American journal of infection control · 2026
Preparing for the next pandemic: Efficacy of 2 commercial glycol vapor and aerosol products against aerosolized surrogate viruses and microbes on surfaces.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cadnum Jennifer L, Torres-Teran Maria M, Memic Samir, Milner Amelia L, Kaple Claire E, Donskey Curtis J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aerosolized or vaporized glycols have been proposed as a safe and low-cost measure for air sanitization, but limited information is available on their efficacy in real-world conditions.
METHODS: We evaluated 2 commercial glycol products, including a dipropylene glycol aerosol spray air sanitizer containing 30% to 60% ethanol and a triethylene glycol product released as a vapor over up to 48 hours. In a simulated patient room with 8 air changes per hour, we tested the efficacy of both products in reducing aerosolized bacteriophages Phi6 and MS2 in air and settling on disks, and the triethylene glycol vapor in reducing the viruses and bacterial pathogens and Candidozyma auris on steel disks.
RESULTS: Both products significantly reduced recovery of the bacteriophages in air and significantly reduced recovery of bacteriophage Phi6, but not bacteriophage MS2, on settle disks. After 16 or 48 hours, the triethylene glycol vapor reduced recovery of Phi6, Acinetobacter baumanii, and C auris by > 1 log10, and reduced methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and Klebsiella pneumoniae by ∼0.5 log10.
CONCLUSIONS: The glycol products could be an effective adjunctive method to reduce airborne viruses, and with prolonged exposure might have a modest impact on surface contamination with bacteria and fungi.
METHODS: We evaluated 2 commercial glycol products, including a dipropylene glycol aerosol spray air sanitizer containing 30% to 60% ethanol and a triethylene glycol product released as a vapor over up to 48 hours. In a simulated patient room with 8 air changes per hour, we tested the efficacy of both products in reducing aerosolized bacteriophages Phi6 and MS2 in air and settling on disks, and the triethylene glycol vapor in reducing the viruses and bacterial pathogens and Candidozyma auris on steel disks.
RESULTS: Both products significantly reduced recovery of the bacteriophages in air and significantly reduced recovery of bacteriophage Phi6, but not bacteriophage MS2, on settle disks. After 16 or 48 hours, the triethylene glycol vapor reduced recovery of Phi6, Acinetobacter baumanii, and C auris by > 1 log10, and reduced methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and Klebsiella pneumoniae by ∼0.5 log10.
CONCLUSIONS: The glycol products could be an effective adjunctive method to reduce airborne viruses, and with prolonged exposure might have a modest impact on surface contamination with bacteria and fungi.