Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 1. Research activities should be designed that will focus upon the effects of airborne bacteria and separate those effects from causes of infection by other factors. 2. Methods for airborne and surface bacterial sampling should be catalogued according to their efficiency. Also, a list of commercially available devices for monitoring the cleanliness or contamination of air should be drafted. Their advantages and disadvantages should be described and circulated to appropriate microbiologists and engineers for their comments. Recommendations for techniques to be considered "standard" or "comparable" should be developed. 3. Protocols for collecting airborne and environmental bacterial concentration data should be standardized so that environments may be compared from in- stitution to institution. 4. Ultraviolet light systems should be studied further. Sampling techniques (i.e., sterilization of media by radiation after inoculation and effect of obstructions to radiation or untreated air), long-term exposure of per- sonnel to radiation, and effect of radiation on exposed tissue should also be studied. 5. More data are necessary on airborne bacterial and sterile surface contam- ination rates for the low velocity, plastic bubble isolator, and local high flow HEPA filtered air systems. 6. Further investigations are recommended on the origins of bacteria that cause wound infections. 7. Reported reductions in infection rates through improved barrier and air-handling techniques (which reduce operating room airborne bacterial concentrations) should be evaluated objectively.