Evaluation of a Dry Fogging System for Laboratory Decontamination

Krishnan, Jay; Fey, Greg; Stansfield, Carol; Landry, Laura; Nguy, Hung; Klassen, Stan; Robertson, Catherine

doi:10.1177/153567601201700305

Cited by 30 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fogging is also used to reduce the counts of airborne viable microorganisms deriving from lowcare areas, people, structures, or formed as aerosols during cleaning procedures (Burfoot, Hall, Brown, & Xu, 1999). The ultrafine droplet size of the dry fog prevents it from easily falling onto surfaces, a desirable quality for area decontaminations (Krishnan et al, 2012).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-++, frequent use; +, occasional use; -, not used. Sources: Burfoot, Hall, Brown, & Xu, 1999;Marriott & Gravani, 2006;Pascual, Llorca, & Canut, 2007;Stanga, 2010;Krishnan et al, 2012;Cutler & Zimmerman, 2011;O'Donnell, Tiwari, Cullen, & Rice, 2012;Christ, Savi, & Scussel, 2016;Zhou, Yang, Lai, & Huang, 2016;Yang, Zhang, Nunayon, Chan, & Lai, 2018;Chen et al, 2019;Masotti et al, 2019.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Airborne contamination in the food industry: An update on monitoring and disinfection techniques of air

Masotti

Cattaneo

Stuknytė

et al. 2019

Trends in Food Science & Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hygienic and safe production is a high priority in the food industry. During processing, food may be subjected to bio-contamination. Accordingly, preservation of overall quality by keeping a clean environment is a goal to pursue. Among microbial vectors, air is considered a contributing factor to crosscontamination. Scope and approach: Nowadays, in food plants emphasis is paid to the assessment of air bioload in view of prevention of recontamination. Normally, air entering a processing plant is chilled and filtered to remove undesired microorganisms from outside. Nevertheless, apart from clean-room environments, uncontrolled factors (processes, personnel, structures, etc.) contribute to the release of microorganisms in indoor environments, resulting in generation of bioaerosols highly variable within and among plants, and on a daily basis within the same plant. Key findings and conclusions: This review focuses on the relevance of bioaerosol monitoring in the food industry, providing an update of air sampling techniques and methods of analysis in view to strengthen preventive hygienic actions. Disinfection procedures to minimize microbial counts in the air as additional safeguard to the standard chemical sanitation protocols are reviewed. Benefits and limitations of air treatment by chemical fogging, ozonation, UV irradiation or cold plasma are outlined. Air bioload monitoring and the implementation of subsequent air disinfection procedures are a feasible and a routinely exploitable strategy to satisfy hygienic requirements in food plants. Further research is required to face technical challenges and optimize the feasibility of some disinfection technologies for the real-world of food environments.

show abstract

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Airborne contamination in the food industry: An update on monitoring and disinfection techniques of air

Masotti

Cattaneo

Stuknytė

et al. 2019

Trends in Food Science & Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Krishnan and colleagues reported that after 30 minutes of PAA dry fogging, commercial G. stearothermophilus spore carriers were inactivated, while self-on November 24, 2020 by guest http://aem.asm.org/ Downloaded from prepared virus and B. atropheus spore carriers required one hour or even overnight exposure for complete inactivation (7). Similar results were seen after fumigation with 5% HP, when commercial B. atropheus spore carriers were inactivated, while all carriers coated with M. tuberculosis mycobacteria still showed growth (23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Airborne Disinfection by Dry Fogging Efficiently Inactivates Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Mycobacteria, and Bacterial Spores and Shows Limitations of Commercial Spore Carriers

