Laboratories

11 pages, 1875 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Qualitative Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide Decontamination Systems: Vapor vs. Aerosol

by Ibtissam Courti and Sébastien Allix

Laboratories 2024, 1(2), 124-134; https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1020010 - 14 Sep 2024

Viewed by 856

This study aimed to compare the efficiency of two methods for airborne surface decontamination: hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) and aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (aHP). Spores of G. stearothermophilus and B. atrophaeus were exposed to a 35% hydrogen peroxide solution under controlled laboratory conditions, including specific concentrations, exposure durations, humidity levels, and temperatures. Following each decontamination procedure, the spores were incubated for 7 days to evaluate bacterial growth and assess the efficacy of each method. The results indicate that the aHP method achieved biocidal rates of 84.76% for G. stearothermophilus and 89.52% for B. atrophaeus, while the HPV method demonstrated respective rates of 90.95% and 90.48%. These findings suggest that both the aHP and HPV methods are highly effective for microbial decontamination, with HPV showing a slight edge in overall efficacy. However, despite its comparable effectiveness, the HPV method has raised concerns regarding technical and economic factors. Observations highlighted issues such as fluctuations in humidity levels causing surface damage, a problem not encountered with the aHP method. Economically, HPV requires specific devices that can cost up to EUR 50,000, whereas aHP equipment costs do not exceed EUR 10,000. These observations emphasize the importance of critically evaluating the pros and cons of each decontamination method, taking into account factors such as biocidal efficacy, technical feasibility, and the associated costs. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 196 KiB

Open AccessCommentary

Strategies for Error Reduction: Why More Stringent Premarket Evaluations Do Little to Prevent Laboratory Errors and Traffic Accidents

by Glen L. Hortin

Laboratories 2024, 1(2), 116-123; https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1020009 - 27 Aug 2024

Viewed by 873

Abstract

Laboratory testing is a complex process with a significant error rate. Studies of laboratory errors have found that the major causes are preanalytical factors, interferences, and process errors. Efforts by regulatory agencies to improve quality via more stringent premarket evaluations of laboratory tests therefore have poor prospects of reducing laboratory errors and improving test quality. Efforts toward increasing the regulation of laboratory tests are analogous to preventing traffic accidents by increasing the premarket evaluation of automobiles. This analogy illustrates how increased premarket evaluation has limited prospects for quality improvement and, in some cases, actually contributes to errors and lower quality. Tools that are used by laboratories to detect, prevent, and address analytical errors are discussed, and the increased implementation of such tools offers approaches that can be used to improve laboratory quality. Full article

13 pages, 478 KiB

Open AccessReview

The Veterinarian’s Role in Biocontainment Research Animal Facilities and Prevention of Spread of Pathogens: A Case of Nigeria and South Africa

by John K. Chipangura, Abdussamad M. Abdussamad and David I. Lewis

Laboratories 2024, 1(2), 103-115; https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1020008 - 10 Jul 2024

Viewed by 1287

Abstract

Infections acquired in research laboratories and unintentional pathogen escapes from breaches in biocontainment pose risks to humans and the environment, necessitating the need for effective biosafety and biosecurity management frameworks in biocontainment research animal facilities (BRAFs). We examine key biosafety issues associated with BRAFs, including inadequate decontamination procedures for wastewater and experimental samples, handling high biosafety level pathogens in lower-level laboratories, risks of animal bites and sharps injuries, contamination of bedding and enrichment materials, and improper management and transportation of biohazard samples. Additionally, we discuss the role of veterinarians in research animal facilities and the challenges they encounter in maintaining biocontainment standards. We emphasise the importance of routine monitoring of effluent water to detect possible disease outbreaks. We recommend a thorough investigation of disease outbreaks to identify potential sources of pathogen release from BRAFs, which could serve as hotspots for future disease outbreaks. Findings from such investigations will inform the development of policies aimed at safeguarding human populations from future pandemics and preventing BRAFs from becoming sources of infectious disease outbreaks. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1960 KiB

Open AccessReview

A Historical Study on the Scientific Attribution of Biosafety Risk Assessment in Real Cases of Laboratory-Acquired Infections

by Kunlan Zuo, Zongzhen Wu, Chihong Zhao and Huan Liu

Laboratories 2024, 1(2), 87-102; https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1020007 - 30 Jun 2024

Viewed by 2218

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the history of laboratory-acquired infections (LAIs) from a scientific perspective on biosafety risks. It analyzes cases from the late 19th century to the 2020s, whereas the previous research on this topic has primarily focused on social factors. By combining real case studies, this study elucidates the mechanisms of LAI occurrence and development, compares the attribution of risks and mitigation measures, and establishes the scientific patterns of LAIs’ historical evolution. The details of LAI cases are compared to the biosafety risk assessment indices of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States, and China. These real cases of LAI occurrence risks are now incorporated into biosafety standards and assessments in the modern era. Additionally, factors that pose potential risks of LAIs, even if they have not yet manifested, are also highlighted. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Laboratories, Volume 1, Issue 2 (September 2024) – 4 articles

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI