Efficacy of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) for source control of simulated respiratory aerosols.

BACKGROUND: Loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are a popular alternative to the use of filtering facepiece respirators for health care workers. Although PAPRs protect the wearer from aerosol particles, their ability to block infectious aerosol particles exhaled by the wearer from being released into the environment (called source control) is unclear. METHODS: The source control performance of 4 PAPRs with loose-fitting facepieces were tested using a manikin that exhales aerosol particles. The PAPRs were tested by themselves and in combination with a face-worn product intended to provide source control (either a surgical mask or an N95 filtering facepiece respirator). RESULTS: Two PAPR facepieces with filtration panels significantly reduced the release of exhaled aerosols into the environment, while 3 facepieces without such panels did not. Wearing a surgical mask or respirator under the facepiece significantly improved the source control performance. CONCLUSIONS: Most PAPR facepieces do not block aerosols exhaled by the wearer. Facepieces designed to filter exhaled particles can prevent aerosols from being released into the environment. Wearing a surgical mask or a filtering facepiece respirator under the facepiece can also provide source control, but PAPRs are not typically certified for use with masks and respirators.

Constant vs. cyclic flow when testing face masks and respirators as source control devices for simulated respiratory aerosols.

SARS-CoV-2 spreads by infectious aerosols and droplets from the respiratory tract. Masks and respirators can reduce the transmission of infectious respiratory diseases by collecting these aerosols at the source. The ability of source control devices to block aerosols can be tested by expelling an aerosol through a headform using constant airflows, which are simpler, or cyclic airflows, which are more realistic but require more complex methods. Experiments with respirators found that using cyclic vs. constant flows affected the amount of aerosol inhaled, but similar comparisons have not been made for source control devices with exhaled aerosols. We measured the collection efficiencies for exhaled aerosols for two cloth masks, two medical masks with and without an elastic mask brace, a neck gaiter, and an N95 filtering facepiece respirator using 15 L/min and 85 L/min constant and cyclic flows and a headform with pliable skin. The collection efficiencies for the 15 L/min cyclic flow, 15 L/min constant flow, and 85 L/min constant flow were not significantly different in most cases. The apparent collection efficiencies for the 85 L/min cyclic flow were artificially increased by rebreathing and refiltration of the aerosol from the collection chamber. The collection efficiencies correlated well with the fit factors (ρ > 0.95) but not the filtration efficiencies (ρ < 0.54). Our results suggest that the aerosol collection efficiency measurements of source control devices are comparable when testing the devices using either constant or cyclic airflows and that the potential for aerosol rebreathing must be considered when conducting experiments.

Efficacy of Do-It-Yourself air filtration units in reducing exposure to simulated respiratory aerosols.

Many respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, can be spread by aerosols expelled by infected people when they cough, talk, sing, or exhale. Exposure to these aerosols indoors can be reduced by portable air filtration units (air cleaners). Homemade or Do-It-Yourself (DIY) air filtration units are a popular alternative to commercially produced devices, but performance data is limited. Our study used a speaker-audience model to examine the efficacy of two popular types of DIY air filtration units, the Corsi-Rosenthal cube and a modified Ford air filtration unit, in reducing exposure to simulated respiratory aerosols within a mock classroom. Experiments were conducted using four breathing simulators at different locations in the room, one acting as the respiratory aerosol source and three as recipients. Optical particle spectrometers monitored simulated respiratory aerosol particles (0.3-3 µm) as they dispersed throughout the room. Using two DIY cubes (in the front and back of the room) increased the air change rate as much as 12.4 over room ventilation, depending on filter thickness and fan airflow. Using multiple linear regression, each unit increase of air change reduced exposure by 10%. Increasing the number of filters, filter thickness, and fan airflow significantly enhanced the air change rate, which resulted in exposure reductions of up to 73%. Our results show DIY air filtration units can be an effective means of reducing aerosol exposure. However, they also show performance of DIY units can vary considerably depending upon their design, construction, and positioning, and users should be mindful of these limitations.

Reduction of exposure to simulated respiratory aerosols using ventilation, physical distancing, and universal masking.

To limit community spread of SARS-CoV-2, CDC recommends universal masking indoors, maintaining 1.8 m of physical distancing, adequate ventilation, and avoiding crowded indoor spaces. Several studies have examined the independent influence of each control strategy in mitigating transmission in isolation, yet controls are often implemented concomitantly within an indoor environment. To address the influence of physical distancing, universal masking, and ventilation on very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particle exposure, a simulator that coughed and exhaled aerosols (the source) and a second breathing simulator (the recipient) were placed in an exposure chamber. When controlling for the other two mitigation strategies, universal masking with 3-ply cotton masks reduced exposure to 0.3-3 µm coughed and exhaled aerosol particles by >77% compared to unmasked tests, whereas physical distancing (0.9 or 1.8 m) significantly changed exposure to cough but not exhaled aerosols. The effectiveness of ventilation depended upon the respiratory activity, that is, coughing or breathing, as well as the duration of exposure time. Our results demonstrate that a layered mitigation strategy approach of administrative and engineering controls can reduce personal inhalation exposure to potentially infectious very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles within an indoor environment.

Face mask fit modifications that improve source control performance.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are used as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols from infected people. Modifications such as mask braces, earloop straps, knotting and tucking, and double masking have been proposed to improve mask fit however the data on source control are limited. METHODS: The effectiveness of mask fit modifications was determined by conducting fit tests on human subjects and simulator manikins and by performing simulated coughs and exhalations using a source control measurement system. RESULTS: Medical masks without modification blocked ≥56% of cough aerosols and ≥42% of exhaled aerosols. Modifying fit by crossing the earloops or placing a bracket under the mask did not increase performance, while using earloop toggles, an earloop strap, and knotting and tucking the mask increased performance. The most effective modifications for improving source control performance were double masking and using a mask brace. Placing a cloth mask over a medical mask blocked ≥85% of cough aerosols and ≥91% of exhaled aerosols. Placing a brace over a medical mask blocked ≥95% of cough aerosols and ≥99% of exhaled aerosols. CONCLUSIONS: Fit modifications can greatly improve the performance of face masks as source control devices for respiratory aerosols.

Efficacy of Ventilation, HEPA Air Cleaners, Universal Masking, and Physical Distancing for Reducing Exposure to Simulated Exhaled Aerosols in a Meeting Room.

There is strong evidence associating the indoor environment with transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 can spread by exposure to droplets and very fine aerosol particles from respiratory fluids that are released by infected persons. Layered mitigation strategies, including but not limited to maintaining physical distancing, adequate ventilation, universal masking, avoiding overcrowding, and vaccination, have shown to be effective in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within the indoor environment. Here, we examine the effect of mitigation strategies on reducing the risk of exposure to simulated respiratory aerosol particles within a classroom-style meeting room. To quantify exposure of uninfected individuals (Recipients), surrogate respiratory aerosol particles were generated by a breathing simulator with a headform (Source) that mimicked breath exhalations. Recipients, represented by three breathing simulators with manikin headforms, were placed in a meeting room and affixed with optical particle counters to measure 0.3-3 µm aerosol particles. Universal masking of all breathing simulators with a 3-ply cotton mask reduced aerosol exposure by 50% or more compared to scenarios with simulators unmasked. While evaluating the effect of Source placement, Recipients had the highest exposure at 0.9 m in a face-to-face orientation. Ventilation reduced exposure by approximately 5% per unit increase in air change per hour (ACH), irrespective of whether increases in ACH were by the HVAC system or portable HEPA air cleaners. The results demonstrate that mitigation strategies, such as universal masking and increasing ventilation, reduce personal exposure to respiratory aerosols within a meeting room. While universal masking remains a key component of a layered mitigation strategy of exposure reduction, increasing ventilation via system HVAC or portable HEPA air cleaners further reduces exposure.

