论文部分内容阅读
目的评价紫外线和臭氧对采血环境空气消毒效果的差异,为采血环境消毒方法的选择提供依据。方法对采血室环境空气分别应用臭氧和紫外线照射进行消毒,并用两种方法对模拟金黄色葡萄球菌进行消毒试验,采用平板暴露法进行细菌监控;同时对采血车和固定采血屋的环境空气监控进行比较。结果臭氧和紫外线照射对环境空气的消毒效果均符合国家要求,但臭氧消毒杀菌率为86.2%,好于紫外线消毒(χ2=12.4,P<0.05);采血车与固定采血屋空气细菌总数差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论臭氧和紫外线对工作环境都具有较好的消毒作用,臭氧法对空气消毒效果好于紫外线法。通过严格执行操作规程,及时的监控整改、采用动态空气消毒等措施来提高采血车空气质量。
Objective To evaluate the differences of ultraviolet disinfection effect and ozone on air disinfection effect in blood sampling environment and provide basis for the selection of disinfection methods in blood collection environment. Methods The air in the blood collection room was disinfected by ozone and ultraviolet radiation respectively. Two methods were used to disinfect the simulated Staphylococcus aureus, and the bacteria were monitored by the plate exposure method. At the same time, the monitoring of ambient air in the blood collection car and the fixed blood collection room Compare Results The ozone and ultraviolet radiation disinfection effects of ambient air were in line with national requirements, but the ozone disinfection rate was 86.2%, better than UV disinfection (χ2 = 12.4, P <0.05); blood car and fixed blood collection room total number of airborne bacteria Statistical significance (P <0.05). Conclusion Ozone and ultraviolet light have good disinfection effect on the working environment. The ozone disinfection effect on air is better than UV method. Through the strict implementation of operating procedures, timely monitoring and rectification, the use of dynamic air disinfection and other measures to improve blood collection car air quality.