Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T14:46:21.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of virus aerosol concentrations across a face shield worn on a healthcare personnel during a simulated patient cough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2023

Alessandra A. Pratt Open the ORCID record for Alessandra A. Pratt [Opens in a new window] ,
Grant D. Brown Open the ORCID record for Grant D. Brown [Opens in a new window] ,
Eli N. Perencevich ,
Daniel J. Diekema  and
Matthew W. Nonnenmann
Alessandra A. Pratt*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Iowa City, Iowa Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa
Grant D. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Eli N. Perencevich
Affiliation:
Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Daniel J. Diekema
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Department of Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland Maine
Matthew W. Nonnenmann
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental, Agricultural and Occupational Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
*
Corresponding author: Alessandra Pratt; Email: Alessandra.Pratt@va.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aerosolize severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via respiratory efforts, expose, and possibly infect healthcare personnel (HCP). To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 HCP have been required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during patient care. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, face shields were used as an approach to control HCP exposure to SARS-CoV-2, including eye protection.

Methods:

An MS2 bacteriophage was used as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 and was aerosolized using a coughing machine. A simulated HCP wearing a disposable plastic face shield was placed 0.41 m (16 inches) away from the coughing machine. The aerosolized virus was sampled using SKC biosamplers on the inside (near the mouth of the simulated HCP) and the outside of the face shield. The aerosolized virus collected by the SKC Biosampler was analyzed using a viability assay. Optical particle counters (OPCs) were placed next to the biosamplers to measure the particle concentration.

Results:

There was a statistically significant reduction (P < .0006) in viable virus concentration on the inside of the face shield compared to the outside of the face shield. The particle concentration was significantly lower on the inside of the face shield compared to the outside of the face shield for 12 of the 16 particle sizes measured (P < .05).

Conclusions:

Reductions in virus and particle concentrations were observed on the inside of the face shield; however, viable virus was measured on the inside of the face shield, in the breathing zone of the HCP. Therefore, other exposure control methods need to be used to prevent transmission from virus aerosol.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , February 2024 , pp. 221 - 226
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Van Damme, W, Dahake, R, van de Pas, R, Vanham, G, Assefa, Y. COVID-19: does the infectious inoculum dose–response relationship contribute to understanding heterogeneity in disease severity and transmission dynamics? Med Hypoth 2021;146:110431.10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setti, L, Passarini, F, de Gennaro, G, et al. Airborne transmission route of COVID-19: why 2 meters/6 feet of inter-personal distance could not be enough. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:2932.10.3390/ijerph17082932CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhee, C, Baker, MA, Klompas, M. Survey of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control policies at leading US academic hospitals in the context of the initial pandemic surge of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023;44:597–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsley, WG, King, WP, Thewlis, RE, et al. Dispersion and exposure to a cough-generated aerosol in a simulated medical examination room. J Occupat Environ Hyg 2012;9:681–690.10.1080/15459624.2012.725986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C, Fu, S, Chao, CY. Short-range bioaerosol deposition and recovery of viable viruses and bacteria on surfaces from a cough and implications for respiratory disease transmission. Aerosol Sci Technol 2021;55:215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bae, J, Schwab, KJ. Evaluation of murine norovirus, feline calicivirus, poliovirus, and MS2 as surrogates for human norovirus in a model of viral persistence in surface water and groundwater. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastin, G, Galmiche, A, Talfournier, F, et al. Aerobic conditions and endogenous reactive oxygen species reduce the production of infectious MS2 phage by Escherichia coli . Viruses 2021;13:1376.10.3390/v13071376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, D, et al. Survival of viruses on fresh produce, using MS2 as a surrogate for norovirus. J Appl Microbiol 2005;98:203–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sala-Comorera, L, et al. Decay of infectious SARS-CoV-2 and surrogates in aquatic environments. Water Res 2021:117090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langlet, J, Gaboriaud, F, Gantzer, C. Effects of pH on plaque-forming unit counts and aggregation of MS2 bacteriophage. J Appl Microbiol 2007;103:1632–1638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baer, A, Kehn-Hall, K. Viral concentration determination through plaque assays: using traditional and novel overlay systems. J Visual Exper 2014:e52065.Google ScholarPubMed
Letizia, AG, Smith, DR, Ge, Y, et al. Viable virus shedding during SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Lancet Respir Med 2021;9:e56–e57.10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00219-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dustdecoder 11-D portable aerosol spectrometer, model no. 11-D Durag Group website. https://www.grimm-aerosol.com/products-en/dust-monitors/the-dust-decoder/11-d/. Accessed June 20, 2023.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y, Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc B (Method) 1995;57:289–300.10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsley, WG, et al. Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol 2021;55:449–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberge, RJ. Face shields for infection control: a review. J Occupat Environ Hyg 2016;13:235–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, M, et al. Bench evaluation: three face-shield CPR barrier devices. Respir Care 1995;40:618–623.Google ScholarPubMed
Personal protective equipment (PPE): coaching and training frontline healthcare professionals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/strive/PPE103-508.pdf. Accessed June 2023.Google Scholar
Valegård, K, et al. The three-dimensional structure of the bacterial virus MS2. Nature 1990;345:36–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed