Ultraviolet radiation as disinfection for fish surgical tools

Animal Biotelemetry

Ricardo W Walker²  Lye Meng Markillie²  Alison H Colotelo²  David R Geist²  Marybeth E Gay²  Christa M Woodley³  M Brad Eppard¹  Richard S Brown² 

[1] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, 333 Southwest First Avenue, Portland, OR, 97204, USA

[2] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Post Office Box 999, Richland, WA 99352, USA

[3] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1529 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, WA, 98382, USA

关键词: UV;    Transmitter;    Telemetry;    Surgery;    Sterilization;    Salmonid;    Fish;    Disinfection;   

Others  :  791263
DOI  :  10.1186/2050-3385-1-4

 received in 2012-08-27, accepted in 2012-10-31,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Transmitters used in telemetry studies are typically surgically implanted into the coelom of fish. When large numbers of fish are implanted consecutively, as in large telemetry studies, it is common for surgical tools (such as scalpels, forceps, needle holders and sutures) to be sterilized or, at minimum, disinfected between each use to minimize the transfer of pathogens. Chemicals are commonly used for disinfection but they can potentially harm fish and surgeons. UV radiation could provide a safe and more effective means for disinfection. The efficacy of UV radiation was determined for disinfecting surgical tools exposed to one of four aquatic organisms that typically lead to negative health issues for salmonids. The organisms include Aeromonas salmonicida, Flavobacterium psychrophilum, Renibacterium salmoninarum, and Saprolegnia parasitica, the causative agents of ulcer disease, coldwater disease, bacterial kidney disease, and saprolegniasis (water mold), respectively.

Results

In the first experiment, forceps were exposed to three species of bacteria at three varying concentrations. After exposure, tools were placed into a mobile Millipore UV sterilization apparatus. The tools were then radiated for three different time periods – 2, 5 or 15 minutes. UV radiation exposures at all durations were effective at killing all three species of bacteria on forceps at the highest bacteria concentrations. In the second experiment, stab scalpels, sutures and needle holders were exposed to A. salmonicida using the same methodology as used in Experiment 1. UV radiation exposure at 5 and 15 minutes was effective at killing A. salmonicida on stab scalpels and sutures but not needle holders. In the third experiment, S. parasitica, a water mold, was tested using an agar plate-method and forceps-pinch method. UV radiation was effective at killing the water mold at all three exposure durations.

Conclusions

Collectively, this study shows that UV radiation appears to be an effective disinfection method for some surgical tools. However, we do not recommend using this method for tools that have overlapping parts, such as needle holders, or other structures that cannot be exposed directly to UV radiation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Walker et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mulcahy DM: Surgical implantation of transmitters into fish. ILAR J 2003, 44:295-306.
• [2]Chomyshyn L, McConnachie SH, Cooke SJ: Evaluation of water entry into the coelom and different levels of aseptic technique during surgical implantation of electronic tags in freshwater fish. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 2011, 21:61-70.
• [3]Baras E, Lagardére JP: Fish telemetry in aquaculture: review and perspectives. Aquacult Int 1995, 3:77-102.
• [4]Bégout Anras ML, Bodaly RA, McNicol R: Use of an acoustic beam actograph to assess the effects of external tagging procedure on Lake Whitefish swimming activity. T Am Fish Soc 1998, 127:329-335.
• [5]Bridger CJ, Booth RK: The effects of biotelemetry transmitter presence and attachment procedures on fish physiology and behavior. Rev Fish Sci 2003, 11(1):13-34.
• [6]Brown RS, Harnish RA, Carter KM, Boyd JW, Deters KA: An evaluation of the maximum tag burden for implantation of acoustic transmitters in juvenile Chinook salmon. N Am J Fish Manage 2010, 30:499-505.
• [7]McMichael GA, Eppard MB, Carlson TJ, Carter JA, Ebberts BD, Brown RS, Weiland M, Ploskey GR, Harnish RA, Deng ZD: The Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System: A new tool. Fisheries 2010, 35(1):9-22.
• [8]Rutala WA, Weber DJ, the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee: [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf] webciteGuideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
• [9]Gurevich I, Dubin R, Cunha BA: Dental instrument and device sterilization and disinfection practices. J Hosp Infect 1996, 32:295-304.
• [10]Liltved H, Hektoen H, Efraimsen H: Inactivation of bacterial and viral fish pathogens by ozonation or UV irradiation in water of different salinity. Aquacult Eng 1995, 14:107-122.
• [11]Wagner GN, Cooke SJ, Brown RS, Deters KA: A review of surgical implantation techniques for transmitters and other electronic tags in fish. Rev Fish Biol Fisher 2011, 21:71-81.
• [12]Giese N, Darby J: Sensitivity of microorganisms to different wavelengths of UV light: implications on modeling of medium pressure UV systems. Water Res 2000, 34:4007-4013.
• [13]Liltved H, Landfald B: Effects of high intensity light on ultraviolet-irradiated and non-irradiated fish pathogenic bacteria. Water Res 2000, 34(2):481-486.
• [14]Summerfelt ST: Ozonation and UV irradiation—an introduction and examples of current applications. Aquacult Eng 2003, 28:21-36.
• [15]Bohrerova Z, Shemer H, Lantis R, Impellitteri CA, Linden KG: Comparative disinfection efficiency of pulsed and continuous-wave UV irradiation technologies. Water Res 2008, 42:2075-2982.
• [16]Martin SB, Dunn C, Freihaut JD, Bahnfleth WP, Lau J, Nedeljkovic-Davidovic A: Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation: current best practices. ASHRAE J 2008, 50(8):28-30. 32–34, 36
• [17]Liltved H, Vogelsang C, Modahl I, Dannevig BH: High resistance of fish pathogenic viruses to UV irradiation and ozonated seawater. Aquacult Eng 2006, 34:72-82.
• [18]Sharrer MJ, Summerfelt ST, Bullock GL, Gleason LE, Taeuber J: Inactivation of bacteria using ultraviolet irradiation in a recirculating salmonid culture system. Aquacult Eng 2005, 33:135-149.
• [19]Wedemeyer GA: Physiology of fish in intensive culture systems. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1996.
• [20]Whisler HC: Identification of Saprolegnia spp. pathogenic in Chinook salmon. DOE/BP-02836-2. Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Administration; 1997.
• [21]Wiklund T, Dalsgaard I: Occurrence and significance of atypical Aeromonas salmonicida in non-salmonid and salmonid fish species: a review. Dis Aquat Organ 1999, 32:49-69.
• [22]Arkoosh MR, Clemons E, Kagley AN, Stafford C, Glass AC, Jacobson K, Reno P, Myers MS, Casillas E, Loge F, Johnson LL, Collier TK: Survey of pathogens in juvenile salmon Oncorhynchus spp. migrating through Pacific Northwest estuaries. J Aquat Anim Health 2004, 16:186-196.
• [23]Cooke SJ, Graeb BDS, Suski CD, Ostrand KG: Effects of suture material on incision healing, growth and survival of juvenile largemouth bass implanted with miniature radio transmitters: case study of a novice and experienced fish surgeon. J Fish Biol 2003, 62:1366-1380.
• [24]McKibben CL, Pascho RJ: Shedding of Renibacterium salmoninarum by infected Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Dis Aquat Organ 1999, 38:75-79.
• [25]Eakle SW, Kao RT, Gordon M, Pelzner RB: Microbiological assessment of ultraviolet sterilization of dental handpieces. Clin Prev Dent 1986, 8(2):10-14.
• [26]Ronque PPT, Verzosa LG: Effectiveness of the glass–bead sterilizer in ophthalmic instruments. Philipp J Ophthalmology 2007, 32(1):25-27.
• [27]Vinay P, Giridhar RY, Nikhilanand H, Priyadarshini : Sterilization methods in Orthodontics—a review. Int J Dent Clin 2011, 3(1):44-47.
• [28]Moeller R, Horneck G, Facius R, Stackebrandt E: Role of pigmentation in protecting Bacillus sp. endospores against environmental UV radiation. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2006, 51(2):231-236.
• [29]Hijnen WAM, Beerendonk EF, Medema GJ: Inactivation credit of UV radiation for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: a review. Water Res 2006, 40:3-22.
• [30]FDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration): [http:/ / www.fda.gov/ downloads/ MedicalDevices/ DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/ UCM081341.pdf] webciteGuidance on Premarket Notification [510 (k)] Submissions for Sterilizers Intended for Use in Health Care Facilities. Document No. 833. Washington, DC: Infection Control Devices Branch, Division of General and Restorative Devices, Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 1993.
• [31]National Research Council: [http://www.aaalac.org/resources/Guide_2011.pdf] webciteGuide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition. Washington, D.C: Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, National Research Council, The National Academies Press; 2011.
• [32]Said MA, Dingwall B, Gupta A, Seyam AM, Mock G, Theyson T: Investigation of ultra violet (UV) resistance for high strength fibers. Adv Space Res 2006, 37:2052-2058.
• [33][http://www.millipore.com] webciteMillipore home page.
• [34][http://www.technicalglass.com/] webciteTechnical Glass Products, Inc. home page.
• [35]Deters KA, Brown RS, Carter KM, Boyd JW: Performance assessment of suture type, water temperature, and surgeon skill in juvenile Chinook salmon surgically implanted with acoustic transmitters. T Am Fish Soc 2010, 139:888-899.