Dataset Information

Effectiveness of portable air filtration on reducing indoor aerosol transmission: preclinical observational trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While the range of possible transmission pathways of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in various settings has been investigated thoroughly, most authorities have recently acknowledged the role of aerosol spread in its transmission, especially in indoor environments where ventilation is poor. Engineering controls are needed to mitigate aerosol transmission in high-risk settings including hospital wards, classrooms and offices.

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of aerosol filtration by portable air cleaning devices with high-efficiency particulate air filters used in addition to a standard building heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.

Methods

Test rooms, including a single-bed hospital room, were filled with test aerosol to simulate aerosol movement. Aerosol counts were measured over time with various portable air cleaning devices and room ventilation systems to quantify the overall aerosol clearance rate.

Findings

Portable air cleaning devices were very effective for removal of aerosols. The aerosols were cleared five times faster in a small control room with portable air cleaning devices than in the room with HVAC alone. The single-bed hospital room had an excellent ventilation rate (∼14 air changes per hour) and cleared the aerosols in 20 min. However, with the addition of two air cleaning devices, the clearance time was three times faster.

Conclusions

Inexpensive portable air cleaning devices should be considered for small and enclosed spaces in healthcare settings, such as inpatient rooms and personal protective equipment donning/doffing stations. Portable air cleaning devices are particularly important where there is limited ability to reduce aerosol transmission with building HVAC ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Lee JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481008 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The Reducing Air Pollution in Detroit Intervention Study (RAPIDS) was designed to evaluate cardiovascular health benefits and personal fine particulate matter (particulate matter < 2.5 μm in diameter, PM2.5) exposure reductions via portable air filtration units (PAFs) among older adults in Detroit, Michigan. This double-blind randomized crossover intervention study has shown that, compared to sham, air filtration for 3 days decreased 3-day average brachial systolic blood pressure by 3.2 mmHg. The results also showed that commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs mitigated median indoor PM2.5 concentrations by 58% and 65%, respectively. However, to our knowledge, no health intervention study in which a significant positive health effect was observed has also evaluated how outdoor and indoor PM2.5 sources impacted the subjects. With that in mind, detailed characterization of outdoor and indoor PM2.5 samples collected during this study and a source apportionment analysis of those samples using a positive matrix factorization model were completed. The aims of this most recent work were to characterize the indoor and outdoor sources of the PM2.5 this community was exposed to and to assess how effectively commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs were able to reduce indoor and outdoor PM2.5 source contributions. Methods: Approximately 24 h daily indoor and outdoor PM2.5 samples were collected on Teflon and Quartz filters from the apartments of 40 study subjects during each 3-day intervention period. These filters were analyzed for mass, carbon, and trace elements. Environmental Protection Agency Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 5.0 was utilized to determine major emission sources that contributed to the outdoor and indoor PM2.5 levels during this study. Results: The major sources of outdoor PM2.5 were secondary aerosols (28%), traffic/urban dust (24%), iron/steel industries (15%), sewage/municipal incineration (10%), and oil combustion/refinery (6%). The major sources of indoor PM2.5 were organic compounds (45%), traffic + sewage/municipal incineration (14%), secondary aerosols (13%), smoking (7%), and urban dust (2%). Infiltration of outdoor PM2.5 for sham, HEPA-type, and true HEPA air filtration was 79 ± 24%, 61 ± 32%, and 51 ± 34%, respectively. Conclusions: The results from our study showed that intervention with PAFs was able to significantly decrease indoor PM2.5 derived from outdoor and indoor PM2.5 sources. The PAFs were also able to significantly reduce the infiltration of outdoor PM2.5. The results of this study provide insights into what types of major PM2.5 sources this community is exposed to and what degree of air quality and systolic blood pressure improvements are possible through the use of commercially available PAFs in a real-world setting.

Project description:IntroductionDirect emissions of nicotine and harmful chemicals from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been intensively studied, but secondhand and thirdhand e-cigarette aerosol (THA) exposures in indoor environments are understudied.Aims and methodsIndoor CO2, NO2, particulate matter (PM2.5), aldehydes, and airborne nicotine were measured in five vape-shops to assess secondhand exposures. Nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines were measured on vape-shop surfaces and materials (glass, paper, clothing, rubber, and fur ball) placed in the vape-shops (14 days) to study thirdhand exposures.ResultsAirborne PM2.5, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and nicotine concentrations during shop opening hours were 21, 3.3, 4.0, and 3.8 times higher than the levels during shop closing hours, respectively. PM2.5 concentrations were correlated with the number of e-cigarette users present in vape-shops (ρ = 0.366-0.761, p < .001). Surface nicotine, 4-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-4-(3-pyridyl)butanal (NNA), and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) were also detected at levels of 223.6 ± 313.2 µg/m2, 4.78 ± 11.8 ng/m2, and 44.8 ± 102.3 ng/m2, respectively. Substantial amounts of nicotine (up to 2073 µg/m2) deposited on the materials placed within the vape-shops, and NNA (up to 474.4 ng/m2) and NNK (up to 184.0 ng/m2) were also formed on these materials. The deposited nicotine concentrations were strongly correlated with the median number of active vapers present in a vape-shop per hour (ρ = 0.894-0.949, p = .04-.051). NNK levels on the material surfaces were significantly associated with surface nicotine levels (ρ=0.645, p = .037).ConclusionsIndoor vaping leads to secondhand and THA exposures. Thirdhand exposures induced by e-cigarette vaping are comparable or higher than that induced by cigarette smoking. Long-term studies in various microenvironments are needed to improve our understanding of secondhand and THA exposures.ImplicationsThis study adds new convincing evidence that e-cigarette vaping can cause secondhand and THA exposures. Our findings can inform Occupational Safety and Health Administration, state authorities, and other government agencies regarding indoor air policies related to e-cigarette use, particularly in vape-shops. There is an urgent need to ensure that vape-shops maintain suitable ventilation systems and cleaning practices to protect customers, employees, and bystanders. Our study also demonstrates that nicotine can deposit or be adsorbed on baby's clothes and toys, and that tobacco-specific nitrosamines can form and retain on baby's clothes, highlighting children's exposure to environmental e-cigarette aerosol and THA at home is of a particular concern.