China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Single-Molecule Analysis by Biological Nanopores
Published in Shuo Huang, Single-Molecule Tools for Bioanalysis, 2022
Gundlach et al. conducted the same measurement using a MspA nanopore (Figure 1.3A). [60]. A two-step current pattern was observed in the opposite time order, but each distinct current level could be better resolved with millisecond accuracy (~28 ms) and pico-ampere (pA) precision, and could be clearly aligned to a known DNA sequence [60]. Following this strategy, the DNA sequence from the bacteriophage phi X 174 genome relying on nanopore readouts was reported [78]. This approach has also been employed for detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms [78] and epigenetic modifications [79].
US Rules, Regulations, and Standards for Protective Gloves for Occupational Use
Published in Robert N. Phalen, Howard I. Maibach, Protective Gloves for Occupational Use, 2023
While chemical glove permeation standards were the first methods to be developed by Committee F-23 on Protective Clothing, another important area of standards development has been the evolution of medical glove standards.2 ASTM Committee D-11 on Rubber has been the center for this important standard-setting activity since the mid-1970s. Faced with the challenges of determining pinhole leaks in rubber surgeons' and examination gloves, this committee needed to develop better test methods than D 3577: Specifications for Rubber Surgical Gloves and D 3578: Specification for Rubber Examination Gloves to address healthcare concerns about acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). After considerable review, the committee published Standard Method D 5151: Test Method for Detection of Holes in Medical Gloves in 1990. This method resulted in an improved, more sensitive test to detect holes in medical gloves. While pinhole leaks were the primary concern in Committee D-11, Committee F-23 focused on penetration test methods for determining leaks with a synthetic blood test and a viral penetration test method using a bacteriophage surrogate to the AIDS and HIV viruses, Phi-X 174. These pass/fail test methods were evaluated in interlaboratory round-robin tests and were Emergency Standards ES 21: Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Synthetic Blood and ES 22: Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Penetration by Blood-Borne Pathogens Using Viral Penetration as a Test System.3 These two test methods were used to evaluate the performance of clothing and glove materials, but improved methods specifically for whole gloves were being investigated and considered by Committee F-23, as well. Both of these test methods are no longer emergency standards and now have been approved as consensus standards by the Biological Hazards Subcommittee F23.40 of F-23 and redesignated F 1670: Standard Test Method for Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing to Penetration by Synthetic Blood and F 1671: Standard Test Method for Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing to Penetration by Blood-Borne Pathogens Using Phi-X 174 Bacteriophage Penetration as a Test System. They have been utilized and cited in performance data for several gloves used in the healthcare profession in the United States.
Medical textiles
Published in Textile Progress, 2020
International standardsISO 16603:2004 Clothing for protection against contact with blood and body fluids — Determination of the resistance of protective clothing materials to penetration by blood and body fluids — Test method using synthetic blood [486]ISO 16604:2004 Clothing for protection against contact with blood and body fluids — Determination of resistance of protective clothing materials to penetration by blood-borne pathogens — Test method using Phi-X 174 bacteriophage [487]A literature review was undertaken by the National Health Service Scotland for their ‘National Infection Prevention and Control Manual’ which provides a useful context on the range of protective equipment, what evidence there is for its effectiveness and its proper use; the review recommended full-body, fluid-repellant gowns for situations where splashing might occur and pointed out that superiority of plastic gowns has been questioned whilst noting that there was little evidence identified as to when re-useable aprons/gowns might be appropriate [488]; the report should provide a useful basis from which textile and apparel specialists might engage in the next phase of product development, not least in terms of improving the prospects for reusability. There is also guidance on infection control measures regarding PPE/healthcare worker’s protective clothing and its use, not only from the WHO given the COVID-19 pandemic [489], but also through organisations focused on practitioner levels, such as the Association for Perioperative Practice [490], where there is guidance adapted from ‘Pandemic Influenza: Guidance for Infection prevention and control in healthcare settings, 2020’ issued jointly by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Public Health Wales (PHW), Public Health Agency (PHA) Northern Ireland, Health Protection Scotland (HPS) and Public Health England as official guidance.