A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet (UV) light decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room.DesignLaboratory evaluation.MethodsWe compared the efficacy of 8 UV decontamination devices with a 4-minute UV exposure time in reducing recovery of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and Clostridium difficile spores on steel disk carriers placed at 5 sites on a computed tomography patient table. Analysis of variance was used to compare reductions for the different devices. A spectrometer was used to obtain irradiance measurements for the devices.ResultsFour standard vertical tower low-pressure mercury devices achieved 2 log10CFU or greater reductions in VRE and MRSA and ~1 log10CFU reductions in C. difficile spores, whereas a pulsed-xenon device resulted in less reduction in the pathogens (P<.001). In comparison to the vertical tower low-pressure mercury devices, equal or greater reductions in the pathogens were achieved by 3 nonstandard low-pressure mercury devices that included either adjustable bulbs that could be oriented directly over the exam table, a robotic base allowing movement along the side of the table during operation, or 3 vertical towers operated simultaneously. The low-pressure mercury devices produced primarily UV-C light, whereas the pulsed-xenon device produced primarily UV-A and UV-B light. The time required to move the devices from the corner of the room and set up for operation varied from 18 to 59 seconds.ConclusionsMany currently available UV devices could provide an effective and efficient adjunct to manual cleaning and disinfection in radiology procedure rooms.

Is UV-C “light wand” mobile disinfection in air ambulance helicopters effective?

“…Compared with the vertical tower low-pressure mercury devices, equal or greater reductions of the pathogens were achieved by 3 nonstandard low-pressure mercury devices that included either adjustable bulbs that could be oriented directly over the exam table or 3 vertical towers operated simultaneously. 4 Our results in achievable reduction factors in a test environment simulating real-life conditions of manual application are comparable to those of Cadnum et al However, 60 seconds were needed with our surfaces compared to the fast reduction achieved on agar plates by Petersson et al 3 and in our pretest. The large variability of log 10 unit reduction between tests and devices might be due to unavoidable differences in angulation of the device toward the surface, changing reflection artefacts, and/or the different surfaces, which are to be expected in a reallife environment.…”

“…A mobile, nonchemical device would therefore be a valuable alternative for a targeted surface disinfection. Cadnum et al 4 compared multiple UV decontamination devices in a radiology suite. Moreover, 4 standard, vertical-tower, low-pressure, mercury devices achieved reductions of VRE or MRSA ≥2 log 10 units and of C. difficle at~1 log 10 unit, whereas a pulsed-xenon device resulted in less reduction of the pathogens.…”

“…3 However, wiping with no or an ineffective disinfectant also runs the risk of spreading localized pathogen contamination over a wider area. 4 Therefore, proper wiping using an effective, safe, and compatible disinfectant may be more desirable. Formulations based on oxidizers (with or without halogens) can be fast acting, broad spectrum, surface compatible, and residue free while being safe for humans and the environment.…”

Efficacy of UV-C disinfection in hyperbaric chambers

“…UV-C light reduces contamination of high-touch clinical surfaces, yet more studies are needed to test the comparative efficacy of UV-C devices in real-world clinical environments. [5][6][7] We tested the efficacy of 2 UV-C devices in clinical hyperbaric chambers. The use of the Tru-D vegetative cycle and the 5-minute Moonbeam cycle resulted in similar reductions in MRSA; both resulted in significantly larger reductions than the manufacturer's recommended 3-minute Moonbeam-3 cycle.…”

Integration of aeromedicine in the response to the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…Though utilization of UV light as a terminal cleaning procedure involving rotor wing aircraft is uncommon, there is promising literature involving UV light utilization in ambulances, radiology suites, and operating rooms 22,23 . This step of the decontamination process was necessary to provide additional protection for our flight crews and for subsequent patients.…”