6cI0NGvjbFOHwnN0UqrKw8V-HaH3h_u32VM0f3l8nk3nkY553EU5L3mSKVGmFKgSLAOVqmKp05iLTCdpvgwHniQFIQVkgsasyBVhnJFcMS54MkLXu97W2a8efCdr4zVUlWrA9l7yJJgTnIVgugtqZ713UMrWmVq5b0mJ3PqWW5lyK1PmVP76ltv-q31_v6yhOAztBQd-t-MQPrk24KTXBhoNhXGgO1lY8_8DPzq4jpE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73900976</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Nakhla, L.S. ; Cummings, R.F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nakhla, L.S. ; Cummings, R.F.</creatorcontrib><description>Simultaneous air samples were taken from different locations in a hospital using a Reuter centrifugal (RCS) and a slit air sampler (SAS). Colony forming units were counted after 48 h incubation at 37 °C. The average bacterial counts were over 90 per cent higher with the RCS than with the SAS. The RCS sampler is more portable, easier to handle and is very quiet in operation producing no disturbance to patients and staff.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-6701</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2939</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0195-6701(81)90048-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 6174596</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Air Microbiology ; Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Hospitals ; Microbiological Techniques - instrumentation ; Ventilation</subject><ispartof>The Journal of hospital infection, 1981, Vol.2 (3), p.261-266</ispartof><rights>1981</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c272t-87f735a9f41e1a965ea4adbc42795c348bdbc733d00de59126d8a067608a67973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c272t-87f735a9f41e1a965ea4adbc42795c348bdbc733d00de59126d8a067608a67973</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-6701(81)90048-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3552,4026,27930,27931,27932,46002</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6174596$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nakhla, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cummings, R.F.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment</title><title>The Journal of hospital infection</title><addtitle>J Hosp Infect</addtitle><description>Simultaneous air samples were taken from different locations in a hospital using a Reuter centrifugal (RCS) and a slit air sampler (SAS). Colony forming units were counted after 48 h incubation at 37 °C. The average bacterial counts were over 90 per cent higher with the RCS than with the SAS. The RCS sampler is more portable, easier to handle and is very quiet in operation producing no disturbance to patients and staff.</description><subject>Air Microbiology</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Microbiological Techniques - instrumentation</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><issn>0195-6701</issn><issn>1532-2939</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1981</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFtLwzAYhoMoc07_gUKuZLuoJj0kzY0whicYCE6vQ5Z-dZG2qUm74b83c2PgjVc5PO_3hjwIXVJyQwllt4SKLGKc0HFOJ4KQNI_4ERrSLImjWCTiGA0PkVN05v0nISTcZwM0YJSnmWBDtJlibetWOdWZNWBYq6oPW9tgW2KFG9hgDU3nTNl_qAor47BXdVuBw-PX2WKCN6ZbhaCvTPeXLqaBmiawlfWt6cI0NGvjbFOHwnN0UqrKw8V-HaH3h_u32VM0f3l8nk3nkY553EU5L3mSKVGmFKgSLAOVqmKp05iLTCdpvgwHniQFIQVkgsasyBVhnJFcMS54MkLXu97W2a8efCdr4zVUlWrA9l7yJJgTnIVgugtqZ713UMrWmVq5b0mJ3PqWW5lyK1PmVP76ltv-q31_v6yhOAztBQd-t-MQPrk24KTXBhoNhXGgO1lY8_8DPzq4jpE</recordid><startdate>1981</startdate><enddate>1981</enddate><creator>Nakhla, L.S.</creator><creator>Cummings, R.F.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1981</creationdate><title>A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment</title><author>Nakhla, L.S. ; Cummings, R.F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c272t-87f735a9f41e1a965ea4adbc42795c348bdbc733d00de59126d8a067608a67973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1981</creationdate><topic>Air Microbiology</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Microbiological Techniques - instrumentation</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nakhla, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cummings, R.F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of hospital infection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nakhla, L.S.</au><au>Cummings, R.F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of hospital infection</jtitle><addtitle>J Hosp Infect</addtitle><date>1981</date><risdate>1981</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>266</epage><pages>261-266</pages><issn>0195-6701</issn><eissn>1532-2939</eissn><abstract>Simultaneous air samples were taken from different locations in a hospital using a Reuter centrifugal (RCS) and a slit air sampler (SAS). Colony forming units were counted after 48 h incubation at 37 °C. The average bacterial counts were over 90 per cent higher with the RCS than with the SAS. The RCS sampler is more portable, easier to handle and is very quiet in operation producing no disturbance to patients and staff.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>6174596</pmid><doi>10.1016/0195-6701(81)90048-7</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0195-6701
ispartof	The Journal of hospital infection, 1981, Vol.2 (3), p.261-266
issn	0195-6701 1532-2939
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73900976
source	MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects	Air Microbiology Bacteria - isolation & purification Evaluation Studies as Topic Hospitals Microbiological Techniques - instrumentation Ventilation
title	A comparative evaluation of a new centrifugal air sampler (RCS) with a slit air sampler (SAS) in a hospital environment
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T23%3A33%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20evaluation%20of%20a%20new%20centrifugal%20air%20sampler%20(RCS)%20with%20a%20slit%20air%20sampler%20(SAS)%20in%20a%20hospital%20environment&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20hospital%20infection&rft.au=Nakhla,%20L.S.&rft.date=1981&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=266&rft.pages=261-266&rft.issn=0195-6701&rft.eissn=1532-2939&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0195-6701(81)90048-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73900976%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73900976&rft_id=info:pmid/6174596&rft_els_id=0195670181900487&rfr_iscdi=true