Feasibility of selected prophylactic barriers in arrestance of airborne bacterial vegetative cells and endospores

Background Transmission of infection by airborne agents is a risk for health care personnel, patients, and visitors. This risk is heightened in regions without access to environmental controls and personal protective equipment. The ability of 2 prophylactic barriers (ie, semitransparent netting for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of infection control 2011-09, Vol.39 (7), p.581-586
Hauptverfasser: Davidson, Craig S., MS, Green, Christopher F., PhD, Gibbs, Shawn G., PhD, Panlilio, Adelisa L., MD, Jensen, Paul A., PhD, Jin, Yan, PhD, Scarpino, Pasquale V., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Transmission of infection by airborne agents is a risk for health care personnel, patients, and visitors. This risk is heightened in regions without access to environmental controls and personal protective equipment. The ability of 2 prophylactic barriers (ie, semitransparent netting for insect control) to arrest bioaerosols was assessed for potential use within the malarial zones. Methods Barriers (pore sizes of 0.8 mm and 0.25 mm) were challenged with bioaerosols of vegetative cells and endospores of Bacillus anthracis strain Sterne 34F2 using a bioaerosol chamber. Barriers were also challenged with airborne inert polystyrene latex particles of known diameters (0.1, 0.43, 0.6, 1.3, 3.2, and 8.0 μm), and the arrestance provided by barrier with the 0.25 mm pore size was expressed as a function of aerodynamic diameter of challenge aerosols. Results Barrier with the 0.8 mm pore size provided no significant arrestance of aerosols, whereas the barrier with the 0.25 mm pore size provided an 8% arrestance of vegetative cells and a 13% arrestance of endospores. No arrestance at or below the 0.6 μm particle size was observed. Conclusion The level of arrestance provided by these prophylactic barriers does not justify their use as a sole method of preventing transmission.
ISSN:0196-6553
1527-3296
DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.10.032