Patients admitted to emergency wards are relatively mobile and have a wide variety of complex diseases, so the possibility of cross-infection is relatively high, so frequent disinfection of emergency wards is an important measure to control infection. In the past, ultraviolet light irradiation and spraying were mostly used for disinfection, but due to the high mobility of emergency wards, the number of bacteria can only be controlled for a short period of time. In contrast, the new multifunctional air disinfector is a dynamic disinfection method with a high germicidal rate and is not limited by time. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness of multifunctional air disinfection machine and UV lamp disinfection and obtain some conclusions
Let’s dive right in now, and you can click on the question that interest you,
1 Information and methods
1) Clinical information
From May 2012 to May 2014, 22 emergency wards with the same structure and environment and an area of 30 m² in a hospital were selected. The acute care wards in a hospital with the same structure and environment and an area of 30 m² were divided into a control group and an observation group, each with 11 rooms. In the control group, 335 patients were admitted, including 183 males and 152 females, with an average age of (42.62 ± 3.37) years. In the observation group, 371 patients were admitted to the ward, including 211 males and 160 females, with an average age of (42.75 ± 3.07) years. The differences between the two groups in terms of gender and age were not statistically significant (P > 0.05) and were comparable.
2) Study method
Both groups of wards were cleaned and dried before disinfection on the floor, walls and desks. In the observation group, the wards were disinfected with multifunctional air disinfection machines: two multifunctional air disinfection machines were installed in the wards with an air volume of 80 Li m³/h and an ultraviolet intensity of 2,000 μW/cm², generating 10×106 negative ions/cm² for 1 h. In the control group, the wards were disinfected with ultraviolet lamps: four ultraviolet lamps were installed in the wards within 1.5 m from the floor. In the control group, the wards were disinfected with UV lamps: 4 UV lamps were installed in the ward within 1.5 m from the floor, the radiation intensity of the lamps was above 90 μW/cm², and the ward was covered 100% for 1 h.
3) Effectiveness evaluation
Agar plates with a diameter of 9 cm were sampled in the four corners and the center of the ward, and the total number of bacteria was analyzed at each time. Bacterial analysis was performed in the areas of the ward where the patients were likely to be infected according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Infections in Hospitals, and the infection rates and the infecting pathogens of the two groups were compared.
4) Statistical methods
SPSS 20.0 software was used for analysis, and the comparison of count data was done by x² test, and the comparison of measurement data was done by t-test, and P < 0.05 was considered as a statistically significant difference.
1) Comparison of the total number of bacteria in the air of the two groups at different time points
The differences in the total number of bacteria in the air in the wards of the two groups before disinfection were not statistically significant, and the total number of bacteria in the air in the wards of the observation group at 1 h, 2 h and 3 h after disinfection were significantly lower than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.05), as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of the total number of bacteria in the air between the two groups of wards at different time points (x ± s)
|Ward grouping (n)||Before disinfection||1 h after disinfection|
|Observation group(11)||1672.89±392. 07||36.32±11. 02|
|Control group(11)||1626.99±418.65||61.54±14. 32|
2) Comparison of the infection rate of patients admitted to the two groups of wards
In the observation group, 19 patients were infected, and the infection rate was 5. 12%; in the control group, 41 patients were infected, and the infection rate was 12. 24%. The infection rate of patients in the ward of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05), as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Comparison of infection rates of patients admitted to the two ward groups
|Ward grouping (n)||Admitted patients(n)||Infected patients(n)||Infection rate(%)||Column 5|
|Observation group(11)||371||19||5.12||Column 5 Value|
|Control group(11)||335||41||12.24||Column 5 Value 2|
|x²||11.468||Column 5 Value 3|
|p||0.001||Column 5 Value 4|
3) Analysis of pathogenic bacteria in patients admitted to the wards of both groups
In the observation group, 26 strains of pathogenic bacteria were isolated from 19 patients, of which 61.54% (16/26) were gram-negative, 34.62% (9/26) were gram-positive and 3.85% (1/26) were fungal; in the control group, 61 strains of pathogenic bacteria were isolated from 41 patients, of which 63.93% (39/61) were gram-negative, 34.43% (21/61) were gram-positive and 1.64% (1/61) were fungal. In the control group, 61 strains of pathogenic bacteria were isolated from 41 patients, of which 63.93% (39/61) were Gram-negative, 34.43% (21/61) were Gram-positive, and 1.64% (1/61) were fungi.
Table 3 Analysis of infectious pathogens in patients admitted to the two groups of wards [n(%)].
|Ward grouping (n)||Number of pathogenic strains||Gram-negative bacteria||Gram-positive bacteria|
|Observation group(11)||26||16(61.54)||9(34. 62)|
|Control group(11)||61||39(63. 93)||21(34.43)|
3 Multifunctional air disinfector and UV lamp disinfection discussion
Since the condition of patients in emergency wards is generally critical and mobile, the air in the wards is highly contaminated, so air disinfection in emergency wards is an important measure to control the spread of respiratory infections and infectious diseases. However, the sterilization effect is greatly reduced by the frequent activities of personnel. The multifunctional air disinfector is a new type of dynamic air disinfection method with significant sterilization effects.
In this paper, by comparing the disinfection effect of multifunctional air disinfector and traditional UV lamp disinfection in hospital emergency wards, it was found that the total number of bacteria in the air of the observation wards was significantly lower than that of the control group at 1 h, 2 h, and 3 h after disinfection. This indicates that the disinfection effect of the multifunctional air disinfector is more significant when used for disinfection in hospital emergency wards. This may be related to the mechanism of action of both. UV is linear propagation disinfection, its penetrating power is not strong, any obstruction (paper or plastic) will hinder the penetration strength of UV, so the sterilization effect will be largely weakened. In addition, the disinfection effect is also affected by the quality of the lamp and the disinfection distance. The disinfection effect is also influenced by the quality of the lamp and the disinfection distance. Air sterilizers, on the other hand, have multiple mechanisms that work together to sterilize. Positive ion generators purify microorganisms, and air filtration systems reduce dust particles in the air.
In addition, the infection rate of patients in the observation ward was significantly lower than that of the control group, indicating that the multifunctional air disinfector can significantly reduce the infection rate of patients when disinfecting hospital emergency wards. The use of UV lamps has many limitations, as their irradiation can damage the skin and eyes, and disinfection by UV lamps is not advisable when there are patients in the ward, so their sterilization rate will be weakened. The multifunctional air disinfection machine has many advantages, it’s safe and reliable, will not cause harm to the human body, so it can be continuously disinfected, to effectively eliminate bacteria; it can also 360° dynamic disinfection. The positive ion generator continuously generates positive ions that surround the bacteria and emits an electric charge to penetrate the bacterial cell wall and destroy the bacteria, solving the shortcomings of the weak penetrating power of UV lamps. At the same time, its operation is simple and easy to use, and all major hospitals can use it.
Some reports show that after 2 to 3 hours of disinfection by UV lamp, the number of airborne bacteria will grow back to the level before disinfection, and the sterilization effect cannot be maintained for a long time, while the condition of patients in emergency wards is variable, and sufficient time for UV lamp disinfection cannot be guaranteed. The multi-functional air disinfector can effectively solve this problem by providing continuous dynamic disinfection in the human-machine coexistence state, keeping the air bacteria count at a low level, and maintaining the air quality in the ward within the national health standards.
In summary, multifunctional air disinfectors are effective in disinfecting hospital emergency wards, effectively purifying airborne microorganisms and controlling the infection rate of patients in the ward, and are harmless and easy to use, so they are worthy of clinical promotion and use.
 Xu Xiaowei. Disinfection effectiveness and hygienic monitoring in hospital radiology departments [J]. Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2014, 31( 2) : 184-185.
 Yang Fan, Chen Gang, Xu Chunmei, et al. Comparison of the disinfection effect of multifunctional air disinfector and ultraviolet lamp in psychiatric wards [J]. disinfection effect in psychiatric wards [J]. Western Medicine, 2013, 25 ( 6 ): 881 – 882. 882.
 Wu Zhenhua, Liu Caiqiu, Wang Yiping, et al. Observation on the effect of air disinfection in the machine picking room [J]. Chinese Journal of Disinfection, 2010, 27(2): 224-225.
 Zhang Cuiping. Bacteriological dynamic monitoring of multifunctional dynamic disinfection machine in intraoperative air disinfection [J]. Chinese Clinical Research, 2010, 23(1): 79-79
Leave A Comment