ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2017
The uses and limitations of a hand-held germicidal ultraviolet wand for surface disinfection.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comparative evaluation of contemporary ultraviolet-C disinfection technologies: UVCeed as a benchmark for smart, portable, and effective pathogen control.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2025Review
- Physicochemical methods for disinfection of contaminated surfaces - a way to control infectious diseases.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2024Review
- Biomaterial-based sponge for efficient and environmentally sound removal of bacteria from water.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A handheld UV-C light-emitting diode decreases environmental contamination near the operative field.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The morbidity and mortality from healthcare associated infections has raised concern that conventional disinfection methods are inadequate and that other adjunct methods such as room fumigation and ultraviolet irradiation may be needed. There is also concern that these alternative methods may pose a risk to workers and patients.
objectives(1) Determine the efficacy of a germicidal UV-C wand for surface disinfection, (2) evaluate changing relative humidity (RH) and different target distances on bacteria kill rates, and (3) assess potential exposure concerns.
methodsThis study investigates whether a hand-held germicidal wand can efficaciously disinfect surfaces treated with either a vegetative or spore forming bacterium and to evaluate the effect of changing environmental conditions such as relative humidity (RH), target position, and target distances on microbial kill rates.
resultsKill rate was best at 40-65% RH at a temperature range of 21-24°C. Both high and low RH interfered with the ability of UV-C to kill the vegetative microbe. In the case of the spore forming bacterium, increased surface drying time was the most significant factor increasing kill rate.
conclusionsThis research demonstrates that UV-C was efficacious under optimal conditions, a direct beam exposure, and a short target distance (12.7 cm). However, there are limitations when used in non-optimal conditions. Increased distance and indirect beam angles resulted in lower kill rates. It is also important to minimize unnecessary patient and worker exposure during its use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.