Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) technologies have emerged as a promising alternative to biocides as a means of surface disinfection in hospitals and other healthcare settings. This paper reviews the methods used by researchers and clinicians in deploying and evaluating the efficacy of UVGI technology. The type of UVGI technology used, the clinical setting where the device was deployed, and the methods of environmental testing that the researchers followed are investigated. The findings suggest that clinical UVGI deployments have been growing steadily since 2010 and have increased dramatically since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hardware platforms and operating procedures vary considerably between studies. Most studies measure efficacy of the technology based on the objective measurement of bacterial bioburden reduction; however, studies conducted over longer durations have examined the impact of UVGI on the reduction of healthcare associated infections (HCAIs). Future trends include increased automation and the use of UVGI technologies that are safer for use around people. Although existing evidence seems to support the efficacy of UVGI as a tool capable of reducing HCAIs, more research is needed to measure the magnitude of these effects and to establish recommended best practices.

1 INTRODUCTION

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) is defined as the use of ultraviolet (UV) light in the germicidal range (wavelengths: 200–320 nm) for the disinfection of air and surfaces; UVGI is distinct from the non-germicidal UVA wavelengths of black lights and suntan lamps (320–400 nm) [1]. The first scientific reports describing the germicidal properties of ultraviolet radiation can be traced back to the nineteenth century, when Downes and Blunt [2] observed that bacteria could be inactivated by direct sunlight. The first installation of UVGI in a hospital was recorded in 1936, when an overhead UV system was installed to disinfect air in operating room settings [3]. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) first formally endorsed UVGI use in hospitals in 2003 as a supplemental means of water and air sanitization [4]. In 2019, the CDC Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities expanded the scope of UVGI to include surfaces: “the application of UV radiation in the health-care environment (i.e., operating rooms, isolation rooms, and biologic safety cabinets) is limited to destruction of airborne organisms or inactivation of microorganisms on surfaces.”[5].

There are currently no harmonized European or international standards for measuring the efficacy of room decontamination using UVGI technologies. The two most applicable standards are the French norm NF T72-281:2014 “Methods of airborne disinfection of surfaces” and the US norm ASTM E3135-18 “Standard Practice for Determining Antimicrobial Efficacy of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Against Microorganisms on Carriers with Simulated Soil”. Unfortunately, neither of these standards are suitable for evaluating the microbiological efficacy of mobile UV devices [6], such as that shown in Figure 1. The occupational safety requirements of UVGI is outlined in EU Directive 2006/25/EC, which provides formulae to calculate the maximum effective radiant exposure that a person can be subjected to over an 8 hour period. In the US, UVGI devices are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as pesticide devices under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). However, unlike with chemical disinfectants, the EPA does not routinely review the safety or efficacy of UV light devices1.

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Example of a robotic UVGI platform being used to disinfect surfaces in a hospital

In the absence of formal guidance on the recommended procedures for deploying UVGI technology, there is a need to establish best practice from the currently available published literature. In Section 2, we describe the methodology we followed to conduct the review. Next, we segment the field based on the type of UVGI technology, the clinical setting where it was deployed, and the experimental design that was followed, and provide observations on the best practices in each. Finally, we conclude by identifying the key limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature search for the review was carried out in March 2021. The first step involved identifying clinical studies that used UVGI technology. Literature searchers were conducted using SCOPUS, PubMed and Google Scholar. The search involved using multiple keywords using the terms ‘UV’, ‘ultraviolet’, ‘UVGI’ with qualifiers including ‘disinfection’, ‘clinical’, and ‘hospital’ in various combinations.

The review consisted of a 3-stage process. In the first stage, we undertook a broad keyword search using the keywords outlined above, which returned 134 papers. The second stage involved reading all abstracts and removing wholly non-relevant papers such as review papers [7-9], those that involved in vitro experiments or decontamination chambers [10-12], papers not published in English, such as [13], or those unavailable for download [14]. The third stage involved re-reading the abstracts and narrowing down the papers to those that appeared to consist of real-world studies involving room decontamination using UVGI devices. Papers removed at this stage included studies using light outside the UV spectrum [15], where the UVGI device was used to disinfect water systems [16, 17], where the device comprised a closed chamber targeted primarily at specific components (such as dental moulds [18, 19] or stethoscopes [20]), rather than full room disinfection. This led to a final selection of 53 papers being chosen for study in the analysis. A frequency analysis showing the distribution of the shortlisted papers by year is given in Figure 2. It is apparent from this chart that clinical application of UVGI technology has been growing since 2010, but has increased considerably since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the number of publications in 2020 far exceeding that of each of the previous three years.

3 RESULTS

Papers were examined under the following headings: UVGI technology, clinical settings where UVGI was used, and experimental design.

3.1 UVGI technology

For each paper reviewed, we identified the core UV-generating technology that was used (Table 1). The majority of studies (24 papers) utilized devices that produced UV irradiation using pulsed xenon (PX-UV) technology that emits broadband radiation in the 200 nm-320 nm spectrum. Devices using low-pressure mercury lamps (LPML), which produce narrow-band germicidal irradiation in the UVC spectrum at a wavelength of 254 nm, were also common (20 papers). Only 2 papers investigated the efficacy of so-called Far-UV technology, which produces irradiation at 222 nm using KrCl excimer lamps. UV LED's are not yet a widely used technology for full room decontamination and were not found in the shortlisted papers in this review.

TABLE 1. Summary of the type of UVGI technology used across the studies in the review

Low pressure mercury lamp (LPML)	Pulsed xenon UV (PX-UV)	Far-UV
[28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]	[48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 36, 67, 68, 69, 70]	[71, 72]

Several papers described the use of UVGI in clinical settings without describing the underlying technology that was used [21-26] and were not included in Tables 1 or 2. While [27] utilised a UV robot, the type of technology is unclear and was also omitted from Table 1.

Next, we examined how the devices were deployed operationally during UVGI treatment. Of the devices that appeared in our review, nearly all of them were manually operated and needed to be pushed in place (41 papers) and the most widely used device was the Xenex Lightstrike (Figure 3a) PX-UV system (18 papers). The second most widely used devices were the Tru-D (Figure 3b) (5 papers) and Skytron LPML systems (3 papers). Four papers used devices that were manually waved over the surface to be disinfected. The remaining devices were static, such as upper room fixtures (2 papers), or fully autonomous robotic devices that were able to automatically navigate to different waypoints during UVGI with minimal human intervention (1 paper). A breakdown of the degree of mobility of the devices used in each paper is given in Table 2.

