I was president of the IET for 2016-17, and have been asked by government to gather practical and innovative ideas from our Engineering communities. So, please enter any ideas you might have in this thread that might help address and mitigate the Covid-19 crisis. Ideas might include digital tracking / monitoring through therapy equipment and beyond. Even ideas outside your usual expertise domain will be welcome. Now’s the time for Engineering to show we can change the world!
Hello Ian and all. Ian good luck with the ambulance application.
After online searches, I find many accounts in general of positive results of using Ozone for sterilization. Long standing method by all accounts, nothing new under the sun.
To aid this (IET) cause, I am looking specifically for objective evidence that 1) Ozone can be used successfully to sterilize materiel like masks / small equipment / fabrics to high enough standards, 2) what the standards are, and 3) what the exposure conditions need to be, and importantly, 4) how de-contamination can be checked? ie. how would you know that C-19 has been neutralized at the surface of a material - what's the test? .
for 1) I do find some credible sources with summaries; but two:
1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12247-017-9308-7 2) https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/sterilization/other-methods.html “…….The ozone process is compatible with a wide range of commonly used materials including stainless steel, titanium, anodized aluminum, ceramic, glass, silica, PVC, Teflon, silicone, polypropylene, polyethylene and acrylic. In addition, rigid lumen devices of the following diameter and length can be processed: internal diameter (ID): > 2 mm, length ≤ 25 cm; ID > 3 mm, length ≤ 47 cm; and ID > 4 mm, length ≤ 60 cm. The process should be safe for use by the operator because there is no handling of the sterilant, no toxic emissions, no residue to aerate, and low operating temperature means there is no danger of an accidental burn. The cycle is monitored using a self-contained biological indicator and a chemical indicator. The sterilization chamber is small, about 4 ft3 (Written communication, S Dufresne, July 2004)…..”
Which look encouraging however some issues for me to take further - many of the papers are only fully accessible by purchase. Plus I have no expertise in this field to comment on the data and info in the documents. I'll continue, perhaps others in the community with access to relevant expertise could expand the evaluation.
I realise that there are many steps to qualify before you can justify for mass use, but these are what I think are the first key steps.
In passing, I note from several accounts that ozone can be produced (of course) by corona discharge. What poetry.
Hello Ian and all. Ian good luck with the ambulance application.
After online searches, I find many accounts in general of positive results of using Ozone for sterilization. Long standing method by all accounts, nothing new under the sun.
To aid this (IET) cause, I am looking specifically for objective evidence that 1) Ozone can be used successfully to sterilize materiel like masks / small equipment / fabrics to high enough standards, 2) what the standards are, and 3) what the exposure conditions need to be, and importantly, 4) how de-contamination can be checked? ie. how would you know that C-19 has been neutralized at the surface of a material - what's the test? .
for 1) I do find some credible sources with summaries; but two:
1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12247-017-9308-7 2) https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/sterilization/other-methods.html “…….The ozone process is compatible with a wide range of commonly used materials including stainless steel, titanium, anodized aluminum, ceramic, glass, silica, PVC, Teflon, silicone, polypropylene, polyethylene and acrylic. In addition, rigid lumen devices of the following diameter and length can be processed: internal diameter (ID): > 2 mm, length ≤ 25 cm; ID > 3 mm, length ≤ 47 cm; and ID > 4 mm, length ≤ 60 cm. The process should be safe for use by the operator because there is no handling of the sterilant, no toxic emissions, no residue to aerate, and low operating temperature means there is no danger of an accidental burn. The cycle is monitored using a self-contained biological indicator and a chemical indicator. The sterilization chamber is small, about 4 ft3 (Written communication, S Dufresne, July 2004)…..”
Which look encouraging however some issues for me to take further - many of the papers are only fully accessible by purchase. Plus I have no expertise in this field to comment on the data and info in the documents. I'll continue, perhaps others in the community with access to relevant expertise could expand the evaluation.
I realise that there are many steps to qualify before you can justify for mass use, but these are what I think are the first key steps.
In passing, I note from several accounts that ozone can be produced (of course) by corona discharge. What poetry.
