Variations in classroom ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from monitoring 36 naturally ventilated classrooms in the UK during 2021

Seasonal changes in the measured CO2 levels at four schools are herein presented through a set of indoor air quality metrics that were gathered during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Data from non-intrusive environmental monitoring units were remotely collected throughout 2021 from 36 naturally ventilated classrooms at two primary schools and two secondary schools in England. Measurements were analysed to assess the indoor CO2 concentration and temperature. Relative to UK school air quality guidance, the CO2 levels within classrooms remained relatively low during periods of warmer weather, with elevated CO2 levels being evident during the colder seasons, indicating lower levels of per person ventilation during these colder periods. However, CO2 data from the cold period during the latter part of 2021, imply that the per person classroom ventilation levels were significantly lower than those achieved during a similarly cold weather period during the early part of the year. Given that the classroom architecture and usage remained unchanged, this finding suggests that changes in the ventilation behaviours within the classrooms may have altered, and raises questions as to what may have given rise to such change, in a year when, messaging and public concerns regarding COVID-19 varied within the UK. Significant variations were observed when contrasting data, both between schools, and between classrooms within the same school building;suggesting that work is required to understand and catalogue the existing ventilation provisions and architecture within UK classrooms, and that more work is required to ascertain the effects of classroom ventilation behaviours. © 2022 The Author(s)

Practical Indicators for Risk of Airborne Transmission in Shared Indoor Environments and Their Application to COVID-19 Outbreaks.

Some infectious diseases, including COVID-19, can undergo airborne transmission. This may happen at close proximity, but as time indoors increases, infections can occur in shared room air despite distancing. We propose two indicators of infection risk for this situation, that is, relative risk parameter (Hr) and risk parameter (H). They combine the key factors that control airborne disease transmission indoors: virus-containing aerosol generation rate, breathing flow rate, masking and its quality, ventilation and aerosol-removal rates, number of occupants, and duration of exposure. COVID-19 outbreaks show a clear trend that is consistent with airborne infection and enable recommendations to minimize transmission risk. Transmission in typical prepandemic indoor spaces is highly sensitive to mitigation efforts. Previous outbreaks of measles, influenza, and tuberculosis were also assessed. Measles outbreaks occur at much lower risk parameter values than COVID-19, while tuberculosis outbreaks are observed at higher risk parameter values. Because both diseases are accepted as airborne, the fact that COVID-19 is less contagious than measles does not rule out airborne transmission. It is important that future outbreak reports include information on masking, ventilation and aerosol-removal rates, number of occupants, and duration of exposure, to investigate airborne transmission.

Predictive and retrospective modelling of airborne infection risk using monitored carbon dioxide

The risk of long range, herein ‘airborne', infection needs to be better understood and is especially urgent during the COVID-19 pandemic. We present a method to determine the relative risk of airborne transmission that can be readily deployed with either modelled or monitored CO2 data and occupancy levels within an indoor space. For spaces regularly, or consistently, occupied by the same group of people, e.g. an open-plan office or a school classroom, we establish protocols to assess the absolute risk of airborne infection of this regular attendance at work or school. We present a methodology to easily calculate the expected number of secondary infections arising from a regular attendee becoming infectious and remaining pre/asymptomatic within these spaces. We demonstrate our model by calculating risks for both a modelled open-plan office and by using monitored data recorded within a small naturally ventilated office. In addition, by inferring ventilation rates from monitored CO2, we show that estimates of airborne infection can be accurately reconstructed, thereby offering scope for more informed retrospective modelling should outbreaks occur in spaces where CO2 is monitored. Well-ventilated spaces appear unlikely to contribute significantly to airborne infection. However, even moderate changes to the conditions within the office, or new variants of the disease, typically result in more troubling predictions.

Why is mock care not a good proxy for predicting hand contamination during patient care?

BACKGROUND: Healthcare worker (HCW) behaviours, such as the sequence of their contacts with surfaces and hand hygiene moments, are important for understanding disease transmission. AIM: To propose a method for recording sequences of HCW behaviours during mock vs actual procedures, and to evaluate differences for use in infection risk modelling and staff training. METHODS: Procedures for three types of care were observed under mock and actual settings: intravenous (IV) drip care, observational care and doctors' rounds on a respiratory ward in a university teaching hospital. Contacts and hand hygiene behaviours were recorded in real-time using either a handheld tablet or video cameras. FINDINGS: Actual patient care demonstrated 70% more surface contacts than mock care. It was also 2.4 min longer than mock care, but equal in terms of patient contacts. On average, doctors' rounds took 7.5 min (2.5 min for mock care), whilst auxiliary nurses took 4.9 min for observational care (2.4 min for mock care). Registered nurses took 3.2 min for mock IV care and 3.8 min for actual IV care; this translated into a 44% increase in contacts. In 51% of actual care episodes and 37% of mock care episodes, hand hygiene was performed before patient contact; in comparison, 15% of staff delivering actual care performed hand hygiene after patient contact on leaving the room vs 22% for mock care. The number of overall touches in the patient room was a modest predictor of hand hygiene. Using a model to predict hand contamination from surface contacts for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and norovirus, mock care underestimated micro-organisms on hands by approximately 30%.