汽化过氧化氢与过氧化氢干雾对比幻灯片.docxVIP

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor and Aerosol Room Decontamination Systems汽化过氧化氢与干雾灭菌系统比较T. Holmdahl, MD,1?P. Lanbeck, MD, PhD,1?M. Wullt, MD, PhD,1?and M. H. Walder, MD, PhD21. Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malm?, Sweden瑞典伦德大学临床科学系传染疾病组2. Medical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Sk?ne University Hospital SUS, Malm?, Sweden瑞典伦德大学医学检验系微生物医学组，瑞典马尔默斯堪大学医院Address correspondence to M. H. Walder, MD, PhD, Klinisk Mikrobiologi Malm?, Laboratoriemedicin Sk?ne, SE-20502 Malm?, Sweden (mats.walder@med.lu.se).New technologies have emerged in recent years for the disinfection of hospital rooms and equipment that may not be disinfected adequately using conventional methods. There are several hydrogen peroxide–based area decontamination technologies on the market, but no head-to-head studies have been performed.?Objective.研究目的：最近几年，一些新兴技术被用来对医院的房间和传统灭菌方法无法充分灭菌的设备进行灭菌。市场上有几种基于过氧化的区域灭菌技术，但尚没有任何研究来对这些技术进行一一对比。We conducted a head-to-head in vitro comparison of a hydrogen peroxide vapor (HYDROGEN PEROXIDE VAPOUR) system and an aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP) system.?研究设计：因此，我们对汽化过氧化氢技术（HYDROGEN PEROXIDE VAPOUR）和过氧化氢干雾扩散技术（aHP）进行了一一对比.The tests were conducted in a purpose-built 136-m3?test room.场地：特意建造一个136立方米试验间进行试验One HYDROGEN PEROXIDE VAPOUR generator and 2 aHP machines were used, following recommendations of the manufacturers. Three repeated tests were performed for each system. The microbiological efficacy of the 2 systems was tested using 6-log Tyvek-pouched?Methods.?Geobacillus stearothermophilus?biological indicators (BIs). The indicators were placed at 20 locations in the first test and 14 locations in the subsequent 2 tests for each system.测试方法：根据厂商建议，试验中使用一台过氧化氢发生器和2台过氧化氢干雾扩散器。每种技术重复实验三次。用特卫强包装的6-log 嗜热脂肪芽孢杆菌生物指示剂来检验对于微生物的效力。第一轮测试中，生物指示剂（BIs）放置在20个位置；随后的两轮测试均放置于14个位置。All BIs were inactivated for the 3 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE VAPOUR tests, compared with only 10% in the first aHP te