Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during manual facemask ventilation.

Manual facemask ventilation, a core component of elective and emergency airway management, is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. This designation is based on one epidemiological study suggesting an association between facemask ventilation and transmission during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2003. There is no direct evidence to indicate whether facemask ventilation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. We conducted aerosol monitoring during routine facemask ventilation and facemask ventilation with an intentionally generated leak in anaesthetised patients. Recordings were made in ultraclean operating theatres and compared against the aerosol generated by tidal breathing and cough manoeuvres. Respiratory aerosol from tidal breathing in 11 patients was reliably detected above the very low background particle concentrations with median [IQR (range)] particle counts of 191 (77-486 [4-1313]) and 2 (1-5 [0-13]) particles.l-1 , respectively, p = 0.002. The median (IQR [range]) aerosol concentration detected during facemask ventilation without a leak (3 (0-9 [0-43]) particles.l-1 ) and with an intentional leak (11 (7-26 [1-62]) particles.l-1 ) was 64-fold (p = 0.001) and 17-fold (p = 0.002) lower than that of tidal breathing, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) peak particle concentration during facemask ventilation both without a leak (60 (0-60 [0-120]) particles.l-1 ) and with a leak (120 (60-180 [60-480]) particles.l-1 ) were 20-fold (p = 0.002) and 10-fold (0.001) lower than a cough (1260 (800-3242 [100-3682]) particles.l-1 ), respectively. This study demonstrates that facemask ventilation, even when performed with an intentional leak, does not generate high levels of bioaerosol. On the basis of this evidence, we argue facemask ventilation should not be considered an aerosol-generating procedure.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal.

Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.

Comparing aerosol concentrations and particle size distributions generated by singing, speaking and breathing

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented shutdown in social and economic activity, with the cultural sector particularly severely affected. Restrictions on musical performances have arisen from a perception that there is a significantly higher risk of aerosol production from singing than speaking, based upon high-profile examples of clusters of COVID-19 following choral rehearsals. However, comparing aerosol generation from different types of vocalization, including singing, across a range of volumes is a rapidly evolving area of research. Here, we measured aerosols from singing, speaking and breathing from a large cohort of 25 professional singers in a range of musical genres in a zero-background environment, allowing unequivocal attribution of aerosol production to specific vocalizations. We do not assess the relative volumes at which people speak and sing. However, both showed steep increases in mass concentration with increase in loudness (spanning a factor of 20–30 across the dynamic range measured, p < 0.001). At the quietest volume (50 to 60 dBA), neither singing (p = 0.19) nor speaking (p = 0.20) were significantly different to breathing. At the loudest volume (90 to 100 dBA), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed between singing and speaking, but with singing only generating a factor of between 1.5 and 3.4 more aerosol mass. Guidelines for musical performances should be based on the loudness and duration of the vocalization, the number of participants and the environment in which the activity occurs, rather than the type of vocalization. Mitigations such as the use of amplification and increased attention to ventilation should be employed where practicable. Copyright © 2021 American Association for Aerosol Research. © 2021 American Association for Aerosol Research.

Comparison of droplet spread in standard and laminar flow operating theatres: SPRAY study group.

BACKGROUND: Reducing COVID-19 transmission relies on controlling droplet and aerosol spread. Fluorescein staining reveals microscopic droplets. AIM: To compare the droplet spread in non-laminar and laminar air flow operating theatres. METHODS: A 'cough-generator' was fixed to a theatre trolley at 45°. Fluorescein-stained 'secretions' were projected on to a series of calibrated targets. These were photographed under UV light and 'source detection' software measured droplet splatter size and distance. FINDINGS: The smallest droplet detected was ∼120 µm and the largest ∼24,000 µm. An average of 25,862 spots was detected in the non-laminar theatre, compared with 11,430 in the laminar theatre (56% reduction). The laminar air flow mainly affected the smaller droplets (<1000 µm). The surface area covered with droplets was: 6% at 50 cm, 1% at 2 m, and 0.5% at 3 m in the non-laminar air flow; and 3%, 0.5%, and 0.2% in the laminar air flow, respectively. CONCLUSION: Accurate mapping of droplet spread in clinical environments is possible using fluorescein staining and image analysis. The laminar air flow affected the smaller droplets but had limited effect on larger droplets in our 'aerosol-generating procedure' cough model. Our results indicate that the laminar air flow theatre requires similar post-surgery cleaning to the non-laminar, and staff should consider full personal protective equipment for medium- and high-risk patients.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during tracheal intubation and extubation.

The potential aerosolised transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is of global concern. Airborne precaution personal protective equipment and preventative measures are universally mandated for medical procedures deemed to be aerosol generating. The implementation of these measures is having a huge impact on healthcare provision. There is currently a lack of quantitative evidence on the number and size of airborne particles produced during aerosol-generating procedures to inform risk assessments. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time, high-resolution environmental monitoring in ultraclean ventilation operating theatres during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences. Continuous sampling with an optical particle sizer allowed characterisation of aerosol generation within the zone between the patient and anaesthetist. Aerosol monitoring showed a very low background particle count (0.4 particles.l-1 ) allowing resolution of transient increases in airborne particles associated with airway management. As a positive reference control, we quantitated the aerosol produced in the same setting by a volitional cough (average concentration, 732 (418) particles.l-1 , n = 38). Tracheal intubation including facemask ventilation produced very low quantities of aerosolised particles (average concentration, 1.4 (1.4) particles.l-1 , n = 14, p < 0.0001 vs. cough). Tracheal extubation, particularly when the patient coughed, produced a detectable aerosol (21 (18) l-1 , n = 10) which was 15-fold greater than intubation (p = 0.0004) but 35-fold less than a volitional cough (p < 0.0001). The study does not support the designation of elective tracheal intubation as an aerosol-generating procedure. Extubation generates more detectable aerosol than intubation but falls below the current criterion for designation as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure. These novel findings from real-time aerosol detection in a routine healthcare setting provide a quantitative methodology for risk assessment that can be extended to other airway management techniques and clinical settings. They also indicate the need for reappraisal of what constitutes an aerosol-generating procedure and the associated precautions for routine anaesthetic airway management.