TABLE 2. The degree of mobility of the UVGI devices used in each study

Fixed/Static	Manual (push-in-place)	Manual (handheld)	Autonomous
[42, 44]	[48, 49, 28, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 30, 31, 57, 32, 33, 58, 34, 59, 60, 61, 35, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 37, 67, 68, 38, 39, 69, 70, 40, 27, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]	[71, 72, 36, 46]	[29]

3.2 Clinical settings where UVGI is used

To determine where UV disinfection has been most applicable, we examined the range of clinical settings where UVGI deployments have taken place (Table 3). It was observed that UVGI treatments were nearly always performed in rooms that did not have patients present to mitigate the risk that staff/patients might be exposed to hazardous levels of UV irradiation during the UVGI procedure [33, 56, 69]. Patient rooms were found to be the most common location for UVGI (30 papers), both for non-isolation patients and patients isolating with an infection. These settings typically consisted of a bed, a bathroom, and high touch surfaces such as bed rails, bed control panels, call button, tables, and door handles [63, 70].

TABLE 3. The most common clinical settings where UVGI technology was used

Patient rooms	ICU	OR	Other
[28, 52, 21, 53, 54, 55, 56, 71, 30, 31, 57, 32, 33, 22, 35, 62, 63, 64, 66, 37, 67, 68, 39, 69, 70, 40, 25, 43, 44, 47]	[48, 28, 55, 58, 60, 62, 36, 47]	[55, 34, 59, 60, 38, 69, 41, 42]	[49, 28, 29, 50, 51, 58, 72, 59, 60, 61, 65, 36, 23, 69, 24, 27, 45, 26, 46, 47]

Intensive care units (ICUs) and operating rooms (ORs) were the second most common setting for UVGI (8 papers each). ICUs usually consisted of patient beds, bed rails, cardiopulmonary monitors, ventilators, and other medical equipment such as keyboards and cart handles [48, 58]. Operating rooms commonly included a surgical table, anaesthetic machines and support equipment. High touch surfaces in these rooms include tray tables, monitors, infusion pumps, and scialitic lamps [55].

Other settings where the applicability of UVGI has been evaluated include burn units [69], hyperbaric chambers [27], radiology rooms [29], oncology units [35], and clinical labs within a hospital [50]. Use of UVGI technologies in hallways or other public areas was only reported in a small number of studies [28, 46]. Where the setting was not specifically named [24, 26], or where various surfaces are described but the room was not named [46], the study was classified in the "Other" column of Table 3.

3.3 Experimental design in UVGI studies

The impact of UVGI as an infection control tool has been examined using two main approaches: (1) direct estimation of bioburden reduction, and (2) the reduction of healthcare acquired infections (HCAIs) following UVGI intervention.

Based on our review, we found that the metric is generally dependent on the study duration, which is summarised in Table 4.

TABLE 4. The duration of UVGI studies in the literature

Short term	Medium term	Long term
[49, 50, 51, 56, 71, 30, 72, 60, 63, 66, 36, 38, 39, 24, 40, 27, 42, 73, 43, 26]	[29, 53, 54, 55, 31, 32, 33, 58, 34, 37, 67, 70, 44, 46]	[48, 28, 52, 21, 57, 59, 61, 22, 35, 62, 64, 65, 68, 23, 69, 41, 45, 47]

For the purpose of our analysis, short-term trials were characterised by the performance of isolated experiments, typically spanning one or several days of testing. For example, Chen et al. [50] conducted swab sampling to compare bioburden on surfaces before and after UVGI in three rooms during a single day of testing. In total, we counted 20 short-term studies.

Medium-term studies (14 papers) were defined as periodic environmental sampling over a number of weeks or months during which a UVGI device has been in use. This generally involved more systematic testing that better resembled real-world deployment conditions, for example, Yang et al. [32] carried out swab testing on a routine basis while the device was integrated into hospital workflow over a 6 month period between October 2015 and March 2016.

Long-term studies (18 papers) investigated the impact of UVGI devices that had been implemented into the workflow of the clinical setting for more than 12 months and/or employed HCAI reductions as the key metric. For example, Haas et al. [59] reported HCAI reductions following a 22-month deployment of a UVGI system within a contact precaution unit, operating rooms, dialysis unit and burn victim unit of an acute hospital.

3.3.1 Environmental sampling methods

Measuring bioburden reduction was found to be the primary metric for short and medium-term trials. To empirically measure or quantify bio-burden reduction, it is necessary to sample surfaces in the room before and after UVGI. Of the studies reviewed in our analysis, common methods of surface sampling included contact plates, swabs, and sponges. Of the studies reviewed, the majority used a generic medium, such as Tryptone Soya Agar (TSA), which is targeted primarily at bacterial recovery. However, on occasion, selective agars were be used to test for specific bacteria (such as Clostridioides difficile [55]) and specific fungi (such as Aspergillus fumigatus [32] and Candida albicans [46]). None of the studies in the review involved viral recovery, and therefore effectiveness of UVGI at inactivating viruses in clinical settings was not directly measured. A breakdown of the different sampling methods used in the reviewed studies is given in Table 5.

TABLE 5. Common methods associated with UVGI testing and validation

Contact plates	Swabs	HCAIs	Other
[48, 49, 29, 52, 54, 55, 31, 33, 58, 34, 72, 60, 66, 38, 69, 70, 27, 43]	[29, 50, 52, 53, 56, 71, 30, 32, 37, 67, 68, 27, 44, 46]	[48, 28, 57, 59, 61, 22, 35, 62, 64, 65, 68, 23, 69, 41, 45, 47]	[49, 55, 63, 36, 68, 23, 39, 69]

Contact plate method

The use of contact plates, also known as Replicate Organism Detection And Counting (RODAC) plates, was the most common method of sampling surfaces across UVGI studies (18 papers). Contact plates are suitable for flat surfaces and some curved surfaces (using what is known as a ‘roll plate’ method) [74]. Standard mediums, such as Tryptone Soya Agar (TSA) is typically poured into a plastic contact plate (approximately 5 cm in diameter) and pressed flat against a surface in order for surface microorganisms to stick to the medium. Bioburden is most commonly quantified by counting the number of colony forming units (CFUs) on the plate after a period (typically 24–48 h) of aerobic incubation at 30–37°C [38, 54, 60].

