A mobile device reducing airborne particulate can improve air quality

Gabriele Messina; Giuseppe Spataro; Laura Catarsi; Maria Francesca De Marco; Anna Grasso; Gabriele Cevenini; Gabriele Messina; Giuseppe Spataro; Laura Catarsi; Maria Francesca De Marco; Anna Grasso; Gabriele Cevenini

doi:10.3934/publichealth.2020038

AIMS Public Health

2020, Volume 7, Issue 3: 469-477. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020038

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

A mobile device reducing airborne particulate can improve air quality

1.
Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine, University of Siena, via Aldo Moro 2, Siena, Italy
2.
Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, via Aldo Moro 2, Siena, Italy
3.
Post Graduate School of Public Health, University of Siena, via Aldo Moro 2, Siena, Italy
4.
Medical Management, “Le Scotte” Teaching Hospital, viale Mario Bracci 16, Siena, Italy

Received: 23 April 2020 Accepted: 23 June 2020 Published: 02 July 2020

Surgical site infections are the second major cause of hospital acquired infections, accounting for a large part of overall annual medical costs. Airborne particulate is known to be a potential carrier of pathogenic bacteria. We assessed a mobile air particle filter unit for improvement of air quality in an operating room (OR). A new mobile air decontamination and recirculation unit, equipped with a crystalline ultraviolet C (Illuvia® 500 UV) reactor and a HEPA filter, was tested in an OR. Airborne particulate was monitored in four consecutive phases: I) device OFF and OR at rest; II) device OFF and OR in operation; III) device ON and OR in operation; IV) device OFF and OR in operation. We used a particle counter to measure airborne particles of different sizes: ≥0.3, ≥0.5, ≥1, ≥3, ≥5, >10 µm. Activation of the device (phases III) produced a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in airborne particulate of all sizes. Switching the device OFF (phase IV) led to a statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in the number of particles of most sizes: ≥0.3, ≥0.5, ≥1, ≥3 µm. The device significantly reduced airborne particulate in the OR, improving air quality and possibly lowering the probability of surgical site infections.
- healthcare associated infections,
- surgical site infections,
- ultraviolet disinfection,
- UV-C,
- airborne particulate,
- air quality,
- operating room
Citation: Gabriele Messina, Giuseppe Spataro, Laura Catarsi, Maria Francesca De Marco, Anna Grasso, Gabriele Cevenini. A mobile device reducing airborne particulate can improve air quality[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 469-477. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020038

Related Papers:

Abstract

Surgical site infections are the second major cause of hospital acquired infections, accounting for a large part of overall annual medical costs. Airborne particulate is known to be a potential carrier of pathogenic bacteria. We assessed a mobile air particle filter unit for improvement of air quality in an operating room (OR). A new mobile air decontamination and recirculation unit, equipped with a crystalline ultraviolet C (Illuvia® 500 UV) reactor and a HEPA filter, was tested in an OR. Airborne particulate was monitored in four consecutive phases: I) device OFF and OR at rest; II) device OFF and OR in operation; III) device ON and OR in operation; IV) device OFF and OR in operation. We used a particle counter to measure airborne particles of different sizes: ≥0.3, ≥0.5, ≥1, ≥3, ≥5, >10 µm. Activation of the device (phases III) produced a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in airborne particulate of all sizes. Switching the device OFF (phase IV) led to a statistically significant increase (p < 0.05) in the number of particles of most sizes: ≥0.3, ≥0.5, ≥1, ≥3 µm. The device significantly reduced airborne particulate in the OR, improving air quality and possibly lowering the probability of surgical site infections.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Teaching Hospital of Siena for permission to conduct the study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, methodology and supervision GM and GC; Investigation GS and LC; Formal analysis GS, LC, GM and GC; Writing-original draft GS, LC; Writing-review & editing GM, GC, MFDM and AG.

Funding

The research was funded by Aerobiotix Inc. (Dayton, OH).

Conflicts of interest

This study was partly funded by Aerobiotix Inc. (Dayton, OH). An Illuvia® 500UV unit was supplied by Aerobiotix Inc for the study. The sponsor was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, the writing of the paper, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	(2013) European Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlSurveillance of surgical site infections in Europe 2010–2011. Stockholm: ECDC.
[2]	Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. (1992) CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 13: 606-608. doi: 10.2307/30148464
[3]	Roy MC, Perl TM (1997) Basics of surgical-site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 18: 659-668. doi: 10.2307/30141496
[4]	Sadrizadeh S, Pantelic J, Sherman M, et al. (2018) Airborne particle dispersion to an operating room environment during sliding and hinged door opening. J Infect Public Health 11: 631-635. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2018.02.007
[5]	Anderson DJ, Kaye KS (2009) Staphylococcal surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 23: 53-72. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2008.10.004
[6]	Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, et al. (2013) Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 173: 2039-2046. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763
[7]	O'Keeffe AB, Lawrence T, Bojanic S (2012) Oxford craniotomy infections database: a cost analysis of craniotomy infection. Br J Neurosurg 26: 265-269. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2011.626878
[8]	Badia JM, Casey AL, Petrosillo N, et al. (2017) Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries. J Hosp Infect 96: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2017.03.004
[9]	Pinkney TD, Calvert M, Bartlett DC, et al. (2013) Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial). BMJ 347: f4305. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4305
[10]	Birgand G, Toupet G, Rukly S, et al. (2015) Air contamination for predicting wound contamination in clean surgery: A large multicenter study. Am J Infect Control 43: 516-521. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.01.026
[11]	Kowalski W (2007) Air-treatment systems for controlling hospital acquired infections. HPAC Eng 79: 24-48.
[12]	Schaal KP (1991) Medical and microbiological problems arising from airborne infection in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 18: 451-459. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(91)90056-E
[13]	Edmiston CE, Seabrook GR, Cambria RA, et al. (2005) Molecular epidemiology of microbial contamination in the operating room environment: Is there a risk for infection? Surgery 138: 573-582. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.06.045
[14]	Seal DV, Clark RP (1990) Electronic particle counting for evaluating the quality of air in operating theatres: a potential basis for standards? J Appl Bacteriol 68: 225-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb02568.x
[15]	Vonci N, De Marco MF, Grasso A, et al. (2019) Association between air changes and airborne microbial contamination in operating rooms. J Infect Public Health 12: 827-830. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2019.05.010
[16]	Gormley T, Markel TA, Jones H, et al. (2017) Cost-benefit analysis of different air change rates in an operating room environment. Am J Infect Control 45: 1318-1323. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.07.024
[17]	Scaltriti S, Cencetti S, Rovesti S, et al. (2007) Risk factors for particulate and microbial contamination of air in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 66: 320-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.05.019
[18]	Anis HK, Curtis GL, Klika AK, et al. (2020) In-Room Ultraviolet Air Filtration Units Reduce Airborne Particles During Total Joint Arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 38: 431-437. doi: 10.1002/jor.24453
[19]	Curtis GL, Faour M, Jawad M, et al. (2018) Reduction of Particles in the Operating Room Using Ultraviolet Air Disinfection and Recirculation Units. J Arthroplasty 33: S196-S200. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.052
[20]	Anderson DJ, Podgorny K, Berrios-Torres SI, et al. (2014) Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 35: S66-S88. doi: 10.1017/S0899823X00193869
[21]	Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, et al. (2017) American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. J Am Coll Surg 224: 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.029
[22]	Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. (2014) Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 370: 1198-1208. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306801
[23]	(2018) OECDiLibraryStemming the Superbug Tide: Just A Few Dollars More. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/stemming-the-superbug-tide_9789264307599-en.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)