Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces in Scottish hospitals.

BACKGROUND: There are still uncertainties in our knowledge of the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the environment; where it can be found, and potential exposure determinants, limiting our ability to effectively model and compare interventions for risk management. AIM: This study measured SARS-CoV-2 in three hospitals in Scotland on surfaces and air, alongside ventilation and patient care activities. METHODS: Air sampling at 200 L/min for 20 minutes and surface sampling were performed in two wards designated to treat COVID-19 -positive patients and two non-COVID-19 wards across three hospitals in November and December 2020. FINDINGS: Detectable samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found in COVID-19 treatment wards but not in non-COVID-19 wards. Most samples were below assay detection limits, but maximum concentrations reached 1.7x103 genomic copies/m3 in air and 1.9x104 copies per surface swab (3.2x102 copies/cm2 for surface loading). The estimated geometric mean air concentration (geometric standard deviation) across all hospitals was 0.41 (71) genomic copies/m3 and the corresponding values for surface contamination were 2.9 (29) copies/swab. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in non-patient areas (patient/visitor waiting rooms and personal protective equipment (PPE) changing areas) associated with COVID-19 treatment wards. CONCLUSIONS: Non-patient areas of the hospital may pose risks for infection transmission and further attention should be paid to these areas. Standardization of sampling methods will improve understanding of levels of environmental contamination. The pandemic has demonstrated a need to review and act upon the challenges of older hospital buildings meeting current ventilation guidance.

User acceptability of saliva and gargle samples for identifying COVID-19 positive high-risk workers and household contacts.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic nasopharyngeal or nose and/or throat swabs (NTS) have been the primary approach for collecting patient samples for the subsequent detection of viral RNA. However, this procedure, if undertaken correctly, can be unpleasant and therefore deters individuals from providing high quality samples. To overcome these limitations other modes of sample collection have been explored. In a cohort of frontline health care workers we have compared saliva and gargle samples to gold-standard NTS. 93% of individuals preferred providing saliva or gargle samples, with little sex-dependent variation. Viral titers collected in samples were analyzed using standard methods and showed that gargle and saliva were similarly comparable for identifying COVID-19 positive individuals compared to NTS (92% sensitivity; 98% specificity). We suggest that gargle and saliva collection are viable alternatives to NTS swabs and may encourage testing to provide better disease diagnosis and population surveillance.