论文部分内容阅读
目的比较细菌芽孢与细菌繁殖体对过氧化氢汽体(VPHP)的抗力,为选择VPHP生物指示剂提供参考。方法采用载体定量杀菌实验方法,比较某过氧化氢汽体发生器发生的VPHP对两组常用消毒试验指标菌芽孢与金黄色葡萄球菌杀灭效果,以评价此两种细菌芽孢作为VPHP生物指示剂的可能性。结果该VPHP发生器在20 m3空间内运行0.5~1.0 h,室内中心点过氧化氢浓度均值为1 972~2 615 mg/m3;运行1.5~2.5 h,室内中心点过氧化氢浓度均值为2 474~1 070 mg/m3。启动该VPHP发生器运行2.5 h(一周期),对不锈钢载体上的金黄色葡萄球菌、枯草杆菌黑色变种芽孢、嗜热脂肪杆菌芽孢杀灭对数值分别为2.32、4.18、>5.00。结论该VPHP发生器在其设定的运行周期内,对金黄色葡萄球菌的杀灭效果明显低于两种细菌芽孢,提示仅以此两种细菌芽孢作为VPHP生物指示剂存在局限性。
Objective To compare the resistance of bacterial spores and bacterial propagules to hydrogen peroxide vapor (VPHP), and to provide a reference for the selection of VPHP biomarkers. Methods Quantitative bactericidal test was used to compare the killing effect of VPHP, a common disinfectant test indicator, against Staphylococcus aureus in a hydrogen peroxide generator to evaluate the efficacy of the two bacterial spores as a VPHP bioassay The possibility of. Results The VPHP generator was operated for 0.5-1.0 h in a 20 m3 space with an average concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the indoor center of 1 972-2 615 mg / m3. Operating 1.5-2.5 h, the average concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the indoor center was 2 474 ~ 1 070 mg / m3. The VPHP generator was started for 2.5 h (one cycle). The killing kill against Staphylococcus aureus, B. subtilis and B. stearothermophilus on stainless steel carriers were 2.32, 4.18 and> 5.00, respectively. Conclusion The killing effect of the VPHP generator against Staphylococcus aureus was significantly lower than that of the two bacterial spores during the set period of operation, suggesting that the use of the two bacterial spores as a VPHP bio-indicator is limited.