Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Neurogastroenterol Motil ; 34(4): e14227, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34342092

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Aerosol spread is key to interpret the risk of viral contamination during clinical procedures such as esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). Installing an air purifier seems a legitimate strategy, but this has recently been questioned. METHODS: Patients undergoing an HRM procedure at the Leuven University Hospital were included in this clinical study. All subjects had to wear a surgical mask which was only lowered beneath the nose during the placement and removal of the nasogastric catheter. The number of aerosol particles was measured by a Lasair® II Particle Counter to obtain data about different particles sizes: 0.3; 0.5; 1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm. Measurements were done immediately before the placement and the removal of the HRM catheter, and one and 5 min after. A portable air purifier with high-efficiency particle air filters was installed in the hospital room. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent a manometry examination. The amount of 0.3 µm-sized particles was unaffected during the whole procedure. The larger particle sizes (1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm) decreased when the catheter was positioned, but not 0.5 µm. During the HRM measurements itself, these numbers decreased further. Yet, 1 min after catheter removal a significant elevation of particles was seen, which did not recover within 5 min. CONCLUSIONS & INTERFERENCES: Based on this study, there is no evidence that filtration systems reduce aerosol particles properly during a clinical investigation.


Subject(s)
Air Filters , COVID-19 , Aerosols , Humans , Particle Size
4.
Microbiome ; 7(1): 147, 2019 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31699144

ABSTRACT

House flies (Musca domestica) are widespread, synanthropic filth flies commonly found on decaying matter, garbage, and feces as well as human food. They have been shown to vector microbes, including clinically relevant pathogens. Previous studies have demonstrated that house flies carry a complex and variable prokaryotic microbiota, but the main drivers underlying this variability and the influence of habitat on the microbiota remain understudied. Moreover, the differences between the external and internal microbiota and the eukaryotic components have not been examined. To obtain a comprehensive view of the fly microbiota and its environmental drivers, we sampled over 400 flies from two geographically distinct countries (Belgium and Rwanda) and three different environments-farms, homes, and hospitals. Both the internal as well as external microbiota of the house flies were studied, using amplicon sequencing targeting both bacteria and fungi. Results show that the house fly's internal bacterial community is very diverse yet relatively consistent across geographic location and habitat, dominated by genera Staphylococcus and Weissella. The external bacterial community, however, varies with geographic location and habitat. The fly fungal microbiota carries a distinct signature correlating with the country of sampling, with order Capnodiales and genus Wallemia dominating Belgian flies and genus Cladosporium dominating Rwandan fly samples. Together, our results reveal an intricate country-specific pattern for fungal communities, a relatively stable internal bacterial microbiota and a variable external bacterial microbiota that depends on geographical location and habitat. These findings suggest that vectoring of a wide spectrum of environmental microbes occurs principally through the external fly body surface, while the internal microbiome is likely more limited by fly physiology.


Subject(s)
Bacteria/classification , Houseflies/microbiology , Microbiota , Phylogeography , Animals , Bacteria/genetics , Belgium , Rwanda
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...