Swab method

Another common method of sampling involves using swabs (14 papers). Although they have been shown to be difficult to standardise [75], swabs have the benefit of manipulation around uneven surfaces. Typical sampling procedures involve the use of sterile swabs moistened with sterile saline and rolled on a discretized area on a surface e.g. 5 cm x 5 cm. Analysing swabs is more labour intensive than contact plate methods as it is necessary to transfer microbes from the swabs to a cultivation medium post-sampling [76].

Other sampling methods

Sponges, another indirect sampling method, were observed in a small number of studies [49, 51, 55, 63]. Their use involved a sterile sponge moistened with saline being wiped across a surface and subsequently placed in a bag with Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and processed in a lab blender. The fluid undergoes processing before being poured onto agar plates and incubated overnight before analysis [77]. The recovery of microbes from the sponge can vary and this method is not as commonly applied as swab testing.

One study employed the use of UV sensitivity cards to estimate bioburden reduction [39]. This involves cross-referencing empirically recorded UV dose readings with standard lookup tables (like those found in [1]) citing the UV inactivation levels for different microbes). While this method can be a useful indicator in optimising the positioning/route of a UV device, it's not sufficient as a standalone metric in determining the disinfection efficacy since the efficacy of UVGI is dependent on a range of factors including the type of microorganism, the material properties of substrate to which the microorganism is attached [78], and a number of other parameters which may vary in real-world settings. Where possible, therefore, UV sensitivity measurements should be reserved as an adjunct to robust microbial sampling of the environment.

One study, conducted by Rutula et al. [33] evaluated the efficacy of UVGI in an empty patient room using Formica sheets inoculated with a known quantity of vegatative bacteria. Results from these tests were later compared against data from a follow-on experiment that used contact plate samples taken from a room that housed patients with MRSA infections. Both experiment found statistically significant reductions in CFU count following UVGI.

3.4 Correlation between HCAI prevalence and UVGI

The risk of healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) following patient discharge was cited by a number of studies as a major driver to implement novel disinfection technologies. UVGI studies have targeted pathogens responsible for the majority of HCAI fatalities [26], including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (21 papers), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) (14 papers) and Clostridioides difficile (18 papers). Other pathogens of interest included Escherichia coli [36, 43, 44, 46], Klebsiella pneumoniae [43, 46, 50, 55] and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [36, 43, 50, 69, 44, 46]. The pathogens that were specifically targeted in UVGI studies are summarised in Table 6. This table combines studies that employ direct measurement of HCAI reductions as the key metric as well as studies that carried out environmental sampling and/or UVC level measurement.

TABLE 6. The most common pathogens of concern in the literature

MRSA	VRE	Clostridioides difficile	Other
[48, 28, 52, 56, 71, 30, 31, 57, 32, 33, 58, 72, 59, 22, 62, 66, 36, 39, 70, 41, 43]	[49, 28, 53, 56, 71, 30, 31, 32, 33, 59, 61, 22, 62, 65]	[55, 56, 71, 30, 31, 59, 61, 22, 35, 62, 63, 64, 65, 23, 39, 69, 40, 25]	[28, 50, 55, 36, 69, 43, 44, 46]

A total of 16 papers reported the effect of UVGI on HCAI prevalence. Of these studies, 11 papers reported a reduction in HCAIs at a statistically significant level. The majority of papers in this category considered HCAI rates in their totality, rather than types of infection linked to specific microorganisms. With a focus on broad and efficient deployment across patient rooms, Schaffzin et al. [62] reported a 16% reduction in HCAI rates following the introduction of UVGI. Sampathkumar et al. [65] observed a decrease in HCAIs from 28.7 to 11.2 per 10,000 patient days—a 39% decrease in the PX-UV intervention period—however, the UVGI process added 25 min to the terminal cleaning process. A statistically significant reduction in both HCAI rate and hospilisation rate was noted by Kovach et al. [68] in a 12-month UV intervention period when compared to the 36-month period pre-intervention. Kitagawa et al. [57] also reported statistically significant reductions of MRSA following PX-UV intervention. A 44% reduction of viral infection rates was reported in a 12-month study by Pavia et al. [45] while Napolitano et al. [47] observed a 34.2% reduction of HCAIs over an equivalent period. Raggi et al. [28] found a 19.2% of HCAIs of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) after a 12-month UVGI intervention period when compared to the pre-intervention period; emergency department admissions were not adversely affected during this period.

A number of papers explored the correlation between C. difficile infections and the introduction of UVGI. Anderson et al. [22] recorded a significant reduction of up to 30% of C. difficile infections when terminal disinfection was enhanced with UVGI. Interestingly, no significant reduction was found when the standard protocol was enhanced with use of chlorine releasing compounds, or a combination of chlorine releasing compounds and UV. During a 52-week intervention period carried out by Pegues et al. [35], the C. difficile infection rate declined 25% in UV units while a rise of 16% was observed in non-UV units. The impact of UVGI on average room cleaning time and room turnaround was negligible. Miller et al. [64] implemented two interventions aimed at reducing C. difficile infections. The first intervention involved forming a multidisciplinary team dedicated to reducing HCAIs; this resulted in a reduction of 17% from baseline figures. The introduction of PX-UV as an adjunct to manual cleaning further reduced the transmission rates by 57%. A 20% reduction of hospital-acquired MDRO plus C. difficile rates was observed by Haas et al. [59] in a 22-month intervention period when compared to the 30-month pre-UV period. The impact of UVGI against MRSA prevalence was examined by Morikane et al. [48] who reported a 29% decrease following the implementation of the technology, as well as a 63% reduction of drug-resistant Acinetobacter acquisition.

Several studies did not measure significant reductions in HCAI following the introduction of UVGI. Brite et al. [61] reported no significant change in VRE and C. difficile incidence rates during a 20-month study period of a transplant unit. The authors note that this is likely caused by the compromised immune systems of transplant patients; they remain highly susceptible to HCAIs despite a reduction in environmental pathogens following the introduction of UVGI. While Green et al. [69] observed reductions in environmental of microorganisms, no significant reductions in HCAI rates were observed. Similarly, Goto et al. [23] observed no statistically significant difference in hospital-acquired C. difficile rates.

4 DISCUSSION

Although the efficacy of UVGI disinfection has been established for a long time, examination of the published literature shows that the clinical practice of using UVGI technologies remains fragmented and rapidly evolving. Conventionally, UVGI has found greatest applicability in patient rooms, ICU, and OR settings, however, new applications have emerged in a diversity of settings from radiology to ambulances.

The specifications of UVGI devices vary significantly across the studies examined. In total, more than 17 distinct devices featured. We observed that important experimental parameters (including details on the exact placement of the device) were often not described in sufficient detail for replication and important technical device information was regularily omitted and could not be easily found within references or by examination of product datasheets. Most studies used either PX-UV technology, which irradiates using pulses across a wide spectrum of UV wavelengths, or LPML, which irradiates continuously across a narrow band of wavelengths in the UVC spectrum (200–280 nm). The use of lower wavelength devices that irradiate at 222 nm wavelengths (so called Far-UV) is also increasing. The effect of UV wavelength on microbial inactivation is currently unexplored, especially in clinical settings. While studies such as that performed by Cadnum et al. [79] have attempted to investigate performance differences between PX-UV and LPML technologies, it is not possible to draw strong conclusions from their findings due to the major differences in operating procedures and hardware specifications of the platforms evaluated. While some research has explored the optimal placement of the UVGI devices in the room (most notably the paper by Tiseni et al. [80]), the topic remains under-explored and would benefit from further investigation. Furthermore, while the majority of UVGI systems required manual positioning, newer platforms that can move autonomously seem to offer potential to reduce the labour requirements of using the technology.

The majority of UVGI studies have involved tests that take place over a single deployment of the technology. This review supports findings from the systematic review conducted by Peters et al. on the effect of environmental hygiene interventions on HCAIs and patient colonization <https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-022-01075-1> that where UVGI has been implemented over prolonged periods of time, it has often been linked with reductions in HCAI. However, given the many other factors that may confound these findings, there is a need for more systematic bio-burden measurement during long-term deployments and for more medium-to-long term studies to be conducted. Few studies offer qualitative perspectives of the challenges of integrating UVGI within clinical workflows; this should also be addressed in future work. In the absence of standardized test methods, it is challenging to objectively compare UVGI performance between studies conducted in clinical settings. Factors that affect the ability to make accurate comparisons include: differences in the baseline bio-burden levels, differences in environmental sampling methods and growth media used in the study, and differences in the timing of when the sampling was carried out. While the development of formal professional standards may not be immediately forthcoming, greater scientific rigor can be achieved if researchers planning future studies prioritize experimental designs that are easily repeatable, involve the use of more than one sampling technique, and use metrics that allows for benchmarking with previous studies in the literature.

Most studies involving environmental sampling used post-treatment reductions in colony forming units as the primary metric for quantifying efficacy of the UVGI procedure. A limitation of this approach was that the strain of the microbe captured was usually not apparent, especially when the agar media used was generic and promoted the growth of many common bacteria/fungus. Therefore, although the UVGI procedure achieved a reduction in bioburden, the extent to which the treatment was effective against multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) or other specific microbes of interest was unknown. We found one study, carried out by Villacís et al. [60], that overcame this limitation by first measuring CFU reductions after an in-situ UVGI deployment, and later performed in vitro UVGI testing on four specific strains of MDROs that were identified at the hospital through a process of environmental sampling and PCR testing.

While the disinfection efficacy was the primary focus in most studies, the time taken to perform the procedure was also found to be a measure of high importance [21, 22, 28, 53, 54, 62]. This is due to the demands for patient rooms and specialised units within the hospital, as well as a need to reduce the times taken to disinfect rooms without reducing disinfection efficacy. Raggi et al. [28] observed significant cost-savings in a US hospital following hospital-wide UVGI intervention; this was due to a reduction of excessive inpatient stays as a result of HCAIs.

The papers reviewed in this article do not represent an exhaustive list, but we believe it does contain a good representative sample of the current state of the literature in UVGI. The keyword search was biased towards studies that were conducted in clinical environments may have missed studies conducted in other settings where UVGI is reported to be sometimes used (including hospitality, retail etc.). The scope of the study was further limited to surface disinfection, and therefore practices involving the use of UVGI technology for inactivating microbes in air were not investigated.

Finally, despite a body of evidence indicating effectiveness of UVGI against a broad spectrum of pathogens, including microbes that are known to exhibit antimicrobial and biocide resistance, known limitations of UVGI, namely that obstructing objects may cause some surfaces to be shadowed and therefore not to receive the intended UV dose, means that UVGI is most effectively used in conjunction with a biocide-based disinfection procedure carried out by human cleaning staff. Investigating approaches for optimizing the combined use of biocide and UVGI disinfection regimes appears to be an interesting direction for future research.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation has been an established means of surface and air disinfection for decades and its applications in clinical settings have been growing steadily in recent years. In this paper, we reviewed the published literature that investigated the deployment of UVGI systems in clinical systems as a means of surface disinfection. We shortlisted 52 papers in total, which were subsequently examined based on the type of UVGI technology used, the clinical settings where they were used and the experimental design that was followed in the study.

PX-UV and LP-UV technology was well represented in the literature, however, often important technical information on the devices’ specifications was not publicly available. The integration of autonomous mobility and the use of far-UV as the UVGI source emerged as high potential technologies, but are currently underrepresented.

The application of UVGI room disinfection systems was limited to settings that could be evacuated during use, since high levels of background UV radiation produced by currently available UVGI devices poses a health and safety risk. Consequently, the technology has found greatest application in individual rooms after patient discharge and in operating room settings as supplementary part of routine disinfection procedures.

The majority of studies were conducted over relatively short time frames and included the empirical measurement of bioburden using standard environmental sampling techniques, whereas long term studies typically utilized HCAI prevalence measured over several months/years as the primary metric. Most of these studies indicated that the introduction of UVGI led to a measurable reduction of HCAIs, however lack of standardisation and the presence of confounding factors necessitates that further studies are required before strong conclusions can be drawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for the project was provided for a grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), as part of their COVID-19 Rapid Response Initiative (Grant ID: 20/COV/0021).

Open access funding provided by IReL.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Conor McGinn declares a conflict of interest due to his involvement as a shareholder and co-founder of Akara Robotics, a company involved in the development of UVGI technology.

ETHICS APPROVAL

N/A.

PATIENT CONSENT STATEMENT

N/A.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES

Copyright permission is obtained for using the photo in Figure 1. Images used in Figure 3 are reproducible under fair use.

Open Research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

1Kowalski, W.: Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Handbook: UVGI for Air and Surface Disinfection. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin Heidelberg ( 2009)
Google Scholar
2Downes, A., Blunt, T.P.: The influence of light upon the development of bacteria. Nature 16, 218 (1877)
10.1038/016218a0
Google Scholar
3Hart, D.: Sterilization of the air in the operating room by special bactericidal radiant energy: Results of its use in extrapleural thoracoplasties. J. Thorac. Surg. 6(1), 45–81 (2008, 2003, 1936)
10.1016/S0096-5588(20)32445-4
Google Scholar
4Chinn, R.Y.W., Sehulster, L.: Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities; Recommendations of cdc and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta (2003)
Google Scholar
5Rutala, W.A., Weber, D.J.: Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities (updated 2019)
Google Scholar
6Boyce, J.M., Donskey, C.J.: Understanding ultraviolet light surface decontamination in hospital rooms: A primer. Infection Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 40(9), 1030–1035 (2019)
10.1017/ice.2019.161
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
7Eischeid, A.C., Thurston, J.A., Linden, K.G.: Uv disinfection of adenovirus: Present state of the research and future directions. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(15), 1375–1396 (2011)
10.1080/10643381003608268
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
8Boyce, J.M.: Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals. Antimicrob. Resist. Infection Control 5(1), 1–10 (2016)
10.1186/s13756-016-0111-x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
9Schahawi, M.D.-E., Zingg, W., Vos, M., Humphreys, H., Lopez-Cerero, L., Fueszl, A., Zahar, J.R., Presterl, E.: Ultraviolet disinfection robots to improve hospital cleaning: Real promise or just a gimmick? Antimicrob. Resist. Infection Control 10(1), 1–3 (2021)
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
10Messina, G., Burgassi, S., Messina, D., Montagnani, V., Cevenini, G.: A new uv-led device for automatic disinfection of stethoscope membranes. Am. J. Infect. Control 43(10), e61–e66 (2015)
10.1016/j.ajic.2015.06.019
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
11Kitagawa, H., Nomura, T., Nazmul, T., Omori, K., Shigemoto, N., Sakaguchi, T., Ohge, H.: Effectiveness of 222-nm ultraviolet light on disinfecting sars-cov-2 surface contamination. Am. J. Infect. Control 49(3), 299–301 (2021)
10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.022
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
12Moore, G., Ali, S., Cloutman-Green, E.A., Bradley, C.R., Wilkinson, M.A.C., Hartley, J.C., Fraise, A.P., Peter R Wilson, A.: Use of uv-c radiation to disinfect non-critical patient care items: A laboratory assessment of the nanoclave cabinet. BMC Infect. Dis. 12(1), 1–9 (2012)
10.1186/1471-2334-12-174
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
13Botzenhart, K., Rüden, H., Tolon, M., Scharfenberg, M.V.K.: Clinical uses of ultraviolet light radiation. Praktische Anasthesie, Wiederbelebung und Intensivtherapie 11(5), 320–327 (1976)
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
14Qureshi, Z., Yassin, M.H.: Role of ultraviolet (uv) disinfection in infection control and environmental cleaning. Infect. Disorders-Drug Targ. (Formerly Current Drug Targets-Infectious Disorders) 13(3), 191–195 (2013)
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
15Bache, S.E., Maclean, M., MacGregor, S.J., Anderson, J.G., Gettinby, G., Coia, J.E., Taggart, I.: Clinical studies of the high-intensity narrow-spectrum light environmental decontamination system (hins-light eds), for continuous disinfection in the burn unit inpatient and outpatient settings. Burns 38(1), 69–76 (2012)
10.1016/j.burns.2011.03.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
16Kruithof, J.C., Chr van der Leer, R., Hijnen, W.A.M.: Practical experiences with uv disinfection in the netherlands. Aqua 41(2), 88–94 (1992)
CASGoogle Scholar
17Triassi, M., Di Popolo, A., Ribera D'Alcalà, G., Albanese, Z., Cuccurullo, S., Montegrosso, S., Crispino, M., Borella, P., Zarrilli, R.: Clinical and environmental distribution of legionella pneumophila in a university hospital in italy: Efficacy of ultraviolet disinfection. J. Hosp. Infect. 62(4), 494–501 (2006)
10.1016/j.jhin.2005.09.029
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
18Nimonkar, S.V., Belkhode, V.M., Godbole, S.R., Nimonkar, P.V., Dahane, T., Sathe, S.: Comparative evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfectants and ultraviolet disinfection on dimensional stability of the polyvinyl siloxane impressions. J. Int. Soc. Prevent. Community Dentistry 9(2), 152 (2019)
10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_406_18
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
19Aeran, H., Sharma, S., Kumar, V., Gupta, N.: Use of clinical uv chamber to disinfect dental impressions: A comparative study. J. Clin. Diagnost. Res. 9(8), ZC67 (2015)
PubMedGoogle Scholar
20Messina, G., Spataro, G., Nante, N., Rosadini, D., Tani, M., Cevenini, G.: Clinical testing of a wearable automatic uv-c device for stethoscope disinfection. Am. J. Infect. Control 45(6), S96 (2017)
10.1016/j.ajic.2017.04.146
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
21Anderson, D.J., Knelson, L.P., Moehring, R.W., Lewis, S.S., Weber, D.J., Chen, L.F., Triplett, P.F., Blocker, M., Marty Cooney, R., Conrad Schwab, J., et al. Implementation lessons learned from the benefits of enhanced terminal room (betr) disinfection study: Process and perceptions of enhanced disinfection with ultraviolet disinfection devices. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 39(2), 157 (2018)
10.1017/ice.2017.268
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
22Anderson, D.J., Chen, L.F., Weber, D.J., Moehring, R.W., Lewis, S.S., Triplett, P.F., Blocker, M., Becherer, P., Conrad Schwab, J., Knelson, L.P., et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and clostridium difficile (the benefits of enhanced terminal room disinfection study): A cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet North Am. Ed. 389(10071), 805–814 (2017)
10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31588-4
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
23Goto, M., Balkenende, E., Clore, G., Nair, R., Simbartl, L., Evans, M., Safdar, N., Perencevich, E., et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet-c room disinfection on preventing healthcare-associated clostridioides difficile infection. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 41(S1), s33–s33 (2020)
10.1017/ice.2020.512
Web of Science®Google Scholar
24Spencer, M., Vignari, M., Bryce, E., Johnson, H.B., Fauerbach, L., Graham, D.: A model for choosing an automated ultraviolet-c disinfection system and building a case for the c-suite: Two case reports. Am. J. Infect. Control 45(3), 288–292 (2017)
10.1016/j.ajic.2016.11.016
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
25Dunn, A.N., Vaisberg, P., Fraser, T.G., Donskey, C.J., Deshpande, A.: Perceptions of patients, health care workers, and environmental services staff regarding ultraviolet light room decontamination devices. Am. J. Infect. Control 47(11), 1290–1293 (2019)
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.04.176
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
26Poster, D.L., Miller, C.C., Obeng, Y., Postek, M.T., Cowan, T.E., Martinello, R.A.: Innovative approaches to combat healthcare-associated infections using efficacy standards developed through industry and federal collaboration. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2018, 10730 (2018) Cited By :1
Google Scholar
27Browne, K., Wood, D., Clezy, K., Lehm, J., Walsh, W.R.: Reduction of bacterial load with the addition of ultraviolet-c disinfection inside the hyperbaric chamber. Diving Hyperbaric Med. 50(4), 332–337 (2020)
10.28920/dhm50.4.332-337
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
28Raggi, R., Archulet, K., Haag, C.W., Tang, W.: Clinical, operational, and financial impact of an ultraviolet-c terminal disinfection intervention at a community hospital. Am. J. Infect. Control 46(11), 1224–1229 (2018)
10.1016/j.ajic.2018.05.012
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
29McGinn, C., Scott, R., Donnelly, N., Roberts, K.L., Bogue, M., Kiernan, C., Beckett, M.: Exploring the applicability of robot-assisted uv disinfection in radiology. Front. Robotics AI 7, 590306 (2020)
10.3389/frobt.2020.590306
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
30Nerandzic, M.M., Cadnum, J.L., Pultz, M.J., Donskey, C.J.: Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect. Dis. 10(1), 1–8 (2010)
10.1186/1471-2334-10-197
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
31Wong, T., Woznow, T., Petrie, M., Murzello, E., Muniak, A., Kadora, A., Bryce, E.: Postdischarge decontamination of mrsa, vre, and clostridium difficile isolation rooms using 2 commercially available automated ultraviolet-c–emitting devices. Am. J. Infect. Control 44(4), 416–420 (2016)
10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.016
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
32Yang, J.-.H., Wu, U.-I., Tai, H.-.M., Sheng, W.-.H.: Effectiveness of an ultraviolet-c disinfection system for reduction of healthcare-associated pathogens. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 52(3), 487–493 (2019)
10.1016/j.jmii.2017.08.017
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
33Rutala, W.A., Gergen, M.F., Weber, D.J.: Room decontamination with uv radiation. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 31(10), 1025–1029 (2010)
10.1086/656244
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
34Armellino, D., Goldstein, K., Thomas, L., Walsh, T.J., Petraitis, V.: Comparative evaluation of operating room terminal cleaning by two methods: Focused multivector ultraviolet (fmuv) versus manual-chemical disinfection. Am. J. Infect. Control 48(2), 147–152 (2020)
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.10.009
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
35Pegues, D.A., Han, J., Gilmar, C., McDonnell, B., Gaynes, S.: Impact of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for no-touch terminal room disinfection on clostridium difficile infection incidence among hematology-oncology patients. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 38(1), 39–44 (2017)
10.1017/ice.2016.222
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
36Umezawa, K., Asai, S., Inokuchi, S., Miyachi, H.: A comparative study of the bactericidal activity and daily disinfection housekeeping surfaces by a new portable pulsed uv radiation device. Curr. Microbiol. 64(6), 581–587 (2012)
10.1007/s00284-012-0110-y
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
37Penno, K., Jandarov, R.A., Sopirala, M.M.: Effect of automated ultraviolet c–emitting device on decontamination of hospital rooms with and without real-time observation of terminal room disinfection. Am. J. Infect. Control 45(11), 1208–1213 (2017)
10.1016/j.ajic.2017.06.015
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
38Armellino, D., Walsh, T.J., Petraitis, V., Kowalski, W.: Assessment of focused multivector ultraviolet disinfection withshadowless delivery using 5-point multisided sampling ofpatientcare equipment without manual-chemical disinfection. Am. J. Infect. Control 47(4), 409–414 (2019)
10.1016/j.ajic.2018.09.019
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
39Masse, V., Hartley, M.J., Edmond, M.B., Diekema, D.J.: Comparing and optimizing ultraviolet germicidal irradiation systems use for patient room terminal disinfection: An exploratory study using radiometry and commercial test cards. Antimicrob. Resistance Infect. Control 7(1), 1–7 (2018)
10.1186/s13756-018-0317-1
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
40Zhang, A., Nerandzic, M.M., Kundrapu, S., Donskey, C.J.: Does organic material on hospital surfaces reduce the effectiveness of hypochlorite and uv radiation for disinfection of clostridium difficile? Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 34(10), 1106–1108 (2013)
10.1086/673148
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
41Sara, A., Ochoa, A., Cruz-Córdova, J., Mancilla-Rojano, G., Escalona-Venegas, V.E.-Kenel, I.F.-.H., Parra-Ortega, I., Arellano-Galindo, J., Hernández-Castro, R., Perez-López, C.F., et al. Control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus strains associated with a hospital outbreak involving contamination from anesthesia equipment using uv-c. Front. Microbiol. 11, 3236 (2020)
Google Scholar
42Vaidya, M.U., Gangakhedkar, G.R., Shetty, A.N., Waghalkar, P.V.: A rare occurrence of accidental exposure to uv radiation among operating theatre personnel. Indian J. Anaesthesia 64(3), 230 (2020)
10.4103/ija.IJA_656_19
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
43Allen, O., Jadkauskaite, L., Shafi, N.T., Jackson, A., Athithan, V., Chiu, Y.-.D., Evans, I.E.S., Floto, R.A., Haworth, C.S.: Microbiological evaluation of uv disinfection effectiveness in a specialist cystic fibrosis clinic. J. Cyst. Fibros. 18(4), e37–e39 (2019)
10.1016/j.jcf.2019.04.019
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
44Sedaghat, Y., Gholampour, S., Ghomshe, F.T.: Comparison of the effectiveness of manual cleaning, hydrogen peroxidvapour and ultraviolet-c in disinfection of hospital equipment. Infektoloski Glasnik 39(3), 66–84 (2019) Cited By :1.
10.37797/ig.39.3.2
Google Scholar
45Pavia, M., Simpser, E., Becker, M., Mainquist, W.K., Velez, K.A.: The effect of ultraviolet-c technology on viral infection incidence in a pediatric long-term care facility. Am. J. Infect. Control 46(6), 720–722 (2018) Cited By :8.
10.1016/j.ajic.2018.01.014
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
46Corrêa, T.Q., Blanco, K.C., Inada, N.M., Hortenci, M.D.F., Costa, A.A., Silva, E.D.S., Da Costa Gimenes, P.P., Pompeu, S., De Holanda E Silva, R.L., Figueiredo, W.M., Bagnato, V.S.: Manual operated ultraviolet surface decontamination for healthcare environments. Photomed. Laser Surg. 35(12), 666–671 (2017) Cited By :4.
10.1089/pho.2017.4298
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
47Napolitano, N.A., Mahapatra, T., Tang, W.: The effectiveness of uv-c radiation for facility-wide environmental disinfection to reduce health care-acquired infections. Am. J. Infect. Control 43(12), 1342–1346 (2015) Cited By :20.
10.1016/j.ajic.2015.07.006
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
48Morikane, K., Suzuki, S., Yoshioka, J., Yakuwa, J., Nakane, M., Nemoto, K.: Clinical and microbiological effect of pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in the intensive care unit in a japanese hospital: A before-after study. BMC Infect. Dis. 20(1), 82 (2020)
10.1186/s12879-020-4805-6
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
49Beal, A., Mahida, N., Staniforth, K., Vaughan, N., Clarke, M., Boswell, T.: First uk trial of xenex px-uv, an automated ultraviolet room decontamination device in a clinical haematology and bone marrow transplantation unit. J. Hosp. Infect. 93(2), 164–168 (2016)
10.1016/j.jhin.2016.03.016
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
50Chen, L.-, Li, Y., Qi, Y., Wang, S.-., Gao, C.-., Wu, Y.: Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet light device for reduction of pathogens with biofilm-forming ability and impact on environmental bioburden in clinical laboratories. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 29, 101544 (2020)
10.1016/j.pdpdt.2019.08.026
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
51Li, J.-.J., Wang, S.-N., Qiao, J.-.J., Chen, L.-H., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Ding, Y.-.X., Wang, M.-.M., Tian, Y., Liu, Y.-B., et al. Portable pulsed xenon ultraviolet light disinfection in a teaching hospital animal laboratory in china. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 207, 111869 (2020)
10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2020.111869
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
52Zeber, J.E., Pfeiffer, C., Baddley, J.W., Cadena-Zuluaga, J., Stock, E.M., Copeland, L.A., Hendricks, J., Mohammadi, J., Restrepo, M.I., Jinadatha, C.: Effect of pulsed xenon ultraviolet room disinfection devices on microbial counts for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and aerobic bacterial colonies. Am. J. Infect. Control 46(6), 668–673 (2018)
10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.001
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
53Stibich, M., Stachowiak, J., Tanner, B., Berkheiser, M., Moore, L., Raad, I., Chemaly, R.F.: Evaluation of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection device for impact on hospital operations and microbial reduction. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 32(3), 286 (2011)
10.1086/658329
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
54Hosein, I., Madeloso, R., Nagaratnam, W., Villamaria, F., Stock, E., Jinadatha, C.: Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet light device for isolation room disinfection in a united kingdom hospital. Am. J. Infect. Control 44(9), e157–e161 (2016)
10.1016/j.ajic.2016.01.044
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
55Casini, B., Tuvo, B., Cristina, M.L., Spagnolo, A.M., Totaro, M., Baggiani, A., Privitera, G.P.: Evaluation of an ultraviolet c (uvc) light-emitting device for disinfection of high touch surfaces in hospital critical areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, (19), 3572 (2019)
10.3390/ijerph16193572
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
56Nerandzic, M.M., Thota, P., Sankar, T., Jencson, A., Cadnum, J.L., Ray, A.J., Salata, R.A., Watkins, R.R., Donskey, C.J.: Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection system for reduction of healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 36(2), 192–197 (2015)
10.1017/ice.2014.36
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
57Kitagawa, H., Mori, M., Kawano, R., Hara, T., Kashiyama, S., Hayashi, Y., Sasabe, Y., Ukon, K., Shimokawa, N., Nomura, T., et al. Combining pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection with terminal manual cleaning helps reduce the acquisition rate of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Am. J. Infect. Control 49, 1048–1051 (2021)
10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.019
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
58Kitagawa, H., Mori, M., Kashiyama, S., Sasabe, Y., Ukon, K., Shimokawa, N., Shime, N., Ohge, H.: Effect of pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus contamination of high-touch surfaces in a japanese hospital. Am. J. Infect. Control 48(2), 139–142 (2020)
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.08.033
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
59Haas, J.P., Menz, J., Dusza, S., Montecalvo, M.A.: Implementation and impact of ultraviolet environmental disinfection in an acute care setting. Am. J. Infect. Control 42(6), 586–590 (2014)
10.1016/j.ajic.2013.12.013
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
60Villacís, J.E., Lopez, M., Passey, D., Santillán, M.H., Verdezoto, G., Trujillo, F., Paredes, G., Alarcón, C., Horvath, R., Stibich, M.: Efficacy of pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light for disinfection of high-touch surfaces in an ecuadorian hospital. BMC Infect. Dis. 19(1), 1–6 (2019)
10.1186/s12879-019-4200-3
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
61Brite, J., McMillen, T., Robilotti, E., Sun, J., Chow, H.Y., Stell, F., Seo, S.K., McKenna, D., Eagan, J., Montecalvo, M., et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet disinfection in reducing hospital-acquired clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus on a bone marrow transplant unit. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 39(11), 1301–1306 (2018)
10.1017/ice.2018.215
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
62Schaffzin, J.K., Wilhite, A.W., Li, Z., Finney, D., Ankrum, A.L., Moore, R.: Maximizing efficiency in a high occupancy setting to utilize ultraviolet disinfection for isolation rooms. Am. J. Infect. Control 48(8), 903–909 (2020)
10.1016/j.ajic.2020.05.004
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
63Ghantoji, S.S., Stibich, M., Stachowiak, J., Cantu, S., Adachi, J.A., Raad, I.I., Chemaly, R.F.: Non-inferiority of pulsed xenon uv light versus bleach for reducing environmental clostridium difficile contamination on high-touch surfaces in clostridium difficile infection isolation rooms. J. Med. Microbiol. 64(Pt 2), 191 (2015)
10.1099/jmm.0.000004
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
64Miller, R., Simmons, S., Dale, C., Stachowiak, J., Stibich, M.: Utilization and impact of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection system and multidisciplinary care team on clostridium difficile in a long-term acute care facility. Am. J. Infect. Control 43(12), 1350–1353 (2015)
10.1016/j.ajic.2015.07.029
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
65Sampathkumar, P., Nation, L., Folkert, C., Wentink, J.E., Zavaleta, K.W.: A trial of pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection to reduce c. difficile infection. Am. J. Infect. Control 44(6), S32–S33 (2016)
10.1016/j.ajic.2016.04.022
Google Scholar
66Jinadatha, C., Quezada, R., Huber, T.W., Williams, J.B., Zeber, J.E., Copeland, L.A.: Evaluation of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection device for impact on contamination levels of methicillinresistant staphylococcus aureus. BMC Infect. Dis. 14(1), 1–7 (2014)
10.1186/1471-2334-14-187
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
67Kitagawa, H., Mori, M., Hara, T., Kashiyama, S., Shigemoto, N., Ohge, H.: Effectiveness of pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection for clostridioides (clostridium) difficile surface contamination in a japanese hospital. Am. J. Infect. Control 49(1), 55–58 (2021)
10.1016/j.ajic.2020.05.032
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
68Kovach, C.R., Taneli, Y., Neiman, T., Dyer, E.M., Arzaga, A.J.A., Kelber, S.T.: Evaluation of an ultraviolet room disinfection protocol to decrease nursing home microbial burden, infection and hospitalization rates. BMC Infect. Dis. 17(1), 1–8 (2017)
10.1186/s12879-017-2275-2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
69Green, C., Pamplin, J.C., Chafin, K.N., Murray, C.K., Yun, H.C.: Pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light disinfection in a burn unit: Impact on environmental bioburden, multidrug-resistant organism acquisition and healthcare associated infections. Burns 43(2), 388–396 (2017)
10.1016/j.burns.2016.08.027
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
70Jinadatha, C., Villamaria, F.C., Restrepo, M.I., Ganachari-Mallappa, N., Liao, I.-.C., Stock, E.M., Copeland, L.A., Zeber, J.E.: Is the pulsed xenon ultraviolet light no-touch disinfection system effective on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in the absence of manual cleaning? Am. J. Infect. Control 43(8), 878–881 (2015)
10.1016/j.ajic.2015.04.005
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
71Nerandzic, M.M., Cadnum, J.L., Eckart, K.E., Donskey, C.J.: Evaluation of a hand-held farultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens. BMC Infect. Dis. 12(1), 1–6 (2012)
10.1186/1471-2334-12-120
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
72Kaiki, Y., Kitagawa, H., Hara, T., Nomura, T., Omori, K., Shigemoto, N., Takahashi, S., Ohge, H.: Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus contamination of hospital-use-only mobile phones and efficacy of 222-nm ultraviolet disinfection. Am. J. Infect. Control 49(6), 800–803 (2021)
10.1016/j.ajic.2020.11.011
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
73Hakim, H., Gilliam, C., Tang, L., Xu, J., Lee, L.D.: Effect of a shielded continuous ultraviolet-c air disinfection device on reduction of air and surface microbial contamination in a pediatric oncology outpatient care unit. Am. J. Infect. Control 47(10), 1248–1254 (2019)
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.03.026
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
74Reid, D., Ternes, K., Winowiecki, L., Yonke, C., Riege, B., Fregoli, F., Passey, D., Stibich, M., Olmsted, R.N.: Germicidal irradiation of portable medical equipment: Mitigating microbes and improving the margin of safety using a novel, point of care, germicidal disinfection pod. Am. J. Infect. Control 48(1), 103–105 (2020)
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.021
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
75Rawlinson, S., Ciric, L., Cloutman-Green, E.: How to carry out microbiological sampling of healthcare environment surfaces? a review of current evidence. J. Hosp. Infect. 103(4), 363–374 (2019)
10.1016/j.jhin.2019.07.015
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
76Salo, S., Laine, A., Alanko, T., Sjöberg, A.-M., Writanen, G., Collaborators: Jessen, G.B., Langsrud, B., Lindquist, S., Lundén, K., Mäki, J., M. Nerbrink, Niclasen, E., Tuominen, Ó., Tuompo, P., Vatunen, H., Woivalin, E.A.: Validation of the microbiological methods hygicult dipslide, contact plate, and swabbing in surface hygiene control: A nordic collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 83(6), 1357–1366 (2000)
10.1093/jaoac/83.6.1357
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
77Thom, K.A., Howard, T., Sembajwe, S., Harris, A.D., Strassle, P., Caffo, B.S., Carroll, K.C., Kristie Johnson, J.: Comparison of swab and sponge methodologies for identification of acinetobacter baumannii from the hospital environment. J. Clin. Microbiol. 50(6), 2140–2141 (2012)
10.1128/JCM.00448-12
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
78Gidari, A., Sabbatini, S., Bastianelli, S., Pierucci, S., Busti, C., Bartolini, D., Stabile, A.M., Monari, C., Galli, F., Rende, M., et al. Sars-cov-2 survival on surfaces and the effect of uv-c light. Viruses 13(3), 408 (2021)
10.3390/v13030408
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
79Cadnum, J.L., Jencson, A.L., Gestrich, S.A., Livingston, S.H., Karaman, B.A., Benner, K.J., Wilson, B.M., Donskey, C.J.: A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 40(2), 158–163 (2019)
10.1017/ice.2018.296
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
80Tiseni, L., Chiaradia, D., Gabardi, M., Solazzi, M., Leonardis, D., Frisoli, A.: Uv-c mobile robots with optimized path planning: Algorithm design and on-field measurements to improve surface disinfection against sars-cov-2. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 28(1), 59–70 (2021)
10.1109/MRA.2020.3045069
Web of Science®Google Scholar
81 Peters, A., Schmid, M.N., Parneix, P., Lebowitz, D., de Kraker, M., Sauser, J., Zingg, W., Pittet, D.: Impact of environmental hygiene interventions on healthcare-associated infections and patient colonization: a systematic review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infection Control 11(1), 1–25 (2022)
10.1186/s13756-022-01075-1
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume9, Issue3

June 2022

Pages 25-33

Hospital surface disinfection using ultraviolet germicidal irradiation technology: A review

Abstract

1 INTRODUCTION

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS