RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Point of emission air filtration enhances protection of health care workers against skin contamination with virus aerosol
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.15.21261997
DO 10.1101/2021.08.15.21261997
A1 Landry, Shane A
A1 Subedi, Dinesh
A1 MacDonald, Martin I
A1 Dix, Samantha
A1 Kutey, Donna M
A1 Barr, Jeremy J
A1 Mansfield, Darren
A1 Hamilton, Garun S
A1 Edwards, Bradley A.
A1 Joosten, Simon A
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/18/2021.08.15.21261997.abstract
AB Rationale We recently demonstrated that a patient hood with a high efficiency particulate air filter eliminates virus aerosol contamination when very large quantities of bacteriophage virus are aerosolised into a clinical room. While this containment method is relatively low cost, it is unclear whether similar efficacy can be achieved with lower cost/commercial grade air purifiers, or if such an approach protects healthcare workers against virus aerosol contamination.Method A total of 109 (10 ml of 108) PhiX174 bacteriophages was nebulized into a sealed clinical room. Surface contamination was detected by settle plates left uncovered during exposure. A healthcare worker remained in the room, personal exposure was determined by skin swabs after exiting the room, following doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). Four skin areas were swabbed: forearms/hands, neck, forehead, under N95 mask. Three conditions were tested, 1) hood with hospital grade air purifier (IQ Air Health Pro 250), 2) hood with commercial air purifier (Philips 1000i), and 3) control (no hood/air-purification).Findings The control condition demonstrated extensive environmental and limited skin contamination underneath PPE, which was highest under an N95 mask. The commercial air purifier and hood provided environmental control of virus aerosol and almost zero skin contamination. In comparison, the hospital grade purifier provided complete environmental and skin contamination protection, despite a lower clean air filtration rate (240m3/hr vs 270m3/hr). Virus counts on plates and swabs were significantly lower for both air purifiers and across neck, forehead, and under the N95. There were no statistically significant differences in detected virus counts between air purifiers.Conclusion This cheap and scalable method may be an effective way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals by enhancing the effectiveness of PPE worn by health care workers who care for COVID-19 patients and who are exposed to virus aerosol.Take home messageTake home message Relatively cheap portable air purifiers combined with a hood dramatically reduce the spread of virus aerosol and protect against environmental and healthcare worker contamination.Plain Language SummaryPlain Language Summary This study shows that commercially available air purifiers, when combined with a hood that covers the head of a clinical bed, effectively capture very large amounts of virus aerosol in a simulated hospital setting. This virus containment strategy strongly reduced the number of viruses landing on surfaces in a clinical room. Crucially, this strategy also reduced that amount of virus detected on a healthcare worker’s skin underneath personal protective equipment, including under an N95 respirator. This cheap and scalable method may be an effective way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in hospitals by enhancing the effectiveness of personal protective equipment worn by health care workers who care for COVID-19 patients and who are exposed to virus aerosol.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was funded by Epworth Hospital Capacity Building Research Grant ID: EH2020-654 Title: Virus aerosolization in CPAP and or NIV use in the COVID-19 pandemic Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No ethics approval was requires as the study does not include an human or animal participants. This research was exempted by Monash Health HREC.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be available on reasonable request.