Dataset Information

Evaluation of face shields used during aerosol generating procedures.

ABSTRACT: Transnasal flexible laryngoscopy is considered an aerosol generating procedure. A negative pressure face shield (NPFS) was developed to control aerosol from the patient during laryngoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the NPFS at controlling virus aerosol compared to a standard disposable plastic face shield. The face shields were placed on a simulated patient coughing machine. MS2 bacteriophage was used as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 and was aerosolized using the coughing machine. The aerosolized virus was sampled on the inside and outside of the face shields. The virus aerosol concentration was not significantly different between the inside and outside of the traditional plastic face shield (p = 0.12). However, the particle concentrations across all particle sizes measured were significantly decreased outside the face shield. The virus and particle concentrations were significantly decreased (p < 0.01) outside the NPFS operating at a flow rate of 38.6 L per minute (LPM). When the NPFS was operated at 10 LPM, virus concentrations were not significantly different (p = 0.09) across the face shield. However, the number particle concentrations across all particle sizes measured were significantly different (p < 0.05).

SUBMITTER: Pratt AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10511466 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of face shields used during aerosol generating procedures.

Pratt Alessandra A AA Brown Grant D GD Walsh Jarrett E JE Hoffman Henry T HT Nonnenmann Matthew W MW

Scientific reports 20230920 1

Transnasal flexible laryngoscopy is considered an aerosol generating procedure. A negative pressure face shield (NPFS) was developed to control aerosol from the patient during laryngoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the NPFS at controlling virus aerosol compared to a standard disposable plastic face shield. The face shields were placed on a simulated patient coughing machine. MS2 bacteriophage was used as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 and was aerosolized using ...[more]

PMID: 37730888

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring medical procedures with the potential to produce aerosols such as bronchoscopy, intubation, or CPR, health-care workers (HCWs) may be exposed to infectious bioaerosols. This scenario is of particular concern when high consequence pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are circulating. Thousands of HCWs have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, the determinants of aerosol generation during medical procedures and their relative risk to HCWs remain poorly characterized.Research questionThe goal of this study was to characterize aerosols produced during airway intubation by using an uninfected translational animal model and in human subjects undergoing elective aerosol-generating procedures. The study also determined the particle size distribution of generated particles.Study design and methodsAerosol generation was measured during highly controlled experimental (pig) intubations (N = 16) and elective bronchoscopies in uninfected patients (N = 49) using an optical particle counter. Recovery of normal respiratory flora was used as a surrogate for pathogen dispersion.ResultsThere was a small but significant (P = .03) decrease in 0.3 μm size particles during highly controlled pig intubations compared with baseline. The concentration of 1.0 μm and 5.0 μm aerosol particles did not significantly change, although oral bacteria were collected from the air. For elective patient bronchoscopies, there was a significant decrease in the generation of larger particles (1.0 μm and 5.0 μm) compared with baseline (P < .01); however, 18 of 39 (46%) patients showed increased aerosol production in 0.3 μm size particles, four of whom exhibited measurable increases.InterpretationAlthough the total amount of aerosols produced during intubation and bronchoscopy did not increase significantly relative to preprocedural levels, a small number of participants exhibited a measurable increase in submicron particle emission, meriting further research to delineate determinants of fine particle production during aerosol-generating procedures.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study evaluated particle spread associated with various common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in simulated and clinical settings.Materials and methodsA simulation study visualized the aerosols, droplets, and splatter spread with and without high-volume suction (HVS, 325 L/min) during common dental AGPs, namely ultrasonic scaling, air flow prophylaxis, and implant drilling after fluorescein dye was added to the water irrigant as a tracer. Each procedure was repeated 10 times. A complementary clinical study measured the spread of contaminated particles within the dental operatory and quantified airborne protein dispersion following 10 min of ultrasonic supragingival scaling of 19 participants during routine periodontal treatment.ResultsThe simulation study data showed that air flow produced the highest amount of splatters and the ultrasonic scaler generated the most aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m away from the source. The use of HVS effectively reduced 37.5-96% of splatter generation for all three dental AGPs, as well as 82-93% of aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m for the ultrasonic scaler and air polisher. In the clinical study, higher protein levels above background levels following ultrasonic supragingival scaling were detected in fewer than 20% of patients, indicating minimal particle spread.ConclusionsWhile three common periodontal AGPs produce aerosols and droplet particles up to at least 1.2 m from the source, the use of HVS is of significant benefit. Routine ultrasonic supragingival scaling produced few detectable traces of salivary protein at various sites throughout the 10-min dental operatory.Clinical relevanceThe likelihood of aerosol spread to distant sites during common periodontal AGPs is greatly reduced by high-volume suction. Clinically, limited evidence of protein contaminants was found following routine ultrasonic scaling, suggesting that the the majority of the contamination consisits of the irrigant rather than organic matter from the oral cavity.

Project description:Health care workers are exposed to potentially infectious airborne particles while providing routine care to coughing patients. However, much is not understood about the behavior of these aerosols and the risks they pose. We used a coughing patient simulator and a breathing worker simulator to investigate the exposure of health care workers to cough aerosol droplets, and to examine the efficacy of face shields in reducing this exposure. Our results showed that 0.9% of the initial burst of aerosol from a cough can be inhaled by a worker 46 cm (18 inches) from the patient. During testing of an influenza-laden cough aerosol with a volume median diameter (VMD) of 8.5 μm, wearing a face shield reduced the inhalational exposure of the worker by 96% in the period immediately after a cough. The face shield also reduced the surface contamination of a respirator by 97%. When a smaller cough aerosol was used (VMD = 3.4 μm), the face shield was less effective, blocking only 68% of the cough and 76% of the surface contamination. In the period from 1 to 30 minutes after a cough, during which the aerosol had dispersed throughout the room and larger particles had settled, the face shield reduced aerosol inhalation by only 23%. Increasing the distance between the patient and worker to 183 cm (72 inches) reduced the exposure to influenza that occurred immediately after a cough by 92%. Our results show that health care workers can inhale infectious airborne particles while treating a coughing patient. Face shields can substantially reduce the short-term exposure of health care workers to large infectious aerosol particles, but smaller particles can remain airborne longer and flow around the face shield more easily to be inhaled. Thus, face shields provide a useful adjunct to respiratory protection for workers caring for patients with respiratory infections. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for respiratory protection when it is needed. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: tables of the experiments performed, more detailed information about the aerosol measurement methods, photographs of the experimental setup, and summaries of the experimental data from the aerosol measurement devices, the qPCR analysis, and the VPA.].

Dataset Information

Evaluation of face shields used during aerosol generating procedures.

Publications

Evaluation of face shields used during aerosol generating procedures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets