Evaluation of shields and ventilation as a countermeasure to protect bus drivers from infection.

We evaluated the deposition of droplets and droplet nuclei-generated by simulated coughing and talking from three points in a bus-on the driver's face and on surfaces around the driver (e.g., the steering wheel), based on whether countermeasures were taken, and assuming that an infected passenger was talking to the driver. When a shield, such as acrylic boards or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheets, was used as the countermeasure, the deposition of artificial droplets (>4 µm), emitted from beside or behind the driver, on his eyes, mouth, and cheeks reduced by two to three orders of magnitude or more. Deposition on the surfaces around the driver was also reduced following the use of shields. For artificial droplet nuclei (1.3 µm of polystyrene latex (PSL)) emitted from atomizers beside the driver, the operation of the ventilation fan (VF) and air conditioner (AC), and defroster (DEF) greatly reduced the driver's exposure, while the use of the shield did not. The infection risk of the driver was estimated through exposure to the virus via transfer to the mucosa via hands or surface-to-finger, direct adhesion on the mucosa, and direct inhalation of droplets and droplet nuclei. This is under the assumption that the droplets and droplet nuclei measured in this study are 40% the diameter of those after immediately leaving the mouth of the infected person and are constant regardless of particle size. When using the shield, total infection risk via droplet, airborne, and contact transmission was decreased by 75.0-99.8%. When the shield was not installed, the infection risk decreased by 9.74-48.7% with the operation of the VF, AC, and/or DEF.

Investigation of the protection efficacy of face shields against aerosol cough droplets.

Simple plastic face shields have numerous practical advantages over regular surgical masks. In light of the spreading COVID-19 pandemic, the potential of face shields as a substitution for surgical masks was investigated. In order to determine the efficacy of the protective equipment we used a cough simulator. The protective equipment considered was placed on a manikin head that simulated human breathing. Concentration and size distribution of small particles that reached the manikin respiration pathways during the few tens of seconds following the cough event were monitored. Additionally, water sensitive papers were taped on the tested protective equipment and the manikin face. In the case of frontal exposure, for droplet diameter larger than 3 µm, the shield efficiency in blocking cough droplets was found to be comparable to that of regular surgical masks, with enhanced protection for portions of the face that the mask does not cover. Additionally, for finer particles, down to 0.3 µm diameter, a shield blocked about 10 times more fine particles than the surgical mask. When exposure from the side was considered, the performance of the shield was found to depend dramatically on its geometry. While a narrow shield allowed more droplets and aerosol to penetrate in comparison to a mask under the same configuration, a slightly wider shield significantly improved the performance. The source control potential of shields was also investigated. A shield, and alternatively, a surgical mask, were placed on the cough simulator, while the breathing simulator, situated 60 cm away in the jet direction, remained totally exposed. In both cases, no droplets or particles were found in the vicinity of the breathing simulator. Conducted experiments were limited to short time periods after expiratory events, and do not include longer time ranges associated with exposure to suspended aerosol. Thus, additional evidence regarding the risk posed by floating aerosol is needed to establish practical conclusions regarding actual transmittance reduction potential of face shields and surgical face masks.