Quantification of aerosol dispersal from suspected aerosol-generating procedures.
Journal
ERJ open research
ISSN: 2312-0541
Titre abrégé: ERJ Open Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101671641
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
22
03
2021
accepted:
11
09
2021
entrez:
8
12
2021
pubmed:
9
12
2021
medline:
9
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Oxygen-delivering modalities like humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV) are suspected of generating aerosols that may contribute to transmission of disease such as coronavirus disease 2019. We sought to assess if these modalities lead to increased aerosol dispersal compared to the use of non-humidified low-flow nasal cannula oxygen treatment (LFNC). Aerosol dispersal from 20 healthy volunteers using HFNC, LFNC and NIV oxygen treatment was measured in a controlled chamber. We investigated effects related to coughing and using a surgical face mask in combination with the oxygen delivering modalities. An aerodynamic particle sizer measured aerosol particles (APS3321, 0.3-20 µm) directly in front of the subjects, while a mesh of smaller particle sensors (SPS30, 0.3-10 µm) was distributed in the test chamber. Non-productive coughing led to significant increases in particle dispersal close to the face when using LFNC and HFNC but not when using NIV. HFNC or NIV did not lead to a statistically significant increase in aerosol dispersal compared to LFNC. With non-productive cough in a room without air changes, there was a significant drop in particle levels between 100 cm and 180 cm from the subjects. Our results indicate that using HFNC and NIV does not lead to increased aerosol dispersal compared to low-flow oxygen treatment, except in rare cases. For a subject with non-productive cough, NIV with double-limb circuit and non-vented mask may be a favourable choice to reduce the risk for aerosol spread.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Oxygen-delivering modalities like humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV) are suspected of generating aerosols that may contribute to transmission of disease such as coronavirus disease 2019. We sought to assess if these modalities lead to increased aerosol dispersal compared to the use of non-humidified low-flow nasal cannula oxygen treatment (LFNC).
METHODS
METHODS
Aerosol dispersal from 20 healthy volunteers using HFNC, LFNC and NIV oxygen treatment was measured in a controlled chamber. We investigated effects related to coughing and using a surgical face mask in combination with the oxygen delivering modalities. An aerodynamic particle sizer measured aerosol particles (APS3321, 0.3-20 µm) directly in front of the subjects, while a mesh of smaller particle sensors (SPS30, 0.3-10 µm) was distributed in the test chamber.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Non-productive coughing led to significant increases in particle dispersal close to the face when using LFNC and HFNC but not when using NIV. HFNC or NIV did not lead to a statistically significant increase in aerosol dispersal compared to LFNC. With non-productive cough in a room without air changes, there was a significant drop in particle levels between 100 cm and 180 cm from the subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that using HFNC and NIV does not lead to increased aerosol dispersal compared to low-flow oxygen treatment, except in rare cases. For a subject with non-productive cough, NIV with double-limb circuit and non-vented mask may be a favourable choice to reduce the risk for aerosol spread.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34877350
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00206-2021
pii: 00206-2021
pmc: PMC8474485
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Informations de copyright
Copyright ©The authors 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: R. Strand-Amundsen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Tronstad has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: O. Elvebakk has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Martinsen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Dybwad has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Lingaas has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T.I. Tønnessen has nothing to disclose.
Références
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 May 21;:
pubmed: 32838370
Crit Care. 2021 Feb 11;25(1):58
pubmed: 33573680
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Oct 15;202(8):1115-1124
pubmed: 32822208
Respir Care. 2021 Jun;66(6):891-896
pubmed: 33536316
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 30;117(26):14857-14863
pubmed: 32527856
Environ Res. 2020 Sep;188:109819
pubmed: 32569870
Crit Care. 2021 Feb 27;25(1):89
pubmed: 33639973
Eur Respir J. 2020 May 14;55(5):
pubmed: 32299867
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Dec;46(12):2248-2251
pubmed: 33170330
Phys Fluids (1994). 2020 Oct 1;32(10):107108
pubmed: 33154612
ERJ Open Res. 2021 Jan 25;7(1):
pubmed: 33527076
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35797
pubmed: 22563403
Respir Med. 2021 May;181:106386
pubmed: 33836331
Eur Respir J. 2020 Oct 8;56(4):
pubmed: 32859677
J Hosp Infect. 2019 Jan;101(1):84-87
pubmed: 30336170
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Oct 1;202(7):1039-1042
pubmed: 32758000
Anaesthesia. 2021 Nov;76(11):1465-1474
pubmed: 33784793
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(7):443-9
pubmed: 22651099
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep;8(9):914-924
pubmed: 32717211