Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:47:49.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacteriological evaluation of a laminar cross-flow tunnel for surgery under operational conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. van der Waaij ,
P. J. Heidt  and
W. D. H. Hendriks
D. van der Waaij
Affiliation:
Radiobiological Institute TNO, Lange Kleiweg 151, Rijswijk (ZH), The Netherlands
P. J. Heidt
Affiliation:
Radiobiological Institute TNO, Lange Kleiweg 151, Rijswijk (ZH), The Netherlands
W. D. H. Hendriks
Affiliation:
Radiobiological Institute TNO, Lange Kleiweg 151, Rijswijk (ZH), The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A transportable surgery cross-flow unit has been tested under ‘operational conditions’. By the use of artificial aerosols and a volunteer surgical team, or dummies, it was found that, at an air velocity of 0·45 m./sec., a detectable transfer to above the table occurred only when quite highly concentrated aerosols (of more than 103·6 bacteria/m.3 of air or more) existed underneath the table. The short disappearance time under these conditions and the quite stable flow pattern above the table found when a surgical team was working, standing along both sides of the table, make it unlikely that an aerosol of detectable concentration can develop during surgery, at this site. The chance that particles, liberated from the heads of the surgical team, settle on the table, was found to be strongly reduced when a cross-flow tunnel operated at an air velocity of 0·45 m./sec. The transfer from outside the unit to the inside was prevented by closing the upper part of the open front side.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 145 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

REFERENCES

Blowers, R., Hill, J. & Howell, A. (1973). Shedding of Staphylococcus aureus by human carriers. In Airborne Transmission and Airborne Infection (ed. Hers, J. F. Ph. & Winkler, K. C.), p. 432. Utrecht: Oosthoek Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Brown, A. D. (1954). The survival of airborne micro-organisms. Effects of temperature. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 7, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foord, N. & Lidwell, O. M. (1972). The control by ventilation of airborne bacterial transfer between hospital patients and its assessment by means of a particle tracer. Journal of Hygiene 70, 279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M. (1960). The evaluation of ventilation. Journal of Hygiene 58, 297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, K. R. & Pomeroy, N. P. (1973). Bacterial dispersion from the body surface. In Airborne Transmission and Airborne Infection (ed. Hers, J. F. Ph. & Winkler, K. C.), p. 426. Utrecht: Oosthoek Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Noble, W. C., Lidwell, O. M. & Kingston, D. (1963). The size distribution of airborne particles carrying microorganisms. Journal of Hygiene 61, 385.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, C. C., Sanderson, J. T. & Guthrie, T. D. (1971). Choice of ventilation system for operating theatres. Lancet i, 1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waaij, D. van der & Wal, J. F. van der (1973). ‘Laminar’ airflow ventilation: crossflow or downfiow? In Airborne Transmission and Airborne Infection (ed. Hers, J. F. Ph. & Winkler, K. C.), p. 584. Utrecht: Oosthoek Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Whyte, W. (1968). Bacteriological aspects of air-conditioning plants. Journal of Hygiene 66, 567.Google ScholarPubMed
Whyte, W. & Shaw, B. H. (1971). An experimental down/cross flow operating room. Contamination Control 10, 6.Google ScholarPubMed