Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:33:19.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevention of airborne contamination and cross-contamination in germ-free mice by laminar flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. van der Waaij  and
A. H. Andreas
D. van der Waaij
Affiliation:
Radiobiological Institute TNO, 151, Lange Kleiweg, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
A. H. Andreas
Affiliation:
Radiobiological Institute TNO, 151, Lange Kleiweg, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The efficacy of horizontal and vertical laminar flow units (equipped with high-efficiency air niters) in the prevention of cross-contamination between cages and of contamination from outside has been demonstrated. With germ-free mice and using germ-free standard techniques for sterilization and for the transfer of germ-free mice into the cabinets via a standard entry lock, it was found that during an observation period of 2 weeks the animals remain ‘negative’. Other experiments were performed with equally good results in cabinets equipped with a hinged flap, closing 95 % of the open front side. When the flap was closed the air flow could be reduced accordingly, thus reducing the noise level and the risk of dehydration.

Experiments made with germ-free mice in a ‘down-flow unit’ were also invariably good.

In another type of experiment, cages with conventional mice were placed in the cabinets between cages with germ-free animals at varying distances. If all animals were maintained on wire mesh (to minimize the aerosol production of dust) and if the ‘conventional’ cages were at a distance of 10 cm. from ‘germ-free cages’ the latter remained bacteria-free during test periods of one week.

The use of ‘laminar flow isolators’ for the isolation of human patients is mentioned.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 83 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

References

REFERENCES

Bodey, G. P., Freireich, E. J. & Frei, E. (1969). Studies of patients in a laminar airflow unit. Cancer 24, 972–80.Google Scholar
De Koning, H., Van Bekkum, D. W., Dicke, K. A., Dooren, L. J., Van Rood, J. J. & Radl, J. (1969). Transplantation of bone marrow cells. Lancet i, 1223–7.Google Scholar
Favero, M. S. & Berquist, K. R. (1968). Use of laminar airflow equipment in microbiology. Applied Microbiology 16, 182–3.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. & Towers, A. C. (1969). Protection from microbial contamination in a room ventilated by a uni-directional airflow. Journal of Hygiene 67, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdade, J. J., Sabel, F. L., Akers, R. L. & Walker, R. J. (1968). Microbiological studies on the performance of a laminar airflow biological cabinet. Applied Microbiology 16, 1086–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcgarrity, G. J., Coriell, L. L., Schaedler, R. W., Mandle, R. J. & Greene, A. (1969). Medical application of dustfree rooms: III. Applied Microbiology 18, 142–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penland, W. Z. & Perry, S. (1970). Portable laminar airflow isolator. Lancet i, 174–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starzl, R. H. & Beakly, J. W. (1968). Evaluation of laminar flow microbiological safety cabinets. Applied Microbiology 16, 1478–82.Google Scholar
Van Der Waaij, D. & Sturm, C. A. (1968). Antibiotic decontamination of the digestive tract of mice. Technical procedures. Laboratory Animal Care 18, 1–10.Google Scholar
Whitfield, W. J. (1962). A new approach to clean room design. Sandic Corporation Technical Report, no. SC 4673 RR; quoted by McDade et al. (1968).Google Scholar