Abstract
Background Using a multiple-measurement approach, we examined the real-world effectiveness of portable HEPA-air filtration devices (air cleaners) in a school setting.
Methods We collected environmental (CO2, particle concentrations), epidemiological (absences related to respiratory infections), audio (coughing), and molecular data (bioaerosol and saliva samples) over seven weeks during winter 2022/2023 in two Swiss secondary school classes. Using a cross-over study design, we compared particle concentrations, coughing, and the risk of infection with vs without air cleaners.
Results All 38 students (age 13−15 years) participated. With air cleaners, mean particle con-centration decreased by 77% (95% credible interval 63%−86%). There were no differences in CO2 levels. Absences related to respiratory infections were 22 without vs 13 with air cleaners. Bayesian modeling suggested a reduced risk of infection, with a posterior probability of 91% and a relative risk of 0.73 (95% credible interval 0.44−1.18). Coughing also tended to be less frequent (posterior probability 93%). Molecular analysis detected mainly non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses in saliva (50/448 positive), but not in bioaerosols (2/105 positive) or HEPA-filters (4/160). The detection rate was similar with vs without air cleaners. Spatiotemporal analysis of positive saliva samples identified several likely transmissions.
Conclusions Air cleaners improved air quality, showed a potential benefit in reducing respiratory infections, and were associated with less coughing. Airborne detection of non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses was rare, suggesting that these viruses may be more difficult to detect in the air. Future studies should examine the importance of close contact and long-range transmission, and the cost-effectiveness of using air cleaners.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Multidisciplinary Center for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Switzerland. NB, LF, and ME are supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through cooperative agreement 5U01-AI069924-05. ME is supported by special project funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 32FP30-189498). The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee of the canton of Bern, Switzerland, approved the study (reference no. 2021- 02377). For the saliva samples, we included all students who were willing to participate and obtained written informed consent from their caregivers.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability
Preprocessed data and code are available from https://osf.io/38j9g.
