Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.186
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0268974, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1885351

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease pandemic has raised concerns regarding the transmission of infections to healthcare workers. We developed a new protective device to reduce the risk of aerosol diffusion and droplet infection among healthcare workers. Here, we report the results of a theoretical evaluation of the efficacy of this device. METHODS: We used suction-capable masks with and without rubber slits, sleeves for the insertion section of endoscopes and treatment tools, and a cover for the control section of the endoscope. To simulate droplet spread from patients, we created a droplet simulation model and an aerosol simulation model. The results with and without the devices attached and with and without the suction were compared. RESULTS: The droplet simulation model showed a 95% reduction in droplets with masks with rubber slits; furthermore, a reduction of 100% was observed when the insertion sleeve was used. Evaluation of aerosol simulation when suction was applied revealed an aerosol reduction of 98% and >99% with the use of the mask without rubber slits and with the combined use of the mask and insertion sleeve, respectively. The elimination of droplet emission upon instrument removal confirmed that the instrument sleeve prevented the diffusion of droplets. The elimination of droplets upon repeated pressing of the suction button confirmed that the cover prevented the diffusion of droplets. CONCLUSION: We developed a device for infection control, in collaboration with a gastrointestinal endoscopist and Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, that was effective in reducing droplet and aerosol diffusion in this initial theoretical assessment.


Subject(s)
Otolaryngology , Rubber , Aerosols , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Protective Devices
2.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 2-14, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140282

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an extraordinary demand for N95 and similarly rated filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) that remains unmet due to limited stock, production constraints, and logistics. Interest in decontamination and reuse of FFR, a product class designed for single use in health care settings, has undergone a parallel surge due to shortages. A worthwhile decontamination method must provide effective inactivation of the targeted pathogen(s), and preserve particle filtration, mask fit, and safety for a subsequent user. This discussion reviews the background of the current shortage, classification, structure, and functional aspects of FFR, and potentially effective decontamination methods along with reference websites for those seeking updated information and guidance. The most promising techniques utilize heat, hydrogen peroxide, microwave-generated steam, or ultraviolet light. Many require special or repurposed equipment and a detailed operational roadmap specific to each setting. While limited, research is growing. There is significant variation between models with regard to the ability to withstand decontamination yet remain protective. The number of times an individual respirator can be reused is often limited by its ability to maintain a tight fit after multiple uses rather than by the decontamination method itself. There is no single solution for all settings; each individual or institution must choose according to their need, capability, and available resources. As the current pandemic is expected to continue for months to years, and the possibility of future airborne biologic threats persists, the need for plentiful, effective respiratory protection is stimulating research and innovation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Decontamination , Equipment Contamination , Equipment Reuse , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , N95 Respirators/virology , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
3.
Virol J ; 19(1): 189, 2022 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115806

ABSTRACT

The term, "aerosol-generating procedures" (AGPs), was proposed during the prior SARS-CoV-1 epidemic in order to maximise healthcare worker and patient protection. The concept of AGPs has since expanded to include routine therapeutic processes such as various modes of oxygen delivery and non-invasive ventilation modalities. Evidence gained during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought into question the concept of AGPs with regard to intubation, airway management, non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal oxygen delivery. Although encounters where these procedures occur may still be associated with increased risk of infectious transmission, this is a function of the clinical context and not because the procedure itself is aerosol-generating.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Language , COVID-19/prevention & control , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Health Personnel , Oxygen
5.
G Ital Med Lav Ergon ; 44(1): 32-40, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2101747

ABSTRACT

SUMMARY: SARS-CoV-2-related infection can determine hospital-acquired infections among patients and healthcare workers. Aim of this paper was to review the literature for developing a strategy for protecting healthcare workers, patients, and visitors by COVID-19 hospital infection. A critical and rapid revision of the literature and international standards and Regulations on this topic allowed us to propose an evidencebased strategy in the framework of the workplace risk assessment for preventing nosocomial COVID-19 outbreaks. The virus' high transmissibility, the high prevalence of asymptomatic carriers and false-negative Covid-19 rates on naso- and oropharingeal swabs, put hospitals at high-risk of COVID-19 outbreaks. A comprehensive strategy based on standard precautions, administrative, environmental, and engineering controls, a screening protocol for patients on their admission to hospital, and a testing-based strategy for HCWs within health surveillance programs may prevent the onset of hospital outbreaks, which are a threat to community, patients and HCWs, compromising the sustainability of healthcare facilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infection Control , Health Personnel , Hospitals
6.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 18230, 2022 Oct 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096798

ABSTRACT

Healthcare providers are vulnerable to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) because of their close proximity to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted via direct and indirect contact with respiratory droplets, and its airborne transmission has also been identified. However, evidence for environmental factors is scarce, and evidence-based measures to minimize the risk of infection in clinical settings are insufficient. Using computational fluid dynamics, we simulated exhalation of large and small aerosol particles by patients in an otolaryngology examination room, where medical procedures require the removal of a face mask. The effects of coughing were analyzed, as well as those of humidity as a controllable environmental factor and of a suction device as an effective control method. Our results show that a suction device can minimize aerosol exposure of healthcare workers by efficiently removing both large (11.6-98.2%) and small (39.3-99.9%) aerosol particles. However, for coughing patients, the removal efficiency varies inversely with the particle size, and the humidity notably affects the aerosol behavior, indicating the need for countermeasures against smaller aerosols. Overall, these results highlight the potential and limitation of using a suction device to protect against SARS-CoV-2 and future respiratory infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Infection Control , Cough , Hospitals
9.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(7): 820-825, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096308

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common viruses. Early isolation and containment is challenging. Although screening all patients with respiratory symptoms for COVID-19 has been recommended, the practicality of such an effort has yet to be assessed. METHODS: Over a 6-week period during a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, our institution introduced a "respiratory surveillance ward" (RSW) to segregate all patients with respiratory symptoms in designated areas, where appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) could be utilized until SARS-CoV-2 testing was done. Patients could be transferred when SARS-CoV-2 tests were negative on 2 consecutive occasions, 24 hours apart. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1,178 patients were admitted to the RSWs. The mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.89 days (SD, 1.23). Among confirmed cases of pneumonia admitted to the RSW, 5 of 310 patients (1.61%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding was comparable to the pickup rate from our isolation ward. In total, 126 HCWs were potentially exposed to these cases; however, only 3 (2.38%) required quarantine because most used appropriate PPE. In addition, 13 inpatients overlapped with the index cases during their stay in the RSW; of these 13 exposed inpatients, 1 patient subsequently developed COVID-19 after exposure. No patient-HCW transmission was detected despite intensive surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution successfully utilized the strategy of an RSW over a 6-week period to contain a cluster of COVID-19 cases and to prevent patient-HCW transmission. However, this method was resource-intensive in terms of testing and bed capacity.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/transmission , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Patient Isolation , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Population Surveillance/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Early Diagnosis , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patients' Rooms/organization & administration , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Symptom Assessment , Tertiary Care Centers
13.
Front Public Health ; 10: 978590, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2089937

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents significantly among healthcare workers (HCWs). The study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of PPE-related adverse skin reactions among HCWs working at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based online survey was conducted during April to June 2021 which recorded demographic information, details of PPE use and adverse skin reactions including severity and duration of onset of symptoms. Results: Most of the respondents used PPE for consecutive days (77.9%), 1-6 h/day (59.2%), and more than a year (62.5%). Fewer than half of the participants (45.6%) experienced adverse skin reactions from the use of PPE. The reactions were mostly observed in the cheeks (40.4%) and nose bridges (35.6%). Females had more reactions than their male counterparts (p = 0.003). The use of N95 masks and a combination of surgical and N95 masks produced adverse effects predominantly in the ears (60%) and cheeks (56.4%). Binary logistic regression showed that female HCWs (OR = 5.720 95% CI: 1.631, 20.063), doctors (OR = 5.215 95% CI: 0.877, 31.002), and longer duration of PPE use (>1 year) (OR = 2.902 95% CI: 0.958, 8.787) caused a significantly higher prevalence of adverse skin reactions. Conclusion: The PPE-related skin reactions were common among HCWs which mainly occurred due to prolonged use. Preventive measures inclusive of appropriate training of HCWs on the use of PPE are recommended to minimize these adverse events.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Male , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Barbados/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel
15.
Cent Eur J Public Health ; 30(3): 201-204, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2081265

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the analysis was to determine the probable places of coronavirus transmission in association with the work and compare the situation between 2020 and 2021. METHODS: The work analysed data from the Information System of Infectious Diseases managed by the Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic in the period from March 2020 - December 2021. RESULTS: 2,483,219 COVID-19 cases were officially confirmed (732,202 during 2020 and 1,338,790 in 2021), from them 140,368 (6%) represented work-related disease, 520,830 cases (21%) work-related contact, and 1,822,021 (73%) out-of-work contact. There were identified 13 occupations with the highest incidence of COVID-19 in the observed period (458,341 cases), in descending order - clerk, machinist, teacher, craftsman, worker/agency worker, driver, sales worker/cashier, warehouse worker/expediter, nurse, manager, food worker, paramedic, and social worker. Comparing 2020 and 2021, there was a difference in the ranking of occupations by incidence of disease. In 2021, the risk of infection acquiring increased for the occupations clerk, machinist, craftsman, worker/agency worker, manager, and food worker, while it decreased for the health professions (nurse, other paramedic, physician) and for social worker; 5,514 cases of COVID-19 were recognized as an occupational disease in 2020 and 2021, from them 5,483 cases (99.4%) in the health and social care economic activity sector. CONCLUSION: The available data show probable exposures to an infectious agent (without proof of specific contact with the source of the infection), of which 27% cases of COVID-19 are related to work (cases of work-related disease and work-related contact represented together the closest relationship to work). Different relevant anti-epidemic measures in the workplace have considerable practical importance for epidemic control. The use of personal protection of the mouth and nose with respirators/muffs is essential to reduce the risk of airborne transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Diseases , COVID-19/epidemiology , Czech Republic/epidemiology , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Arch Prev Riesgos Labor ; 25(4): 379-395, 2022 10 17.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2080982

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to ensure risk-based protection when there is a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the beginning of the pandemic, it was suggested that PPE were necessary to protect HCWs from COVID-19. However, given supply shortage, PPE had to be replaced in some situations. Three levels of protection were established depending on the risk level of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Best practices were reviewed and analysed, and subsequently implemented in all hospitals in Catalonia. As the first COVID-19 wave progressed, we became more knowledgeable with the behaviour of the virus, so PPE procedure tables and algorithms were modified and adapted to the changing scenarios. After airborne transmission was demonstrated as the main route of the virus transmission, we emphasized new measures to ensure respiratory tract protection. RESULTS: Three general tables were established based on low, medium, and high risk of infection for HCWs. These three scenarios are a subgroup of the very high-risk category, according to OSHA's pyramid of SARS-CoV-2 risk characterization. The most appropriate PPE for each task or job were identified and alternatives were given amid the shortage of PPE. CONCLUSIONS: Specific PPE are required for the healthcare sector. Many studies on PPE are based on the characteristics of industrial jobs, and do not consider the specificities of the healthcare sector, which requires close and prolonged contact with patients.


OBJETIVOS: Los trabajadores sanitarios de primera línea tienen un alto riesgo de infección por SARS-CoV-2. El objetivo de este estudio es garantizar la protección según el nivel riesgo cuando falta el equipo de protección personal (EPI). Métodos: Al comienzo de la pandemia, se sugirió que el EPI era necesario para proteger a los trabajadores de la salud del COVID-19; pero dada la escasez, el EPI tuvo que ser reemplazado en algunos escenarios. Se establecieron tres niveles de protección dependiendo del nivel de riesgo de exposición al SARS-CoV-2. Se analizaron las mejores prácticas para su posterior implantación en todos los hospitales de Cataluña. A medida que avanzaba la primera ola, nos familiarizamos mejor con el comportamiento del virus y los procedimientos en formato de tablas se modificaron y adaptaron a los nuevos escenarios. Se produjo un punto de inflexión después de que se confirmara que la mayoría de las infecciones se debían a la transmisión por vía aérea. Este avance mostró la importancia de identificar nuevas medidas que pudieran garantizar la protección de las vías respiratorias. RESULTADOS: Se han establecido tres tablas generales con según el riesgo bajo, medio y alto de contagio de los trabajadores de la salud. Estos tres escenarios son un subgrupo de la categoría de riesgo muy alto, de acuerdo con la pirámide de caracterización del riesgo de SARS-CoV-2 de OSHA. Se ha identificado el EPI más adecuado para cada tarea o trabajo y se han dado alternativas ante la escasez de EPI. CONCLUSIONES: Se requieren EPI específicos para el sector sanitario. Muchos estudios realizados sobre EPI se basan en las características de los trabajos industriales y no consideran las especificidades del sector sanitario, que requiere un contacto cercano y prolongado con los pacientes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Health Personnel
17.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 96(5): 735-742.e3, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2049224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. METHODS: A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. RESULTS: In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. CONCLUSIONS: Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal
18.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 16654, 2022 Oct 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2050549

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-has caused a global public health emergency. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is the primary defence against viral exposure in healthcare and community settings. However, the surfaces of PPE materials may trap virus for contact transmission or through laden aerosols generated during removal of PPE, through cleaning or during movement. In this study, the relative efficacy of current PPE materials in terms of virion adsorption to materials and their antiviral potency, has been evaluated on a wide range of PPE for the first time, including four polymer glove types, two types of scrubs, apron material, a mask, visor and a selection of other commercial polymers and products. Although differences in virion adsorption to the test materials were observed, none of the existing polymer-based PPE resulted in more than tenfold reduction in the SARS-CoV-2 titre within either 10 min or 30 min contact period. The wettability and surface chemistry of the test materials were analysed to investigate any correlations with their surface physicochemical properties. While no correlation was found between wettability and viral retention under air flow challenge, one secondary ion of m/z 101.03 (+) and three secondary ions of m/z 31.98 (-), 196.93 (-) and 394.33 (+) in ToF-SIMS data of the test materials showed positive and negative correlations with the viral retention, respectively, which was identified by PLS regression model, suggesting that the surface chemistry plays a role in determining the extent of virion adsorption. Our findings outline the material aspects that influence the efficacy of current PPE against SARS-CoV-2 transmission and give suggestions on the development of novel simple polymer-based PPE for better infection protection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Antiviral Agents , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Polymers , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Dent Med Probl ; 59(3): 351-356, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2040503

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with the provision of multiple guidelines for the dental profession. All elective procedures were restricted, and only emergency procedures were performed. There was fear and anxiety among dentists while performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), as they were considered to pose a high risk of COVID-19 transmission. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during AGPs, and to examine the association between risk severity and the number of AGPs performed per day. The efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) was also assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study was based on an online questionnaire form completed by 629 general and specialized dentists between January 1 and February 28, 2021. The collected data referred to the sources of COVID-19 infection, the type of PPE used and the number of AGPs performed each day by dental healthcare professionals (DHCPs). For each question, the absolute numbers of responses as well as percentages were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 629 DHCPs, 113 (17.97%) contracted COVID-19. The risk of contracting COVID-19 during AGPs was the same as in the case of non-AGPs, and the infection risk was not associated with the number of AGPs performed per day. The efficacy of a surgical mask with a face shield/eye goggles was higher in comparison with all other types of PPE. Differences in the infection risk across the different types of PPE used were statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of COVID-19 transmission during AGPs is the same as in the case of non-AGPs. Thus, restrictions on the performance of elective AGPs should be lifted. On the other hand, the best protection during AGPs is provided by a surgical mask with a face shield/eye goggles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2
20.
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0273194, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2039397

ABSTRACT

Severe viral respiratory diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2, are transmitted through aerosol particles produced by coughing, talking, and breathing. Medical procedures including tracheal intubation, extubation, dental work, and any procedure involving close contact with a patient's airways can increase exposure to infectious aerosol particles. This presents a significant risk for viral exposure of nearby healthcare workers during and following patient care. Previous studies have examined the effectiveness of plastic enclosures for trapping aerosol particles and protecting health-care workers. However, many of these enclosures are expensive or are burdensome for healthcare workers to work with. In this study, a low-cost plastic enclosure was designed to reduce aerosol spread and viral transmission during medical procedures, while also alleviating issues found in the design and use of other medical enclosures to contain aerosols. This enclosure is fabricated from clear polycarbonate for maximum visibility. A large single-side cutout provides health care providers with ease of access to the patient with a separate cutout for equipment access. A survey of medical providers in a local hospital network demonstrated their approval of the enclosure's ease of use and design. The enclosure with appropriate plastic covers reduced total escaped particle number concentrations (diameter > 0.01 µm) by over 93% at 8 cm away from all openings. Concentration decay experiments indicated that the enclosure without active suction should be left on the patient for 15-20 minutes following a tracheal manipulation to allow sufficient time for >90% of aerosol particles to settle upon interior surfaces. This decreases to 5 minutes when 30 LPM suction is applied. This enclosure is an inexpensive, easily implemented additional layer of protection that can be used to help contain infectious or otherwise potentially hazardous aerosol particles while providing access into the enclosure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Aerosolized Particles and Droplets , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Plastics , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL