Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:21:14.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between tracer gas and tracer particle techniques in evaluating the efficiency of ventilation in operating theatres

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Per-Arne Andersson ,
Anna Hambraeus ,
Ulla Zettersten ,
Bengt Ljungqvist ,
Kenneth Neikter  and
Ulrika Ransjö
Per-Arne Andersson
Affiliation:
BSK BS-Konsult AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Anna Hambraeus
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Ulla Zettersten
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Bengt Ljungqvist
Affiliation:
Department of Heat Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Kenneth Neikter
Affiliation:
Department of Heat Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Ulrika Ransjö
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Operating theatres are ventilated for a number of reasons, one of them being to keep numbers of airborne bacteria low at the operation wound. No matter how air is brought into the room, bacteria are removed by dilution rather than by air currents, because of turbulence caused by heat liberated by people and equipment and by movement in the room (Lidwell & Williams, 1960). With ventilation rates up to 20 air changes/hour, the dilution may differ at different sites in the room depending on the design of its ventilation system.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 509 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

References

REFERENCES

Bourdillon, R. B., Lidwell, O. M. & Lovelock, J. E. (1948). Studies in Air Hygiene, App. p. 323. Medical Research Council Special Report Series, no. 262. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Foord, N. & Lidwell, O. M. (1975). Airborne infection in a fully air-conditioned hospital. Transfer of airborne particles between rooms resulting from the movement of air from one room to another. Journal of Hygiene 75, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambraeus, A. & Sanderson, H. F. (1972). Studies with an airborne particle tracer in an isolation ward for burned patients. Journal of Hygiene 70, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinze, J. O. (1975). Turbulence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. (1960). The evaluation of ventilation. Journal of Hygiene 58, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidwell, O. M. & Williams, R. E. O. (1960). The ventilation of operating-theatres. Journal of Hygiene 58, 449–464.Google ScholarPubMed
Ljungqvist, B. (1979). Some observations on the interaction between air movements and the dispersion of pollution. Swedish Council for Building Research, D 8. 1979.Google Scholar
May, K. R. & Pomeroy, N. P. (1973). Bacterial dispersion from the body surface. In Airborne Transmission and Airborne Infection (ed. Hers, J. F. Ph. and Winkler, K. C.), pp. 426–432. Utrecht: Oosthock.Google Scholar
Noble, W. C., Lidwell, O. M. & Kingston, D. (1963). The size distribution of airborne particles carrying micro-organisms. Journal of Hygiene 61, 385–391.Google ScholarPubMed
Wieoersma, N. (1980). The bacteriological safety of air movements and air changes in operating theatres. Thesis. Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. Krips Repro Meppel.Google Scholar