Schinköthe

Scheinemann

Diederich

et al. 2021

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Airborne disinfection of high-containment facilities before maintenance or between animal studies is crucial. Commercial spore carriers (CSC) coated with 106 spores of Geobacillus stearothermophilus are often used to assess the efficacy of disinfection. We used quantitative carrier testing (QCT) procedures to compare the sensitivity of CSC with that of surrogates for non-enveloped and enveloped viruses including SARS-CoV-2, mycobacteria, and spores to an aerosolized mixture of peroxyacetic acid and hydrogen peroxide (aPAA/HP). We then used the QCT methodology to determine relevant process parameters to develop and validate effective disinfection protocols (≥ 4 log10 reduction) in various large and complex facilities. Our results demonstrate that aPAA/HP is a highly efficient procedure for airborne room disinfection. Relevant process parameters such as temperature and relative humidity can be wirelessly monitored. Furthermore, we found striking differences in inactivation efficacies against some of the tested microorganisms. Overall, we conclude that dry fogging a mixture of aPAA/HP is highly efficient against a broad range of microorganisms as well as material compatible with relevant concentrations. Furthermore, CSC are artificial bio-indicators with lower resistance and thus, should not be used for validating airborne disinfection when microorganisms other than viruses have to be inactivated. IMPORTANCE Airborne disinfection is not only of crucial importance for the safe operation of laboratories and animal rooms where infectious agents are handled, but can also be used in public health emergencies like the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We show that dry fogging a mixture of aPAA/HP is highly microbicidal, efficient, fast, robust, environmentally neutral, and a suitable airborne disinfection method. In addition, the low concentration of dispersed disinfectant, particularly for enveloped viral pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, entails high material compatibility. For these reasons and due to the relative simplicity of the procedure, it is an ideal disinfection method for hospital wards, ambulances, public conveyances and indoor community areas. Thus, we conclude that this method is an excellent choice for control of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

show abstract

“…Just before a fumigation cycle was started, the air system was manually shut down and the gaps around the door were sealed with duct tape to prevent fumigant leakage, as described previously. 26 15 commercially available Geobacillus stearothermophilus biological indicators (BIs) (Steris Corporation, Mentor, OH) were placed at various locations within the BSC (Table 1). Because this room has been previously validated repeatedly for VHP and PAA fumigation, no additional BIs were placed in the room.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,[20][21][22][23][24][25] Dry fog with PAA has been used to decontaminate high-containment laboratories, decontamination chambers, and cell culture facilities. 17,26,27 In this study, we wanted to validate whether VHP and PAA dry fogging system could be used to decontaminate BSCs in situ during a laboratory fumigation process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Decontamination Validation of a Class II Type A2 Biosafety Cabinet during Laboratory Fumigation

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a Class II type A2 biosafety cabinet in a laboratory could be decontaminated while the laboratory was being fumigated using vaporous hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid dry fogging. Methods: To validate decontamination of all parts of the biosafety cabinet, biological indicators were placed at various locations within the biosafety cabinet, including between the pleats of supply and exhaust HEPA filters. To assess whether the operational status of the biosafety cabinet influenced the outcome of its decontamination, fumigation validations were undertaken with the cabinet running and not running. The amount of fumigant and the duration of fumigation remained constant whether the biosafety cabinet was running or not. Discussion: Biosafety cabinet decontamination was successful only when the cabinet was running to facilitate the fumigant’s circulation within the plenums and across the HEPA filters. This study shows both vaporous hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid dry fogging can be used successfully to decontaminate Class II type A2 biosafety cabinets during laboratory fumigation, provided the biosafety cabinets are operational and running during the fumigation.

show abstract

Evaluation of a Dry Fogging System for Laboratory Decontamination

Cited by 30 publications

References 27 publications

Airborne contamination in the food industry: An update on monitoring and disinfection techniques of air

Airborne contamination in the food industry: An update on monitoring and disinfection techniques of air

Airborne Disinfection by Dry Fogging Efficiently Inactivates Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Mycobacteria, and Bacterial Spores and Shows Limitations of Commercial Spore Carriers

Decontamination Validation of a Class II Type A2 Biosafety Cabinet during Laboratory Fumigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About