Suppr超能文献

微生物控制体系对灵活性的影响。

The effect of microbiological containment systems on dexterity.

作者信息

Sawyer Joanna, Bennett Allan, Haines Victoria, Elton Edward, Crago Kathryn, Speight Sara

机构信息

Health Protection Agency-Biosafety, Salisbury, Wiltshire, England.

出版信息

J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007 Mar;4(3):166-73. doi: 10.1080/15459620601163172.

Abstract

Microbiology laboratories use containment equipment such as safety cabinets and isolators or respiratory protective equipment to protect workers against aerosol infection hazards. There is a perception among microbiologists that the use of containment equipment reduces dexterity to a point where the risks associated with using sharps are increased. Thus, in a situation where it is essential to use sharps, the use of respiratory protection is frequently the favored method of operator protection. Using three methods of manual dexterity testing, the effect of latex gloves, a positive pressure respirator, and three forms of containment equipment, (a Class II safety cabinet, a half suit, and a flexible film isolator) were tested against performance in these tests using bare hands in 10 subjects. The study was extended to additionally assess Class III cabinets using 20 subjects. With the exception of latex gloves, the personal protective equipment and containment equipment all had a statistically significant detrimental effect on manual dexterity compared with working solely with bare hands. The use of containment systems, especially barrier containment systems such as Class III cabinets and isolators, significantly reduces dexterity and may increase the chance of accidents. The use of positive pressure respirators with double gloves also affects dexterity but to a lesser extent. The use of sharps should be minimized within containment equipment. Risk assessment may be required to address the comparative risk of aerosol and needlestick infection with different agents to choose the most appropriate containment systems.

摘要

微生物实验室使用安全柜、隔离器等防护设备或呼吸防护设备,以保护工作人员免受气溶胶感染危害。微生物学家们认为,使用防护设备会降低灵活性,以至于增加使用锐器的相关风险。因此,在必须使用锐器的情况下,使用呼吸防护常常是操作人员首选的防护方法。采用三种手动灵活性测试方法,针对10名受试者,测试了乳胶手套、正压呼吸器以及三种防护设备(二级生物安全柜、半身防护服和柔性薄膜隔离器)对徒手进行这些测试时的操作表现的影响。该研究进一步扩展,使用20名受试者额外评估了三级生物安全柜。除乳胶手套外,与仅徒手操作相比,个人防护设备和防护设备对手动灵活性均有统计学上显著的不利影响。使用防护系统,尤其是三级生物安全柜和隔离器等屏障防护系统,会显著降低灵活性,并可能增加事故发生几率。佩戴双层手套使用正压呼吸器也会影响灵活性,但程度较小。应尽量减少在防护设备内使用锐器。可能需要进行风险评估,以评估不同病原体气溶胶感染和针刺感染的相对风险,从而选择最合适的防护系统。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验