The Impact of Air Inflow and Interfering Factors on the Performance of Microbiological Safety Cabinets.

IF 0.7
Simon Parks, Helen Hookway, Kazunobu Kojima, Allan Bennett
{"title":"The Impact of Air Inflow and Interfering Factors on the Performance of Microbiological Safety Cabinets.","authors":"Simon Parks, Helen Hookway, Kazunobu Kojima, Allan Bennett","doi":"10.1089/apb.2021.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The operator protection factor (OPF) of four biological safety cabinets (BSCs) has been measured under standard and suboptimal conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The OPF for one BSC1, two BSC2, and an acid-fast bacilli staining station (AFBSS) was measured using the potassium iodide method for in situ testing of BSCs (CEN12469) over a range of inflow velocities under standard conditions and with common interfering factors (fans, opening doors, and walk pasts).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BSC1 and the AFBSS gave a high level of protection under standard test conditions at all airflows (down to 0.3 and 0.38 m/s, respectively). During interfering processes, the BSC1 and AFBSS gave a high level of protection (OPF >10<sup>5</sup>) at the specified inward airflow. At lower airflows, there was a predictable deterioration in performance. There was a significant difference in performance between the two BSC2s tested, with one model passing all tests under all interfering conditions at all airflows. The second BSC2 failed the standard test at the lowest airflow and provided poor levels of protection (OPF <10<sup>5</sup>) in all tests carried out with interfering processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although BSC2s are capable of giving a high level of performance, this is design dependent and the BSC1 and AFBSS give a more predictable level of performance due to their simpler design. In environments where BSC certification is not possible, they may provide more robust and sustainable primary containment.</p>","PeriodicalId":520561,"journal":{"name":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","volume":" ","pages":"23-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9402246/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2021.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The operator protection factor (OPF) of four biological safety cabinets (BSCs) has been measured under standard and suboptimal conditions.

Methods: The OPF for one BSC1, two BSC2, and an acid-fast bacilli staining station (AFBSS) was measured using the potassium iodide method for in situ testing of BSCs (CEN12469) over a range of inflow velocities under standard conditions and with common interfering factors (fans, opening doors, and walk pasts).

Results: The BSC1 and the AFBSS gave a high level of protection under standard test conditions at all airflows (down to 0.3 and 0.38 m/s, respectively). During interfering processes, the BSC1 and AFBSS gave a high level of protection (OPF >105) at the specified inward airflow. At lower airflows, there was a predictable deterioration in performance. There was a significant difference in performance between the two BSC2s tested, with one model passing all tests under all interfering conditions at all airflows. The second BSC2 failed the standard test at the lowest airflow and provided poor levels of protection (OPF <105) in all tests carried out with interfering processes.

Conclusion: Although BSC2s are capable of giving a high level of performance, this is design dependent and the BSC1 and AFBSS give a more predictable level of performance due to their simpler design. In environments where BSC certification is not possible, they may provide more robust and sustainable primary containment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

进风及干扰因素对微生物安全柜性能的影响。
在标准和次优条件下测量了四种生物安全柜的操作人员保护系数(OPF)。方法:在标准条件和常见干扰因素(风扇、开门和路过)下,在一定流速范围内,使用BSCs原位检测的碘化钾法(CEN12469)测量1个BSC1、2个BSC2和一个抗酸杆菌染色站(AFBSS)的OPF。结果:BSC1和AFBSS在所有气流的标准测试条件下(分别降至0.3和0.38 m/s)都提供了高水平的保护。在干扰过程中,BSC1和AFBSS在指定的向内气流下提供了高水平的保护(OPF bbb105)。在较低的气流下,性能恶化是可以预见的。测试的两种bsc2之间的性能存在显着差异,其中一种型号在所有气流的所有干扰条件下通过了所有测试。第二个BSC2在最低气流下的标准测试失败,并且在使用干扰过程进行的所有测试中提供了较差的保护水平(OPF 5)。结论:虽然bsc2能够提供高水平的性能,但这取决于设计,BSC1和AFBSS由于其更简单的设计而提供更可预测的性能水平。在无法获得平衡计分卡认证的环境中,它们可以提供更强大和可持续的主要遏制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书