PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(03): 695-702
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741375
Original Article

Effect of Ozone Gas on Removal of Airborne Particles

Priscilla Alvarenga Agra
1   Post Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Institute of Nova Friburgo, Federal Fluminense University, Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
Patricia Alvarenga Agra
2   Immunobiological Technology Institute, Bio-Manguinhos, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
Marilia Fagury Videira Marceliano-Alves 
3   Department of Endodontics and Dental Reseach, Iguaçu University, Nova Iguaçu, Brazil
,
Greice Maria Silva da Conceição
2   Immunobiological Technology Institute, Bio-Manguinhos, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
Sérgio Luiz de Lima Assumpção
2   Immunobiological Technology Institute, Bio-Manguinhos, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
Celso de Farias Crespo
2   Immunobiological Technology Institute, Bio-Manguinhos, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
Letícia Maria Borsarini Philippi
4   Research Department, Philozon Industry and Trade of Ozone Generator, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Renata Ximenes Lins 
1   Post Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Institute of Nova Friburgo, Federal Fluminense University, Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
› Institutsangaben Funding This study was funded by FAPERJ (JCNE E26202.908/2019) and FOPESQ 2020 (PROPPI-UFF).
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Airborne particles are one of the most important factors in the spread of infectious pathogens and must be monitored in healthcare facilities. Viable particles are living microorganisms, whereas non-viable particles do not contain microorganisms but act as transport for viable particles. The effectiveness of ozone in reducing these particles in a non-controlled room and a controlled cleanroom using high-efficiency particles air (HEPA) filter was analyzed in this study.

Materials and Methods Viable particles and non-viable particles sized 0.5 and 5 μm were quantified before and after ozonation in two different health environments: non-controlled (group 1) and controlled area, which was associated with a HEPA filtering system (group 2). Active air sampling using a MAS 100 was used to count the number of viable particles, while the number of non-viable particles/m3 was obtained following the manufacturer's recommendations of the Lasair III 310C system.

Results Our results of the viable particles counting were not quantifiable and analyzed using statistical tests. Both groups showed a slight tendency to reduce the number of viable particles after ozonation of the environmental air. A statistically significant reduction of non-viable 5 μm particles after ozonation was observed in both groups (G1: p = 0,009; G2: p = 0,002). Reduction in the non-viable 0.5 μm particles after ozonation was observed only in group 2, associated with the HEPA filter. In group 1, after ozonation, a significant increase in 0.5 μm particles was observed, probably due to the breaking of 5 μm particles by ozone gas. Our results suggest that ozone gas can break 5 μm particles and, when associated with a HEPA filter, increases its effectiveness in removing 0.5 μm particles.

Conclusion Considering that 5 μm particles are important in the air transport of microorganisms, their reduction in the environment can be a relevant parameter in controlling the dissemination of infections.

Keywords

ozone - ambiental sanitization - airborne particles - HEPA filter - clean rooms


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. April 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Charise DB, Vieira KP, Rossato LG. et al. Microbiological environmental monitoring after the use of air purifier ozone generator. Ozone Sci Eng 2012; 34 (03) 225-230
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ijaz MK, Zargar B, Wright KE, Rubino JR, Sattar SA. Generic aspects of the airborne spread of human pathogens indoors and emerging air decontamination technologies. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44 (9, Suppl): S109-S120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Alimohammadi M, Naderi M. Effectiveness of ozone gas on airborne virus inactivation in enclosed spaces: a review study. Ozone Sci Eng 2021; 43 (01) 21-31
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 FDA, Guidance for Industry: Stehle Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing-Current Good Manufact Uring Practice, 2004.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Sunagawa S, Koseki H, Noguchi C. et al. Airborne particle dispersion around the feet of surgical staff while walking in and out of a bio-clean operating theatre. J Hosp Infect 2020; 106 (02) 318-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stauning MT, Bediako-Bowan A, Andersen LP. et al. Traffic flow and microbial air contamination in operating rooms at a major teaching hospital in Ghana. J Hosp Infect 2018; 99 (03) 263-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Raval JS, Koch E, Donnenberg AD. Real-time monitoring of non-viable airborne particles correlates with airborne colonies and represents an acceptable surrogate for daily assessment of cell-processing cleanroom performance. Cytotherapy 2012; 14 (09) 1144-1150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Medical Advisory Secretariat. Air cleaning technologies: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2005; 5 (17) 1-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ahmedi J, Ahmedi E, Sejfija O, Agani Z, Hamiti V. Efficiency of gaseous ozone in reducing the development of dry socket following surgical third molar extraction. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (03) 381-385
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Monteiro CGJ, Vieira EM, Emerick C. et al. Ozonated oil effect for prevention of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in rats undergoing zoledronic acid therapy. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25 (12) 6653-6659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Faccini M, Agostini F, Drieu T. et al. Preliminary histological evaluation of the application of ozone in the first days of orthodontic force induction in animal model. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (01) 122-129
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Li CS, Wang YC. Surface germicidal effects of ozone for microorganisms. AIHA J (Fairfax, Va) 2003; 64 (04) 533-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dharan S, Pittet D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect 2002; 51 (02) 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Martinelli M, Giovannangeli F, Rotunno S, Trombetta CM, Montomoli E. Water and air ozone treatment as an alternative sanitizing technology. J Prev Med Hyg 2017; 58 (01) E48-E52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jezini C, Gama MS, Moura BF. et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of ozonated sunflower oil against antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus faecalis isolated from endodontic infection. Ozone Sci Eng 2020; 43 (04) 378-383
    Google Scholar
  • 16 ISO 14644–1. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments. Part 1: Classification of air cleanliness by particle concentration 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Hallier C, Williams DW, Potts AJ, Lewis MA. A pilot study of bioaerosol reduction using an air cleaning system during dental procedures. Br Dent J 2010; 209 (08) E14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Guo ZD, Wang ZY, Zhang SF. et al. Aerosol and surface distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospital wards, Wuhan, China, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26 (07) 1583-1591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McHugh SM, Hill AD, Humphreys H. Laminar airflow and the prevention of surgical site infection. More harm than good?. Surgeon 2015; 13 (01) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vonci N, De Marco MF, Grasso A, Spataro G, Cevenini G, Messina G. Association between air changes and airborne microbial contamination in operating rooms. J Infect Public Health 2019; 12 (06) 827-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dehghani M, Sorooshian A, Nazmara S, Baghani AN, Delikhoon M. Concentration and type of bioaerosols before and after conventional disinfection and sterilization procedures inside hospital operating rooms. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018; 164: 277-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fu Shaw L, Chen IH, Chen CS. et al. Factors influencing microbial colonies in the air of operating rooms. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18 (01) 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hilária M, Geovana Di, Thauan G. et al. Ozone application in COVID-19 triage areas and its efficiency of microbial decontamination. Ozone Sci Eng 2021; 43 (04) 306-316
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hudson JB, Sharma M, Vimalanathan S. Development of a practical method for using ozone gas as a virus decontaminating agent. Ozone Sci Eng 2009; 31 (03) 216-223
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 EudraLex - The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union. Volume 4 - Good Manufacturing Practice Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use, 2010. Accessed on June 2021 at: https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2016-11/2009_06_annex13_0.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Hubbard HF, Coleman BK, Sarwar G, Corsi RL. Effects of an ozone-generating air purifier on indoor secondary particles in three residential dwellings. Indoor Air 2005; 15 (06) 432-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar