e-poltergeist

E-poltergeist takes over the user’s internet browser, automatically initiating Web searches without their permission. Web-based artwork which explores issues of user control when confronted with complex technological systems, questioning the limits of digital interactive arts as consensual reciprocal systems. e-poltergeist was a major web commission that marked an early stage of research in a larger enquiry by Craighead and Thomson into the relationship between live virtual data, global communications networks and instruction-based art, exploring how such systems can be re-contextualised within gallery environments. e-poltergeist presented the 'viewer' with a singular narrative by using live internet search-engine data that aimed to create a perpetual and virtually unstoppable cycle of search engine results, banner ads and moving windows as an interruption into the normal use of an internet browser. The work also addressed the ‘de-personalisation’ of internet use by sending a series of messages from the live search engine data that seemed to address the user directly: 'Is anyone there?'; 'Can anyone hear me?', 'Please help me!'; 'Nobody cares!' e-poltergeist makes a significant contribution to the taxonomy of new media art by dealing with the way that new media art can re-address notions of existing traditions in art such as appropriation and manipulation, instruction-based art and conceptual art. e-poltergeist was commissioned ($12,000) for 010101: Art in Technological Times, a landmark international exhibition presented by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, which bought together leading international practitioners working with emergent technologies, including Tatsuo Miyajima, Janet Cardiff, Brian Eno. Peer recognition of the project in the form of reviews include: Curating New Media. Gateshead: Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. Cook, Sarah, Beryl Graham and Sarah Martin ISBN: 1093655064; The Wire; http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2000/12/40464 (review by Reena Jana); Leonardo (review Barbara Lee Williams and Sonya Rapoport) http://www.leonardo.info/reviews/feb2001/ex_010101_willrapop.html All the work is developed jointly and equally between Craighead and her collaborator, Jon Thomson, Slade School of Fine Art.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.

Comparison of virus dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying devices

Background World Health Organization and EU hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different hand-drying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.