Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0258151, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443858

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few studies have quantified aerosol concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals and long-term care homes, and fewer still have examined samples for viability. This information is needed to clarify transmission risks beyond close contact. METHODS: We deployed particulate air samplers in rooms with COVID-19 positive patients in hospital ward and ICU rooms, rooms in long-term care homes experiencing outbreaks, and a correctional facility experiencing an outbreak. Samplers were placed between 2 and 3 meters from the patient. Aerosol (small liquid particles suspended in air) samples were collected onto gelatin filters by Ultrasonic Personal Air Samplers (UPAS) fitted with <2.5µm (micrometer) and <10 µm size-selective inlets operated for 16 hours (total 1.92m3), and with a Coriolis Biosampler over 10 minutes (total 1.5m3). Samples were assayed for viable SARS-CoV-2 virus and for the viral genome by multiplex PCR using the E and N protein target sequences. We validated the sampling methods by inoculating gelatin filters with viable vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), and with three concentrations of viable SARS-CoV-2, operating personal samplers for 16hrs, and quantifying viable virus recovery by TCID50 assay. RESULTS: In total, 138 samples were collected from 99 rooms. RNA samples were positive in 9.1% (6/66) of samples obtained with the UPAS 2.5µm samplers, 13.5% (7/52) with the UPAS 10µm samplers, and 10.0% (2/20) samples obtained with the Coriolis samplers. Culturable virus was not recovered in any samples. Viral RNA was detected in 15.1% of the rooms sampled. There was no significant difference in viral RNA recovery between the different room locations or samplers. Method development experiments indicated minimal loss of SARS-CoV-2 viability via the personal air sampler operation.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/isolation & purification , Air Microbiology , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Animals , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Chlorocebus aethiops , Hospitals , Humans , Long-Term Care , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Vero Cells
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(18)2021 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430860

ABSTRACT

Wildfire smoke exposure is associated with a range of acute health outcomes, which can be more severe in individuals with underlying health conditions. Currently, there is limited information on the susceptibility of healthcare facilities to smoke infiltration. As part of a larger study to address this gap, a rehabilitation facility in Vancouver, Canada was outfitted with one outdoor and seven indoor low-cost fine particulate matter (PM2.5) sensors in Air Quality Eggs (EGG) during the summer of 2020. Raw measurements were calibrated using temperature, relative humidity, and dew point derived from the EGG data. The infiltration coefficient was quantified using a distributed lag model. Indoor concentrations during the smoke episode were elevated throughout the building, though non-uniformly. After censoring indoor-only peaks, the average infiltration coefficient (range) during typical days was 0.32 (0.22-0.39), compared with 0.37 (0.31-0.47) during the smoke episode, a 19% increase on average. Indoor PM2.5 concentrations quickly reflected outdoor conditions during and after the smoke episode. It is unclear whether these results will be generalizable to other years due to COVID-related changes to building operations, but some of the safety protocols may offer valuable lessons for future wildfire seasons. For example, points of building entry and exit were reduced from eight to two during the pandemic, which likely helped to protect the building from wildfire smoke infiltration. Overall, these results demonstrate the utility of indoor low-cost sensors in understanding the impacts of extreme smoke events on facilities where highly susceptible individuals are present. Furthermore, they highlight the need to employ interventions that enhance indoor air quality in such facilities during smoke events.


Subject(s)
Air Pollutants , Air Pollution, Indoor , COVID-19 , Wildfires , Air Pollutants/analysis , Air Pollution, Indoor/analysis , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Inpatients , Particulate Matter/analysis , SARS-CoV-2 , Smoke/analysis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL