Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv ; 34(5): 293-302, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440594

ABSTRACT

Background: The precaution of airborne transmission of viruses, such as influenza, SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, is essential for reducing infection. In this study, we applied a zero-valent nanosilver/titania-chitosan (nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS) filter bed, whose broad-spectrum antimicrobial efficacy has been proven previously, for the removal of viral aerosols to minimize the risk of airborne transmission. Methods: The photochemical deposition method was used to synthesize the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS antiviral material. The surface morphology, elemental composition, and microstructure of the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS were analyzed by a scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and a transmission electron microscopy, respectively. The MS2 bacteriophages were used as surrogate viral aerosols. The antiviral efficacy of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS was evaluated by the MS2 plaque reduction assay (PRA) and filtration experiments. In the filtration experiments, the MS2 aerosols passed through the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter, and the MS2 aerosol removal efficiency was evaluated by an optical particle counter and culture method. Results and Conclusions: In the MS2 PRA, 3 g of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS inactivated 97% of MS2 bacteriophages in 20 mL liquid culture (2 ± 0.5 × 1016 PFU/mL) within 2 hours. The removal efficiency of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter (thickness: 6 cm) for MS2 aerosols reached up to 93%. Over 95% of MS2 bacteriophages on the surface of the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter were inactivated within 20 minutes. The Wells-Riley model predicted that when the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter was used in the ventilation system, airborne infection probability would reduce from 99% to 34.6%. The nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter could remain at 50% of its original antiviral efficiency after continuous operation for 1 week, indicating its feasibility for the control of the airborne transmission.


Subject(s)
Air Filters , Air Microbiology , Chitosan/chemistry , Filtration/instrumentation , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Levivirus/isolation & purification , Metal Nanoparticles , Silver/chemistry , Titanium/chemistry , Aerosols , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Design , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Levivirus/pathogenicity , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
2.
Pak J Biol Sci ; 24(9): 920-927, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1431004

ABSTRACT

<b>Background and Objective:</b> COVID-19 is a fast-spreading worldwide pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization recommended wearing face masks. Masks have become an urgent necessity throughout the pandemic, the study's goal was to track the impact of wearing masks on immunological responses. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> This study was conducted on 40 healthy people who were working in health care at Nineveh Governorate Hospitals from September-December, 2020. They wore face masks at work for more than 8 months for an average of 6 hrs a day. The control sample included 40 healthy individuals, who wore masks for very short periods. All samples underwent immunological and physiological tests to research the effects of wearing masks for extended periods within these parameters. <b>Results:</b> The results showed a significant decrease in total White Blood Count and the absolute number of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes and phagocytic activity. However, there was a significant increase in the absolute number of eosinophils in participants compared with the control. The results also suggested there were no significant differences in IgE, haemoglobin concentration and blood O<sub>2 </sub>saturation in participants who wore masks for more than 6 hrs compared to the control group. The results showed a significant increase in pulse rate in participants who wore masks for more than 6 hrs compared to the control group. The results also showed a strong correlation coefficient between the time of wearing masks and some immunological, haematological parameters. <b>Conclusion:</b> Wearing masks for long periods alters immunological parameters that initiate the immune response, making the body weaker in its resistance to infectious agents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Leukocytes/immunology , Masks , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Phagocytes/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adult , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/transmission , Case-Control Studies , Female , Heart Rate , Hemoglobins/metabolism , Humans , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Leukocyte Count , Male , Masks/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Oxygen/blood , Personnel, Hospital , Phagocytosis , Time Factors
5.
J Med Virol ; 93(5): 2938-2946, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196525

ABSTRACT

Evidence in the literature suggests that air pollution exposure affects outcomes of patients with COVID-19. However, the extent of this effect requires further investigation. This study was designed to investigate the relationship between long-term exposure to air pollution and the case fatality rate (CFR) of patients with COVID-19. The data on air quality index (AQI), PM2.5, PM10, SO2 , NO2 , and O3 from 14 major cities in China in the past 5 years (2015-2020) were collected, and the CRF of COVID-19 patients in these cities was calculated. First, we investigated the correlation between CFR and long-term air quality indicators. Second, we examined the air pollutants affecting CFR and evaluated their predictive values. We found a positive correlation between the CFR and AQI (1, 3, and 5 years), PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years), and PM10 (1, 3, and 5 years). Further analysis indicated the more significant correlation for both AQI (3 and 5 years) and PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years) with CFR, and moderate predictive values for air pollution indicators such as AQI (1, 3, and 5 years) and PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years) for CFR. Our results indicate that long-term exposure to severe air pollution is associated with higher CFR of COVID-19 patients. Air pollutants such as PM2.5 may assist with the prediction of CFR for COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/analysis , Air Pollution/statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Cities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/analysis , Mortality , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv ; 34(5): 293-302, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149900

ABSTRACT

Background: The precaution of airborne transmission of viruses, such as influenza, SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, is essential for reducing infection. In this study, we applied a zero-valent nanosilver/titania-chitosan (nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS) filter bed, whose broad-spectrum antimicrobial efficacy has been proven previously, for the removal of viral aerosols to minimize the risk of airborne transmission. Methods: The photochemical deposition method was used to synthesize the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS antiviral material. The surface morphology, elemental composition, and microstructure of the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS were analyzed by a scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and a transmission electron microscopy, respectively. The MS2 bacteriophages were used as surrogate viral aerosols. The antiviral efficacy of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS was evaluated by the MS2 plaque reduction assay (PRA) and filtration experiments. In the filtration experiments, the MS2 aerosols passed through the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter, and the MS2 aerosol removal efficiency was evaluated by an optical particle counter and culture method. Results and Conclusions: In the MS2 PRA, 3 g of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS inactivated 97% of MS2 bacteriophages in 20 mL liquid culture (2 ± 0.5 × 1016 PFU/mL) within 2 hours. The removal efficiency of nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter (thickness: 6 cm) for MS2 aerosols reached up to 93%. Over 95% of MS2 bacteriophages on the surface of the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter were inactivated within 20 minutes. The Wells-Riley model predicted that when the nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter was used in the ventilation system, airborne infection probability would reduce from 99% to 34.6%. The nano-Ag0/TiO2-CS filter could remain at 50% of its original antiviral efficiency after continuous operation for 1 week, indicating its feasibility for the control of the airborne transmission.


Subject(s)
Air Filters , Air Microbiology , Chitosan/chemistry , Filtration/instrumentation , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Levivirus/isolation & purification , Metal Nanoparticles , Silver/chemistry , Titanium/chemistry , Aerosols , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Design , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Levivirus/pathogenicity , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
8.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 38-45, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124821

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place. RESULTS: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Manikins , Materials Testing , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health
9.
J Med Virol ; 93(5): 2938-2946, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1086484

ABSTRACT

Evidence in the literature suggests that air pollution exposure affects outcomes of patients with COVID-19. However, the extent of this effect requires further investigation. This study was designed to investigate the relationship between long-term exposure to air pollution and the case fatality rate (CFR) of patients with COVID-19. The data on air quality index (AQI), PM2.5, PM10, SO2 , NO2 , and O3 from 14 major cities in China in the past 5 years (2015-2020) were collected, and the CRF of COVID-19 patients in these cities was calculated. First, we investigated the correlation between CFR and long-term air quality indicators. Second, we examined the air pollutants affecting CFR and evaluated their predictive values. We found a positive correlation between the CFR and AQI (1, 3, and 5 years), PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years), and PM10 (1, 3, and 5 years). Further analysis indicated the more significant correlation for both AQI (3 and 5 years) and PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years) with CFR, and moderate predictive values for air pollution indicators such as AQI (1, 3, and 5 years) and PM2.5 (1, 3, and 5 years) for CFR. Our results indicate that long-term exposure to severe air pollution is associated with higher CFR of COVID-19 patients. Air pollutants such as PM2.5 may assist with the prediction of CFR for COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/analysis , Air Pollution/statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Cities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/analysis , Mortality , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 38-45, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999780

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place. RESULTS: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Manikins , Materials Testing , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health
11.
Respir Res ; 21(1): 327, 2020 Dec 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969948

ABSTRACT

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China in December 2019, it has been characterized as a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO). It was reported that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We present an outbreak among health-care workers incited by a doctor who cared a patient with COVID-19 in a Hospital in Wuhan, Hubei, China, which indicates existence of super-spreader even during incubation period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Carrier State , Infectious Disease Incubation Period , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , China , Female , Humans , Time Factors , Virulence
12.
Dermatol Ther ; 33(6): e14528, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917742

ABSTRACT

Given the current lack of a therapeutic vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), preventive measures including mask wearing are crucial in slowing the transmission of cases. However, prolonged wearing of protective respirators, medical and fabric masks can easily generate excessive sweating, moisture and friction. Closed and warm environments heighten the skin's permeability and sensitivity to physical or chemical irritants, leading to chronic cumulative irritant contact dermatitis or, rarely, even allergic contact dermatitis. Although not representing a life-threatening condition, contact dermatitis can have a significant impact on emergency management, as it is potentially able to reduce work performance and create emotional discomfort due to the involvement of evident body areas. To minimize the skin breakdown, adherence to standards on wearing protective and safe equipments and avoidance of overprotection should be performed. At the same time, some measures of skin care are recommended. Here, we offer some tips on how to prevent and manage contact dermatitis due to masks not only in health care workers, but also in the general population during this COVID-19 outbreak.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Contact/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Occupational/prevention & control , Facial Dermatoses/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Masks/adverse effects , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , Skin Care , Administration, Cutaneous , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Anti-Allergic Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/transmission , Dermatitis, Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/diagnosis , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Protective Factors , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
13.
Anesth Analg ; 131(5): 1342-1354, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-881133

ABSTRACT

Many health care systems around the world continue to struggle with large numbers of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, while others have diminishing numbers of cases following an initial surge. There will most likely be significant oscillations in numbers of cases for the foreseeable future, based on the regional epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Less affected hospitals and facilities will attempt to progressively resume elective procedures and surgery. Ramping up elective care in hospitals that deliberately curtailed elective care to focus on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients will present unique and serious challenges. Among the challenges will be protecting patients and providers from recurrent outbreaks of disease while increasing procedure throughput. Anesthesia providers will inevitably be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 by patients who have not been diagnosed with infection. This is particularly concerning in consideration that aerosols produced during airway management may be infective. In this article, we recommend an approach to routine anesthesia care in the setting of persistent but variable prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We make specific recommendations for personal protective equipment and for the conduct of anesthesia procedures and workflow based on evidence and expert opinion. We propose practical, relatively inexpensive precautions that can be applied to all patients undergoing anesthesia. Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread primarily by respiratory droplets and aerosols, effective masking of anesthesia providers is of paramount importance. Hospitals should follow the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for universal masking of all providers and patients within their facilities. Anesthesia providers should perform anesthetic care in respirator masks (such as N-95 and FFP-2) whenever possible, even when the SARS-CoV-2 test status of patients is negative. Attempting to screen patients for infection with SARS-CoV-2, while valuable, is not a substitute for respiratory protection of providers, as false-negative tests are possible and infected persons can be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Provision of adequate supplies of respirator masks and other respiratory protection equipment such as powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) should be a high priority for health care facilities and for government agencies. Eye protection is also necessary because of the possibility of infection from virus coming into contact with the conjunctiva. Because SARS-CoV-2 persists on surfaces and may cause infection by contact with fomites, hand hygiene and surface cleaning are also of paramount importance.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aerosols , Anesthesia/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices , Hand Hygiene , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Patient Safety , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Protective Factors , Respiratory Protective Devices , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Attire
14.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 2-14, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-810284

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
16.
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv ; 33(6): 300-304, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713331

ABSTRACT

National and international guidelines recommend droplet/airborne transmission and contact precautions for those caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in ambulatory and acute care settings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, an acute respiratory infectious agent, is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes. A recognized key to transmission of COVID-19, and droplet infections generally, is the dispersion of bioaerosols from the patient. Increased risk of transmission has been associated with aerosol generating procedures that include endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The knowledge that COVID-19 subjects can be asymptomatic and still shed virus, producing infectious droplets during breathing, suggests that health care workers (HCWs) should assume every patient is potentially infectious during this pandemic. Taking actions to reduce risk of transmission to HCWs is, therefore, a vital consideration for safe delivery of all medical aerosols. Guidelines for use of personal protective equipment (glove, gowns, masks, shield, and/or powered air purifying respiratory) during high-risk procedures are essential and should be considered for use with lower risk procedures such as administration of uncontaminated medical aerosols. Bioaerosols generated by infected patients are a major source of transmission for SARS CoV-2, and other infectious agents. In contrast, therapeutic aerosols do not add to the risk of disease transmission unless contaminated by patients or HCWs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
17.
Dermatol Ther ; 33(6): e13909, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-679808

ABSTRACT

Face masks wearing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic became ubiquitous. The aim of our study was to assess the use of face masks among young adults during the current viral pandemic. The survey was based on specially created Google Forms and posted on numerous Facebook groups for young people in Poland. Seven days were considered as a recall period. A total of 2315 answers were obtained, 2307 were finally analysis, as eight questionnaires were removed because of data incompleteness. 60.4% of responders declared using the face masks. Those who reported an atopic predisposition wore face masks significantly (P = .007) more commonly (65.5% and 57.7%, respectively). Cloth masks (46.2%) appeared to be most popular ones, followed by surgical masks (39.2%), respirators (N95 and FFP) (13.3%), half-face elastomeric respirators (0.8%) and full-face respirators (0.4%). Females significantly more frequently (P = .0001) used cloth masks; respirators, half-face elastomeric respirators and full-face respirators were used more commonly by males (P < .0001, P = .001 and P = .001, respectively). 23.9% of responders who used single-use mask wore it again. Moreover, 73.6% participants declared mask decontamination; however, the procedures were not always appropriate. We suggest that our results may be of help in construction of general public education campaigns on the proper use of face masks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Behavior , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Infection Control/instrumentation , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , Masks , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adolescent , Adult , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Decontamination , Disposable Equipment , Equipment Design , Equipment Reuse , Female , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Male , N95 Respirators , Poland , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
19.
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) ; 48(5): 496-499, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-623001

ABSTRACT

In late 2019, a new infectious disease (COVID-19) was identified in Wuhan, China, which has now turned into a global pandemic. Countries around the world have implemented some type of blockade to lessen their infection and mitigate it. The blockade due to COVID-19 has drastic effects on the social and economic fronts. However, recent data released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), European Space Agency (ESA), Copernicus Sentinel-5P Tropomi Instrument and Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) indicate that the pollution in some of the epicenters of COVID-19, such as Wuhan, Italy, Spain, USA, and Brazil, reduced by up to 30%. This study compiled the environmental data released by these centers and discussed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on environmental pollution.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Aerosols/adverse effects , Air Pollutants/adverse effects , Air Pollution/adverse effects , Air Pollution/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Global Health , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Pandemics/prevention & control , Particulate Matter/adverse effects , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL