Kollu Vamsi Krishna Reddy, Kumar Parmeshwar, Gautam Krishna
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029 India.
Centre for Energy and Environmental Sustainability, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226 029 India.
Syst Microbiol Biomanuf. 2022;2(4):732-742. doi: 10.1007/s43393-022-00101-y. Epub 2022 Apr 27.
As the world is facing a Covid-19 pandemic, this virus teaches a lesson about the importance of on-site disinfection. On-site disinfection/sterilization with real-time monitoring of biomedical waste generated from the medical facilities is mandatory to prevent hospital-acquired infection (HAI). In this study, the life cycle assessment of two technologies, i.e., microwave (radiation-based) and autoclave (steam-based) were performed to summarize the inside-out evaluation of both technologies in terms of efficiency, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. The results of disinfection efficacy indicated a log 10 reduction (almost 100%) in the vegetative load of microorganisms compared to the control, showing a similar level of disinfection efficacy of both strategies. Additionally, both technologies were compared on several parameters, and it was discovered that the autoclave uses more time and resources than the microwave. The total cost of an autoclave to the government is approximately double that of a microwave, while the operational cost of an autoclave is more than double that of a microwave. The findings from this study indicate that MACS may be used as a dry technique of biomedical disinfection, and its portability, tunability, and compactness make it a suitable alternative for biomedical disinfection and sterilization.
由于世界正面临新冠疫情,这种病毒让人们认识到现场消毒的重要性。对医疗设施产生的生物医学废物进行实时监测的现场消毒/灭菌对于预防医院获得性感染(HAI)是必不可少的。在本研究中,对两种技术,即微波(基于辐射)和高压灭菌器(基于蒸汽)进行了生命周期评估,以从效率、效果和成本效益方面总结这两种技术由内而外的评估。消毒效果结果表明,与对照组相比,微生物的营养负荷降低了10的对数(几乎100%),表明两种策略的消毒效果水平相似。此外,对这两种技术的几个参数进行了比较,发现高压灭菌器比微波使用更多的时间和资源。政府购买一台高压灭菌器的总成本约为微波的两倍,而高压灭菌器的运行成本则是微波的两倍多。本研究结果表明,微波消毒系统(MACS)可作为生物医学消毒的一种干式技术,其便携性、可调性和紧凑性使其成为生物医学消毒和灭菌的合适替代方案。