Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:44:13.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room — CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Corrigendum
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 616 - 617
Creative Commons
This work is classified, for copyright purposes, as a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States
Copyright
© 2019 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

In the original published article by Cadnum et alReference Cadnum, Jencson and Gestrich1, figure 3.B was incorrectly repeated instead of figure 4.B. The correct version of Figure 4 appears on the following page. The authors apologize for this error.

Fig. 4.

Efficacy of 3 nonstandard ultraviolet light decontamination devices in reducing (A) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), (B) vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and (C) Clostridium difficile spores on 20-mm2 steel disk carriers placed on a radiology procedure table. The nonstandard devices included a device with 3 adjustable lamps that can be oriented to provide closer proximity to the surface of interest, a robotic device that moves along the side of the table during the treatment cycle, and a device that has 3 vertical towers that run simultaneously to reduce the impact of shadowing. The devices were operated for a 4-minute cycle and reductions in pathogens were measured in comparison to untreated controls. The means of data from triplicate experiments are presented. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

References

Cadnum, JL, Jencson, AL, Gestrich, SA, et al. A comparison of the efficacy of multiple UV light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room. ICHE 2019;40:158–163.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 4. Efficacy of 3 nonstandard ultraviolet light decontamination devices in reducing (A) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), (B) vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and (C) Clostridium difficile spores on 20-mm2 steel disk carriers placed on a radiology procedure table. The nonstandard devices included a device with 3 adjustable lamps that can be oriented to provide closer proximity to the surface of interest, a robotic device that moves along the side of the table during the treatment cycle, and a device that has 3 vertical towers that run simultaneously to reduce the impact of shadowing. The devices were operated for a 4-minute cycle and reductions in pathogens were measured in comparison to untreated controls. The means of data from triplicate experiments are presented. Error bars indicate standard deviation.