Quantifying the reduction of airborne infectious viral load using a ventilated patient hood.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers treating SARS-CoV-2 patients are at risk of infection by respiratory exposure to patient-emitted, virus-laden aerosols. Source control devices such as ventilated patient isolation hoods have been shown to limit the dissemination of non-infectious airborne particles in laboratory tests, but data on their performance in mitigating the airborne transmission risk of infectious viruses are lacking. AIM: We used an infectious airborne virus to quantify the ability of a ventilated hood to reduce infectious virus exposure in indoor environments. METHODS: We nebulized 109 plaque forming units (pfu) of bacteriophage PhiX174 virus into a ∼30-m3 room when the hood was active or inactive. The airborne concentration of infectious virus was measured by BioSpot-VIVAS and settle plates using plaque assay quantification on the bacterial host Escherichia coli C. The airborne particle number concentration (PNC) was also monitored continuously using an optical particle sizer. FINDINGS: The median airborne viral concentration in the room reached 1.41 × 105 pfu/m3 with the hood inactive. When active, the hood reduced infectious virus concentration in air samples by 374-fold. The deposition of infectious virus on the surface of settle plates was reduced by 87-fold. This was associated with a 109-fold reduction in total airborne particle number escape rate. CONCLUSION: A personal ventilation hood significantly reduced airborne particle escape, considerably lowering infectious virus contamination in an indoor environment. Our findings support the further development of source control devices to mitigate nosocomial infection risk among healthcare workers exposed to airborne viruses in clinical settings.

Vented Individual Patient (VIP) Hoods for the Control of Infectious Airborne Diseases in Healthcare Facilities.

By providing a means of separating the airborne emissions of patients from the air breathed by healthcare workers (HCWs), vented individual patient (VIP) hoods, a form of local exhaust ventilation (LEV), offer a new approach to reduce hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Results from recent studies have demonstrated that, for typical patient-emitted aerosols, VIP hoods provide protection at least equivalent to that of an N95 mask. Unlike a mask, hood performance can be easily monitored and HCWs can be alerted to failure by alarms. The appropriate use of these relatively simple devices could both reduce the reliance on personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection control and provide a low-cost and energy-efficient form of protection for hospitals and clinics. Although the development and deployment of VIP hoods has been accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, these devices are currently an immature technology. In this review, we describe the state of the art of VIP hoods and identify aspects in need of further development, both in terms of device design and the protocols associated with their use. The broader concept of individual patient hoods has the potential to be expanded beyond ventilation to the provision of clean conditions for individual patients and personalized control over other environmental factors such as temperature and humidity.

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.

Effectiveness of portable air filtration on reducing indoor aerosol transmission: preclinical observational trials.

BACKGROUND: While the range of possible transmission pathways of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in various settings has been investigated thoroughly, most authorities have recently acknowledged the role of aerosol spread in its transmission, especially in indoor environments where ventilation is poor. Engineering controls are needed to mitigate aerosol transmission in high-risk settings including hospital wards, classrooms and offices. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of aerosol filtration by portable air cleaning devices with high-efficiency particulate air filters used in addition to a standard building heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. METHODS: Test rooms, including a single-bed hospital room, were filled with test aerosol to simulate aerosol movement. Aerosol counts were measured over time with various portable air cleaning devices and room ventilation systems to quantify the overall aerosol clearance rate. FINDINGS: Portable air cleaning devices were very effective for removal of aerosols. The aerosols were cleared five times faster in a small control room with portable air cleaning devices than in the room with HVAC alone. The single-bed hospital room had an excellent ventilation rate (∼14 air changes per hour) and cleared the aerosols in 20 min. However, with the addition of two air cleaning devices, the clearance time was three times faster. CONCLUSIONS: Inexpensive portable air cleaning devices should be considered for small and enclosed spaces in healthcare settings, such as inpatient rooms and personal protective equipment donning/doffing stations. Portable air cleaning devices are particularly important where there is limited ability to reduce aerosol transmission with building HVAC ventilation.