M Alsved1, A Civilis2, P Ekolind3, A Tammelin4, A Erichsen Andersson5, J Jakobsson1, T Svensson1, M Ramstorp1, S Sadrizadeh6, P-A Larsson2, M Bohgard1, T Šantl-Temkiv7, J Löndahl8. 1. Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Clinical Sciences Helsingborg, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden. 3. Avidicare AB, Lund, Sweden. 4. Department of Medicine Solna, Unit of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden. 6. Fluid and Climate Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. 7. Department of Bioscience, Microbiology Section, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 8. Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: jakob.londahl@design.lth.se.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m3)], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. METHODS: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working environment by answering a questionnaire. FINDINGS: LAF and TcAF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10cfu/m3 at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m3 close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for TcAF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for TcAF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of TcAF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. CONCLUSION: TcAF and LAF remove bacteria more efficiently from the air than TMA, especially close to the wound and at the instrument table. Like LAF, the new TcAF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but TcAF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality.
AIM: To evaluate three types of ventilation systems for operating rooms with respect to air cleanliness [in colony-forming units (cfu/m3)], energy consumption and comfort of working environment (noise and draught) as reported by surgical team members. METHODS: Two commonly used ventilation systems, vertical laminar airflow (LAF) and turbulent mixed airflow (TMA), were compared with a newly developed ventilation technique, temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF). The cfu concentrations were measured at three locations in an operating room during 45 orthopaedic procedures: close to the wound (<40cm), at the instrument table and peripherally in the room. The operating team evaluated the comfort of the working environment by answering a questionnaire. FINDINGS: LAF and TcAF, but not TMA, resulted in less than 10cfu/m3 at all measurement locations in the room during surgery. Median values of cfu/m3 close to the wound (250 samples) were 0 for LAF, 1 for TcAF and 10 for TMA. Peripherally in the room, the cfu concentrations were lowest for TcAF. The cfu concentrations did not scale proportionally with airflow rates. Compared with LAF, the power consumption of TcAF was 28% lower and there was significantly less disturbance from noise and draught. CONCLUSION:TcAF and LAF remove bacteria more efficiently from the air than TMA, especially close to the wound and at the instrument table. Like LAF, the new TcAF ventilation system maintained very low levels of cfu in the air, but TcAF used substantially less energy and provided a more comfortable working environment than LAF. This enables energy savings with preserved air quality.
Authors: Franklin Dexter; Mohamed Elhakim; Randy W Loftus; Melinda S Seering; Richard H Epstein Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Francesco Romano; Samanta Milani; Roberto Ricci; Cesare Maria Joppolo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 3.390