Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-vkhs7 Total loading time: 0.337 Render date: 2023-02-06T10:50:57.008Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Efficacy of UV-C Disinfection in Hyperbaric Chambers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2020

Bobby Warren
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention
Jason Masker
Affiliation:
Duke Hyperbarics
Gregory Brown
Affiliation:
Duke Hyperbarics
Isabella Gamez
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention
Becky Smith
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Deverick John Anderson
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center
Nicholas Turner
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

Background: UV-C light reduces contamination of high-touch clinical surfaces. Few studies have tested the relative efficacy of UV-C devices in real-world clinical environments. Methods: We assessed the efficacy of the Tru-D (SmartUVC) and Moonbeam-3 UV-C (Diversey) devices at eradicating important clinical pathogens in 2 hyperbaric chambers at a tertiary-care hospital. Formica sheets were inoculated with 106–107 CFU of MRSA (USA300) or 104–105 CFU of C. difficile (NAP1). Sheets were placed in 6 predetermined locations throughout the chambers. Two Moonbeam-3 UV-C devices were positioned in the center of each chamber and were run for 3-minute (per manufacturer’s instructions) and 5-minute cycles. One Tru-D was positioned in the center of the chamber and was run on the vegetative cycle for MRSA and the spore cycle for C. difficile. UV-C dosage was measured for both machines. Quantitative cultures were collected using Rodac plates with DE neutralizing agar and were incubated at 37C for 48 hours. C. difficile was likewise plated onto sheep’s blood agar. Results: We ran each combination of chamber, microbe, and UV-C device in triplicate for In total, 108 samples per species.

For MRSA, the Tru-D vegetative cycle, the 5-minute Moonbeam cycle, and the 3-minute Moonbeam cycle resulted in average CFU log10 reductions of 7.02 (95% CI, 7.02–7.02), 6.99 (95% CI, 6.95–7.02), and 6.58 (95% CI, 6.37–6.79), respectively (Fig. 1). The Tru-D vegetative and 5-minute Moonbeam cycles were similarly effective (P > .99), and both were more effective than the 3-minute Moonbeam cycle (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). MRSA samples receiving direct UV-C exposure had significantly greater log10 reductions (6.95; 95% CI, 6.89–7.01) than did indirect exposure (6.67; 95% CI, 6.46–6.87; P < .05) (Fig. 2). For C. difficile, the Tru-D sporicidal, the 5-, and 3-minute Moonbeam cycles resulted in average CFU log10 reductions of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.43–2.12), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.33–0.81) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42–0.86), respectively (Fig. 1). Tru-D was significantly more effective than either the 3- or 5-minute Moonbeam cycles (P < .00). C. difficile samples receiving direct UV-C exposure had higher dosage and significantly greater log10 reductions (1.34; 95% CI, 1.10–1.58) than did indirect exposure (0.58; 95% CI, 0.31–0.86; P < .01) (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Use of the Tru-D vegetative cycle and the Moonbeam 3- and 5-minute cycles resulted in similar reductions in MRSA; both resulted in significantly greater reductions than the manufacturer’s recommended 3-minute Moonbeam cycle. Therefore, healthcare facilities should carefully evaluate manufacturer-recommended run times in their specific clinical setting. For C. difficile, the Tru-D sporicidal cycle was significantly more effective than either of the Moonbeam cycles, likely due to higher irradiation levels. As such, direct UV-C exposure resulted in greater average reductions than indirect exposure.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
You have Access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Efficacy of UV-C Disinfection in Hyperbaric Chambers
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Efficacy of UV-C Disinfection in Hyperbaric Chambers
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Efficacy of UV-C Disinfection in Hyperbaric Chambers
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *