Abstract
Engineering and microbiological tests indicated that a typical, commercial laminar airflow cabinet was not effective in providing either product protection or agent containment. The cabinet was modified and tested through a series of alternate configurations to establish a set of design criteria. A mock-up cabinet was developed from these design criteria. The mock-up unit was evaluated for efficiency in providing both product protection and agent containment. In these evaluations, challenge methods were developed to simulate normal, in-use laboratory operations. Controlled bacterial or viral aerosol challenges were used at higher than normal levels to provide stringent test conditions. Test results indicated that the mock-up unit was considerably better in preventing agent penetration (0.1 to 0.2 particles per 100 ft3 of air) than the commercial cabinet (5 to 6 particles per 100 ft3 of air) during product protection tests. Similarly, agent containment was considerably better in the new cabinet (particle escape of 2 to 3 per 100 ft3 of air at only one of the five test sites) than in the commercial cabinet (particle escape of 2 to 14 per 100 ft3 of air at three of the five test sites).
Full text
PDF![1086](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/c691a694113c/applmicro00243-0124.png)
![1087](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/f3f229bd218c/applmicro00243-0125.png)
![1088](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/dc19a4d8ab0d/applmicro00243-0126.png)
![1089](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/ae9f62016e7e/applmicro00243-0127.png)
![1090](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/4e964d37557d/applmicro00243-0128.png)
![1091](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/4308bf2092bc/applmicro00243-0129.png)
![1092](https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d008/547593/f0a14b32cba1/applmicro00243-0130.png)
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Favero M. S., Berquist K. R. Use of laminar air-flow equipment in microbiology. Appl Microbiol. 1968 Jan;16(1):182–183. doi: 10.1128/am.16.1.182-183.1968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Favero M. S., Puleo J. R., Marshall J. H., Oxborrow G. S. Comparative levels and types of microbial contamination detected in industrial clean rooms. Appl Microbiol. 1966 Jul;14(4):539–551. doi: 10.1128/am.14.4.539-551.1966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- SCHULTE H. F., HYATT E. C., JORDAN H. S., MITCHELL R. N. Evaluation of laboratory fume hoods. Am Ind Hyg Assoc Q. 1954 Sep;15(3):195–202. doi: 10.1080/00968205409343986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- WILLIAMS R. E., LIDWELL O. M. A protective cabinet for handling infective material in the laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 1957 Nov;10(4):400–402. doi: 10.1136/jcp.10.4.400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whitcomb J. G., Clapper W. E. Ultraclean operating room. Am J Surg. 1966 Nov;112(5):681–685. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(66)90104-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]