American journal of disaster medicine · 2026
Residual biological surrogate aerosol risk reduction during disrobing litter-bound manikin patients using two dry air treatments for cold regions.
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.
Garner Clayton, Sleeth Darrah, Slagley Jeremy, Shoaf Kimberley, Peters Vera, Feldman Faina, Skipper Julie, Varshney Gaiven, Lewis Douglas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Determine relative effectiveness of two dry air decontamination methods to reduce residual airborne surrogate biological agent on litter-bound manikin patients during disrobing.
DESIGN: Fluorescent 1 µm polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres were applied as a biological agent surrogate to a litter-bound manikin dressed in cold weather outer gear (parka and snow pants) representing the contaminated patient. Two dry air personal decontamination treatments were compared to that involving no -decontamination.
SETTING: Cold region mass casualty biological aerosol contamination event.
PARTICIPANTS: A litter-bound manikin.
INTERVENTIONS: Two treatments were applied independently; high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered vacuum, and air-knife decontamination were compared to that involving no decontamination. After contaminating the manikin, a treatment was applied and the manikin disrobed. The disrobing process created the highest risk of re-aerosolization of the PSL spheres surrogate biological agent which could be inhaled by the attending medical personnel or the patient.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Aerosolized PSL sphere quantification was sampled in the breathing zone of medical personnel and analyzed with ultraviolet microscopy.
RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed that treatment means of log-transformed data differed -significantly (p < 0.001). Tukeys Honestly Significant Difference test revealed a significant difference only between air-knife decontamination and no decontamination (p < 0.05). The HEPA vacuum reduced airborne contamination by 71 percent compared to no decontamination (not significantly different), while the air-knife reduced it by 91 percent (significantly different), after background correction.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering ease of use and significant significance, air-knife decontamination was superior to HEPA vacuum in reducing airborne inhalational risk to attending medical personnel when disrobing the manikin.
DESIGN: Fluorescent 1 µm polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres were applied as a biological agent surrogate to a litter-bound manikin dressed in cold weather outer gear (parka and snow pants) representing the contaminated patient. Two dry air personal decontamination treatments were compared to that involving no -decontamination.
SETTING: Cold region mass casualty biological aerosol contamination event.
PARTICIPANTS: A litter-bound manikin.
INTERVENTIONS: Two treatments were applied independently; high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered vacuum, and air-knife decontamination were compared to that involving no decontamination. After contaminating the manikin, a treatment was applied and the manikin disrobed. The disrobing process created the highest risk of re-aerosolization of the PSL spheres surrogate biological agent which could be inhaled by the attending medical personnel or the patient.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Aerosolized PSL sphere quantification was sampled in the breathing zone of medical personnel and analyzed with ultraviolet microscopy.
RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed that treatment means of log-transformed data differed -significantly (p < 0.001). Tukeys Honestly Significant Difference test revealed a significant difference only between air-knife decontamination and no decontamination (p < 0.05). The HEPA vacuum reduced airborne contamination by 71 percent compared to no decontamination (not significantly different), while the air-knife reduced it by 91 percent (significantly different), after background correction.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering ease of use and significant significance, air-knife decontamination was superior to HEPA vacuum in reducing airborne inhalational risk to attending medical personnel when disrobing the manikin.