Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
West J Emerg Med ; 22(5): 1045-1050, 2021 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405508

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has reinforced the importance of facial protection against droplet transmission of diseases. Healthcare workers wear personal protection equipment (PPE), including face shields and masks. Plastic face shields may have advantages over regular medical masks. Although many designs of face shields exist, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the efficacy of shield designs against droplet transmissions. There is even less published evidence comparing various face shields. Due to the urgency of the pandemic and the health and safety of healthcare workers, we aimed to study the efficacy of various face shields against droplet transmission. METHODS: We simulated droplet transmission via coughing using a heavy-duty chemical spray bottle filled with fluorescein. A standard-adult sized mannequin head was used. The mannequin head wore various face shields and was positioned to face the spray bottle at either a 0°, 45°, or 90° angle. The spray bottle was positioned at and sprayed from 30 centimeters (cm), 60 cm, or 90 cm away from the head. These steps were repeated for all face shields used. Control was a mannequin that wore no PPE. A basic mask was also tested. We collected data for particle count, total area of particle distribution, average particle size, and percentage area covered by particles. We analyzed percent covered by particles using a repeated measures mixed-model regression with Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison. RESULTS: We used least square means to estimate the percentage area covered by particles. Wearing PPE regardless of the design reduced particle transmission to the mannequin compared to the control. The LCG mask had the lowest square means of 0.06 of all face-shield designs analyzed. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparison showed that all PPEs had a decrease in particle contamination compared to the control. LCG shield was found to have the least contamination compared to all other masks (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results suggest the importance of wearing a protective covering against droplet transmission. The LCG shield was found to decrease facial contamination by droplets the most of any tested protective equipment.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cough , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Manikins , Masks/standards , Particle Size , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Journal of Animal Science ; 99:9-9, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1231714

ABSTRACT

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many Extension programs used web-based resources but balanced those with in-person events for interpersonal connection with producers and for individuals with limited access to technology. In 2020, in-person Extension programs were cancelled or converted to online versions. This was the case for the 'Alfalfa in the South' (AITS) program, a collaboration between Auburn University (AU) and University of Georgia (UGA). Two online AITS programs were held (May and Sept) and are examples of rethinking traditional models and optimizing resources to prioritize our commitment to clientele. In its first program, the program content was delivered through 1) a series of webinars from AU, UGA and University of Florida (UF) Extension Specialists (n = 6 webinars) and a 1-h live roundtable discussion held through Zoom on May 13, 2020. The roundtable consisted of a moderator interacting with five panelists (faculty, Extension agents and producers) answering live questions from the audience (n = 45 participants). All content was archived by the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES) for later access using online resources. The second program occurred in Sept 2020 as a collaboration between AU, UF and UGA Specialists. This program included several pre-recorded short videos and e-publications on topics in establishment and management of alfalfa in the South. In 2020, the web-metrics gathered for the ACES webpage and Youtube channel across these programs sums over 3000 views of alfalfa resources. Similarly, engagement on the AL Beef and Forage Extension Facebook pages were over 3000 people. Although a traditional formal post-programming survey was not conducted with participants, an online survey was distributed simultaneously in the south region (n = 12 states) from May through December 2020 aiming to identify main challenges and limitations of alfalfa adoption. The results (n = 212 respondents) showed approximately 65% participants already invested time in learning about alfalfa using Extension online programs and resources available. This shows increased importance of online outreach as a tool to maintain relevance and connection with clientele. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Animal Science is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL