American journal of infection control · 2026
Comparative evaluation of filters for sustained bacterial control in endoscope reprocessing final rinse water.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chen Pan, Zhou ChenYing, Li Mei, Chen LiNa, Gu Qing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Filter performance is critical for maintaining endoscope final rinse water quality, however comparative data on different filter types remain limited.
METHODS: Brominated polystyrene hydantoin (BPSH), polyethersulfone (PES), polypropylene (PP) filters were challenged with water containing ∼10⁶ CFU/mL Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Performance was assessed under dynamic (3.6 L/min flow, 6h/day) and static (8-day stagnation) conditions.
RESULTS: Under dynamic conditions, the BPSH filter consistently maintained effluent bacterial concentrations ≤10 CFU/100 mL for all three organisms throughout the 64-day study. In contrast, the PES and PP filters showed progressive deterioration in performance. Under static conditions, BPSH maintained <1 CFU/100 mL for all organisms over 7 days, whereas PES and PP exceeded the limit from day 2 for P aeruginosa and E coli, and from day 6 for S aureus.
DISCUSSION: The sustained efficacy of BPSH under both dynamic and static conditions is attributed to the continuous release of active bromine. This release kills retained bacteria and offers a significant advantage over conventional physical filters.
CONCLUSION: BPSH provides consistent, high bacterial removal under both conditions, ideal for clinical settings with intermittent downtime.
METHODS: Brominated polystyrene hydantoin (BPSH), polyethersulfone (PES), polypropylene (PP) filters were challenged with water containing ∼10⁶ CFU/mL Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Performance was assessed under dynamic (3.6 L/min flow, 6h/day) and static (8-day stagnation) conditions.
RESULTS: Under dynamic conditions, the BPSH filter consistently maintained effluent bacterial concentrations ≤10 CFU/100 mL for all three organisms throughout the 64-day study. In contrast, the PES and PP filters showed progressive deterioration in performance. Under static conditions, BPSH maintained <1 CFU/100 mL for all organisms over 7 days, whereas PES and PP exceeded the limit from day 2 for P aeruginosa and E coli, and from day 6 for S aureus.
DISCUSSION: The sustained efficacy of BPSH under both dynamic and static conditions is attributed to the continuous release of active bromine. This release kills retained bacteria and offers a significant advantage over conventional physical filters.
CONCLUSION: BPSH provides consistent, high bacterial removal under both conditions, ideal for clinical settings with intermittent downtime.