Efficacy of Portable Air Cleaners and Masking for Reducing Indoor Exposure to Simulated Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 Aerosols - United States, 2021.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be spread by exposure to droplets and aerosols of respiratory fluids that are released by infected persons when they cough, sing, talk, or exhale. To reduce indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between persons, CDC recommends measures including physical distancing, universal masking (the use of face masks in public places by everyone who is not fully vaccinated), and increased room ventilation (1). Ventilation systems can be supplemented with portable high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) cleaners* to reduce the number of infectious particles in the air and provide enhanced protection from transmission between persons (2); two recent reports found that HEPA air cleaners in classrooms could reduce overall aerosol particle concentrations by ≥80% within 30 minutes (3,4). To investigate the effectiveness of portable HEPA air cleaners and universal masking at reducing exposure to exhaled aerosol particles, the investigation team used respiratory simulators to mimic a person with COVID-19 and other, uninfected persons in a conference room. The addition of two HEPA air cleaners that met the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended clean air delivery rate (CADR) (5) reduced overall exposure to simulated exhaled aerosol particles by up to 65% without universal masking. Without the HEPA air cleaners, universal masking reduced the combined mean aerosol concentration by 72%. The combination of the two HEPA air cleaners and universal masking reduced overall exposure by up to 90%. The HEPA air cleaners were most effective when they were close to the aerosol source. These findings suggest that portable HEPA air cleaners can reduce exposure to SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in indoor environments, with greater reductions in exposure occurring when used in combination with universal masking.

Efficacy of universal masking for source control and personal protection from simulated cough and exhaled aerosols in a room.

Face masks reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols produced during coughs and exhalations ("source control"). Factors such as the directions in which people are facing (orientation) and separation distance also affect aerosol dispersion. However, it is not clear how the combined effects of masking, orientation, and distance affect the exposure of individuals to respiratory aerosols in indoor spaces. We placed a respiratory aerosol simulator ("source") and a breathing simulator ("recipient") in a 3 m × 3 m chamber and measured aerosol concentrations for different combinations of masking, orientation, and separation distance. When the simulators were front-to-front during coughing, masks reduced the 15-min mean aerosol concentration at the recipient by 92% at 0.9 and 1.8 m separation. When the simulators were side-by-side, masks reduced the concentration by 81% at 0.9 m and 78% at 1.8 m. During breathing, masks reduced the aerosol concentration by 66% when front-to-front and 76% when side-by-side at 0.9 m. Similar results were seen at 1.8 m. When the simulators were unmasked, changing the orientations from front-to-front to side-by-side reduced the cough aerosol concentration by 59% at 0.9 m and 60% at 1.8 m. When both simulators were masked, changing the orientations did not significantly change the concentration at either distance during coughing or breathing. Increasing the distance between the simulators from 0.9 m to 1.8 m during coughing reduced the aerosol concentration by 25% when no masks were worn but had little effect when both simulators were masked. During breathing, when neither simulator was masked, increasing the separation reduced the concentration by 13%, which approached significance, while the change was not significant when both source and recipient were masked. Our results show that universal masking reduces exposure to respiratory aerosol particles regardless of the orientation and separation distance between the source and recipient.

Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks to Improve Performance and Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Exposure, 2021.

Universal masking is one of the prevention strategies recommended by CDC to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). As of February 1, 2021, 38 states and the District of Columbia had universal masking mandates. Mask wearing has also been mandated by executive order for federal property* as well as on domestic and international transportation conveyances.† Masks substantially reduce exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected wearers and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers to these particles. Cloth masks§ and medical procedure masks¶ fit more loosely than do respirators (e.g., N95 facepieces). The effectiveness of cloth and medical procedure masks can be improved by ensuring that they are well fitted to the contours of the face to prevent leakage of air around the masks' edges. During January 2021, CDC conducted experimental simulations using pliable elastomeric source and receiver headforms to assess the extent to which two modifications to medical procedure masks, 1) wearing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask (double masking) and 2) knotting the ear loops of a medical procedure mask where they attach to the mask's edges and then tucking in and flattening the extra material close to the face (knotted and tucked masks), could improve the fit of these masks and reduce the receiver's exposure to an aerosol of simulated respiratory droplet particles of the size considered most important for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. The receiver's exposure was maximally reduced (>95%) when the source and receiver were fitted with modified medical procedure masks. These laboratory-based experiments highlight the importance of good fit to optimize mask performance. Until vaccine-induced population immunity is achieved, universal masking is a highly effective means to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2** when combined with other protective measures, such as physical distancing, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and good hand hygiene. Innovative efforts to improve the fit of cloth and medical procedure masks to enhance their performance merit attention.

A comparison of performance metrics for cloth face masks as source control devices for simulated cough and exhalation aerosols.

Universal mask wearing is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help control the spread of COVID-19. Masks reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols (called source control) and offer some protection to the wearer. However, masks vary greatly in their designs and construction materials, and it is not clear which are most effective. Our study tested 15 reusable cloth masks (which included face masks, neck gaiters, and bandanas), two medical masks, and two N95 filtering facepiece respirators as source control devices for aerosols ≤ 7 µm produced during simulated coughing and exhalation. These measurements were compared with the mask filtration efficiencies, airflow resistances, and fit factors. The source control collection efficiencies for the cloth masks ranged from 17% to 71% for coughing and 35% to 66% for exhalation. The filtration efficiencies of the cloth masks ranged from 1.4% to 98%, while the fit factors were 1.3 to 7.4 on an elastomeric manikin headform and 1.0 to 4.0 on human test subjects. The correlation coefficients between the source control efficacies and the other performance metrics ranged from 0.31 to 0.66 and were significant in all but one case. However, none of the alternative metrics were strong predictors of the source control performance of cloth masks. Our results suggest that a better understanding of the relationships between source control performance and metrics like filtration efficiency, airflow resistance, and fit factor are needed to develop simple methods to estimate the effectiveness of masks as source control devices for respiratory aerosols.

A comparison of performance metrics for cloth masks as source control devices for simulated cough and exhalation aerosols.

Universal mask wearing is recommended to help control the spread of COVID-19. Masks reduce the expulsion of aerosols of respiratory fluids into the environment (called source control) and offer some protection to the wearer. Masks are often characterized using filtration efficiency, airflow resistance, and manikin or human fit factors, which are standard metrics used for personal protective devices. However, none of these metrics are direct measurements of how effectively a mask blocks coughed and exhaled aerosols. We studied the source control performance of 15 cloth masks (face masks, neck gaiters, and bandanas), two medical masks, and two N95 filtering facepiece respirators by measuring their ability to block aerosols ≤ 7 µm expelled during simulated coughing and exhalation (called source control collection efficiency). These measurements were compared with filtration efficiencies, airflow resistances, and fit factors measured on manikin headforms and humans. Collection efficiencies for the cloth masks ranged from 17% to 71% for coughing and 35% to 66% for exhalation. Filtration efficiencies for the cloth masks ranged from 1.4% to 98%, while the fit factors were 1.3 to 7.4 on headforms and 1.0 to 4.0 on human subjects. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between the source control collection efficiencies and the standard metrics ranged from 0.03 to 0.68 and were significant in all but two cases. However, none of the standard metrics were strongly correlated with source control performance. A better understanding of the relationships between source control collection efficiency, filtration efficiency, airflow resistance, and fit factor is needed.

Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols.

Face masks are recommended to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. One of the primary benefits of face masks and other coverings is as source control devices to reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols during coughing, breathing, and speaking. Face shields and neck gaiters have been proposed as an alternative to face masks, but information about face shields and neck gaiters as source control devices is limited. We used a cough aerosol simulator with a pliable skin headform to propel small aerosol particles (0 to 7 µm) into different face coverings. An N95 respirator blocked 99% (standard deviation (SD) 0.3%) of the cough aerosol, a medical grade procedure mask blocked 59% (SD 6.9%), a 3-ply cotton cloth face mask blocked 51% (SD 7.7%), and a polyester neck gaiter blocked 47% (SD 7.5%) as a single layer and 60% (SD 7.2%) when folded into a double layer. In contrast, the face shield blocked 2% (SD 15.3%) of the cough aerosol. Our results suggest that face masks and neck gaiters are preferable to face shields as source control devices for cough aerosols.

Topical exposure to triclosan inhibits Th1 immune responses and reduces T cells responding to influenza infection in mice.

Healthcare workers concurrently may be at a higher risk of developing respiratory infections and allergic disease, such as asthma, than the general public. Increased incidence of allergic diseases is thought to be caused, in part, due to occupational exposure to chemicals that induce or augment Th2 immune responses. However, whether exposure to these chemical antimicrobials can influence immune responses to respiratory pathogens is unknown. Here, we use a BALB/c murine model to test if the Th2-promoting antimicrobial chemical triclosan influences immune responses to influenza A virus. Mice were dermally exposed to 2% triclosan for 7 days prior to infection with a sub-lethal dose of mouse adapted PR8 A(H1N1) virus (50 pfu); triclosan exposure continued until 10 days post infection (dpi). Infected mice exposed to triclosan did not show an increase in morbidity or mortality, and viral titers were unchanged. Assessment of T cell responses at 10 dpi showed a decrease in the number of total and activated (CD44hi) CD4+ and CD8+ T cells at the site of infection (BAL and lung) in triclosan exposed mice compared to controls. Influenza-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were assessed using MHCI and MHCII tetramers, with reduced populations, although not reaching statistical significance at these sites following triclosan exposure. Reductions in the Th1 transcription factor T-bet were seen in both activated and tetramer+ CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the lungs of triclosan exposed infected mice, indicating reduced Th1 polarization and providing a potential mechanism for numerical reduction in T cells. Overall, these results indicate that the immune environment induced by triclosan exposure has the potential to influence the developing immune response to a respiratory viral infection and may have implications for healthcare workers who may be at an increased risk for developing infectious diseases.

Efficacy of an ambulance ventilation system in reducing EMS worker exposure to airborne particles from a patient cough aerosol simulator.

The protection of emergency medical service (EMS) workers from airborne disease transmission is important during routine transport of patients with infectious respiratory illnesses and would be critical during a pandemic of a disease such as influenza. However, few studies have examined the effectiveness of ambulance ventilation systems at reducing EMS worker exposure to airborne particles (aerosols). In our study, a cough aerosol simulator mimicking a coughing patient with an infectious respiratory illness was placed on a patient cot in an ambulance. The concentration and dispersion of cough aerosol particles were measured for 15 min at locations corresponding to likely positions of an EMS worker treating the patient. Experiments were performed with the patient cot at an angle of 0° (horizontal), 30°, and 60°, and with the ambulance ventilation system set to 0, 5, and 12 air changes/hour (ACH). Our results showed that increasing the air change rate significantly reduced the airborne particle concentration (p < 0.001). Increasing the air change rate from 0 to 5 ACH reduced the mean aerosol concentration by 34% (SD = 19%) overall, while increasing it from 0 to 12 ACH reduced the concentration by 68% (SD = 9%). Changing the cot angle also affected the concentration (p < 0.001), but the effect was more modest, especially at 5 and 12 ACH. Contrary to our expectations, the aerosol concentrations at the different worker positions were not significantly different (p < 0.556). Flow visualization experiments showed that the ventilation system created a recirculation pattern which helped disperse the aerosol particles throughout the compartment, reducing the effectiveness of the system. Our findings indicate that the ambulance ventilation system reduced but did not eliminate worker exposure to infectious aerosol particles. Aerosol exposures were not significantly different at different locations within the compartment, including locations behind and beside the patient. Improved ventilation system designs with smoother and more unidirectional airflows could provide better worker protection.

Survival of Staphylococcus aureus on the outer shell of fire fighter turnout gear after sanitation in a commercial washer/extractor.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus contamination on surfaces including turnout gear had been found throughout a number of fire stations. As such, the outer shell barrier of turnout gear jackets may be an indirect transmission source and proper disinfection is essential to reduce the risk of exposure to fire fighters. Cleaning practices vary considerably among fire stations, and a method to assess disinfection of gear washed in commercial washer/extractors is needed. METHODS: Swatches (1 in. ×  1.5 in.) of the outer shell fabrics, Gemini™, Advance™, and Pioneer™, of turnout gear were inoculated with S. aureus, and washed with an Environmental Protection Agency-registered sanitizer commonly used to wash turnout gear. To initially assess the sanitizer, inoculated swatches were washed in small tubes according to the American Society for Testing Materials E2274 Protocol for evaluating laundry sanitizers. Inoculated swatches were also pinned to turnout gear jackets and washed in a Milnor commercial washer/extractor. Viable S. aureus that remained attached to fabric swatches after washing were recovered and quantified. Scanning Electron Microscopy was used to characterize the stages of S. aureus biofilm formation on the swatches that can result in resistance to disinfection. RESULTS: Disinfection in small tubes for only 10 s reduced the viability of S. aureus on Gemini™, Advance™, and Pioneer™ by 73, 99, and 100%, respectively. In contrast, disinfection of S. aureus-contaminated Gemini™ swatches pinned to turnout gear and washed in the washer/extractor was 99.7% effective. Scanning Electron Microscopy showed that biofilm formation begins as early as 5 h after attachment of S. aureus. CONCLUSION: This sanitizer and, likely, others containing the anti-microbial agent didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, is an effective disinfectant of S. aureus. Inclusion of contaminated outer shell swatches in the wash cycle affords a simple and quantitative method to assess sanitization of gear by commercial gear cleaning facilities. This methodology can be extended to assess for other bacterial contaminants. Sanitizer-resistant strains will continue to pose problems, and biofilm formation may affect the cleanliness of the washed turnout gear. Our methodology for assessing effectiveness of disinfection may help reduce the occupational exposure to fire fighters from bacterial contaminants.

Assessment of environmental and surgical mask contamination at a student health center - 2012-2013 influenza season.

Increased understanding of influenza transmission is critical for pandemic planning and selecting appropriate controls for healthcare personnel safety and health. The goals of this pilot study were to assess environmental contamination in different areas and at two time periods in the influenza season and to determine the feasibility of using surgical mask contamination to evaluate potential exposure to influenza virus. Bioaerosol samples were collected over 12 days (two 6-day sessions) at 12 locations within a student health center using portable two-stage bioaerosol samplers operating 8 hr each day. Surface samples were collected each morning and afternoon from common high-contact non-porous hard surfaces from rooms and locations where bioaerosol samplers were located. Surgical masks worn by participants while in contact with patients with influenza-like illness were collected. A questionnaire administered to each of the 12 participants at the end of each workday and another at the end of each workweek assessed influenza-like illness symptoms, estimated the number of influenza-like illness patient contacts, hand hygiene, and surgical mask usage. All samples were analyzed using qPCR. Over the 12 days of the study, three of the 127 (2.4%) bioaerosol samples, 2 of 483 (0.41%) surface samples, and 0 of 54 surgical masks were positive for influenza virus. For the duration of contact that occurred with an influenza patient on any of the 12 days, nurse practitioners and physicians reported contacts with influenza-like illness patients >60 min, medical assistants reported 15-44 min, and administrative staff reported <30 min. Given the limited number of bioaerosol and surface samples positive for influenza virus in the bioaerosol and surface samples, the absence of influenza virus on the surgical masks provides inconclusive evidence for the potential to use surgical masks to assess exposure to influenza viruses. Further studies are needed to determine feasibility of this approach in assessing healthcare personnel exposures. Information learned in this study can inform future field studies on influenza transmission.

Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at significantly higher risk of exposure to influenza virus during seasonal epidemics and global pandemics. During the 2009 influenza pandemic, some healthcare organizations recommended that HCWs wear respiratory protection such as filtering facepiece respirators, while others indicated that facemasks such as surgical masks (SMs) were sufficient. To assess the level of exposure a HCW may possibly encounter, the aim of this study was to (1.) evaluate if SMs and N95 respirators can serve as "personal bioaerosol samplers" for influenza virus and (2.) determine if SMs and N95 respirators contaminated by influenza laden aerosols can serve as a source of infectious virus for indirect contact transmission. This effort is part of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 5-year multidisciplinary study to determine the routes of influenza transmission in healthcare settings. A coughing simulator was programmed to cough aerosol particles containing influenza virus over a wide concentration range into an aerosol exposure simulation chamber virus/L of exam room air), and a breathing simulator was used to collect virus on either a SM or N95 respirator. Extraction buffers containing nonionic and anionic detergents as well as various protein additives were used to recover influenza virus from the masks and respirators. The inclusion of 0.1% SDS resulted in maximal influenza RNA recovery (41.3%) but with a complete loss of infectivity whereas inclusion of 0.1% bovine serum albumin resulted in reduced RNA recovery (6.8%) but maximal retention of virus infectivity (17.9%). Our results show that a HCW's potential exposure to airborne influenza virus can be assessed in part through analysis of their SMs and N95 respirators, which can effectively serve as personal bioaerosol samplers.

Detection of an avian lineage influenza A(H7N2) virus in air and surface samples at a New York City feline quarantine facility.

BACKGROUND: In December 2016, an outbreak of low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) A(H7N2) occurred in cats at a New York City animal shelter and quickly spread to other shelters in New York and Pennsylvania. The A(H7N2) virus also spread to an attending veterinarian. In response, 500 cats were transferred from these shelters to a temporary quarantine facility for continued monitoring and treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the occupational risk of A(H7N2) exposure among emergency response workers at the feline quarantine facility. METHODS: Aerosol and surface samples were collected from inside and outside the isolation zones of the quarantine facility. Samples were screened for A(H7N2) by quantitative RT-PCR and analyzed in embryonated chicken eggs for infectious virus. RESULTS: H7N2 virus was detected by RT-PCR in 28 of 29 aerosol samples collected in the high-risk isolation (hot) zone with 70.9% on particles with aerodynamic diameters >4 µm, 27.7% in 1-4 µm, and 1.4% in <1 µm. Seventeen of 22 surface samples from the high-risk isolation zone were also H7N2 positive with an average M1 copy number of 1.3 × 103 . Passage of aerosol and surface samples in eggs confirmed that infectious virus was present throughout the high-risk zones in the quarantine facility. CONCLUSIONS: By measuring particle size, distribution, and infectivity, our study suggests that the A(H7N2) virus had the potential to spread by airborne transmission and/or direct contact with viral-laden fomites. These results warranted continued A(H7N2) surveillance and transmission-based precautions during the treatment and care of infected cats.

Inhibition of influenza A virus matrix and nonstructural gene expression using RNA interference.

Influenza antiviral drugs that use protein inhibitors can lose their efficacy as resistant strains emerge. As an alternative strategy, we investigated the use of small interfering RNA molecules (siRNAs) by characterizing three siRNAs (M747, M776 and M832) targeting the influenza matrix 2 gene and three (NS570, NS595 and NS615) targeting the nonstructural protein 1 and 2 genes. We also re-examined two previously reported siRNAs, M331 and M950, which target the matrix 1 and 2 genes. Treatment with M331-, M776-, M832-, and M950-siRNAs attenuated influenza titer. M776-siRNA treated cells had 29.8% less infectious virus than cells treated with the previously characterized siRNA, M950. NS570-, NS595- and NS615-siRNAs reduced nonstructural protein 1 and 2 expression and enhanced type I interferon expression by 50%. Combination siRNA treatment attenuated 20.9% more infectious virus than single siRNA treatment. Our results suggest a potential use for these siRNAs as an effective anti-influenza virus therapy.