Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 18(1): e0280426, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2214800

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: While facing personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, several institutions looked to PPE decontamination and reuse options. This study documents the effect of two hydrogen peroxide treatments on filtration efficiency and fit tests as well as the side effects for volunteers after the decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). We also propose an efficient and large-scale treatment protocol that allows for the traceability of this protective equipment in hospitals during PPE shortages. METHODS: The effects of low-temperature hydrogen peroxide sterilization and hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) on two FFR models (filtration, decontamination level, residual emanation) were evaluated. Ten volunteers reported comfort issues and side effects after wearing 1h FFRs worn and decontaminated up to five times. RESULTS: The decontamination process does not negatively affect FFR efficiency, but repeated use and handling tend to lead to damage, limiting the number of times FFRs can be reused. Moreover, the recommended 24-h post-treatment aeration does not sufficiently eliminate residual hydrogen peroxide. Prolonged aeration time increased user comfort when using decontaminated FFRs. CONCLUSIONS: HPV and low-temperature hydrogen peroxide sterilization seem to be appropriate treatments for FFR decontamination when the PPE is reused by the same user. PPE decontamination and reuse methods should be carefully considered as they are critical for the comfort and safety of healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Respiratory Protective Devices , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide , Decontamination/methods , Pandemics , Equipment Reuse , Personal Protective Equipment
2.
Eur J Med Res ; 27(1): 50, 2022 Apr 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775349

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The different clinical manifestations, from none to severe, and the variability in efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by upper respiratory tract testing, make diagnosis of COVID-19 and prevention of transmission especially challenging. In addition, the ways by which the virus can most efficiently transmit still remain unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case a 48-year-old man who presents primary COVID-19 pneumonia. He was initially admitted for cholecystitis but, upon review of his abdominal CT scan, a segmental zone of ground glass opacity was identified in the right lower lobe. A bronchoalveolar lavage proved positive to SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR, even if he tested negative by oro-nasopharyngeal swab at admission and the day after he underwent bronchoscopy. The near absence of the virus in his saliva 2 days after, combined with a very sharp increase in salivary viral load on the third day, also rule out the possibility of prior viral replication in the upper airway and clearance. In addition, rapidly increasing bilateral alveolar lung infiltrates appeared as the upper respiratory tests begin to detect the virus. CONCLUSIONS: For this patient to have developed primary COVID-19 pneumonia, a contagious aerosol must have traveled to the lower respiratory system. This case gives indirect but compelling evidence that aerosol may spread the virus. It also highlights the limitations of oral and nasal testing methods and the importance of anatomical considerations when studying infections by SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Lung , Male , Middle Aged , Saliva
3.
Am J Infect Control ; 49(6): 701-706, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081407

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCF) are environments particularly favorable to coronavirus disease (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic outbreaks, due to the at-risk population they welcome and the close proximity of residents. Yet, the transmission dynamics of the disease in these establishments remain unclear. METHODS: Air and no-touch surfaces of 31 rooms from 7 LTCFs were sampled and SARS-CoV-2 was quantified by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). RESULTS: Air samples were negative but viral genomes were recovered from 20 of 62 surface samples at concentrations ranging from 13 to 36,612 genomes/surface. Virus isolation (culture) from surface samples (n = 7) was negative. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of viral RNA on no-touch surfaces is evidence of viral dissemination through air, but the lack of airborne viral particles in air samples suggests that they were not aerosolized in a significant manner during air sampling sessions. The air samples were collected 8 to 30 days after the residents' symptom onset, which could indicate that viruses are aerosolized early in the infection process. Additional research is needed to evaluate viral viability conservation and the potential role of direct contact and aerosols in SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these institutions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Humans , Long-Term Care , Pandemics
4.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 9(1): 2597-2605, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-933803

ABSTRACT

The worldwide repercussions of COVID-19 sparked important research efforts, yet the detailed contribution of aerosols in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been elucidated. In an attempt to quantify viral aerosols in the environment of infected patients, we collected 100 air samples in acute care hospital rooms hosting 22 patients over the course of nearly two months using three different air sampling protocols. Quantification by RT-qPCR (ORF1b) led to 11 positive samples from 6 patient rooms (Ct < 40). Viral cultures were negative. No correlation was observed between particular symptoms, length of hospital stay, clinical parameters, and time since symptom onset and the detection of airborne viral RNA. Low detection rates in the hospital rooms may be attributable to the appropriate application of mitigation methods according to the risk control hierarchy, such as increased ventilation to 4.85 air changes per hour to create negative pressure rooms. Our work estimates the mean emission rate of patients and potential airborne concentration in the absence of ventilation. Additional research is needed understand aerosolization events occur, contributing factors, and how best to prevent them.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , COVID-19/virology , Hospitals , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Animals , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL