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.

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.

Real-time evaluation of ventilation filter-bank systems.

This study evaluated two government facility ventilation systems. One was a metropolitan government office complex with a recirculation system where outside air was the makeup air; the other was a NIOSH facility that used 100% outside air with no recirculation. The methodology employed was a modified American Society of Agricultural Engineers standard (S525) for testing total enclosure filtration efficiency, in agricultural tractor cabs, with optical particle counters (OPC). The low-efficiency bag filters were tested when new and after being in the ventilation system for 3 months. The replacement medium-efficiency filters were evaluated for 6 months (the manufacturer's suggested change-out schedule). These eight-chamber, medium-efficiency filters had an increased filter surface area that resulted in increased airflow through the system. Unfortunately, these filters contained electrostatic filter media and lost filtration efficiency rapidly, which was subsequently confirmed in a 30-day study conducted to determine an appropriate change-out schedule for the eight-chamber bag filters. The study determined that less than 6 months' use was justified due to the reduced efficiency of the electrostatic filter media. The NIOSH facility's air handler #8 (100% outside air unit) was upgraded from electrostatic bag filters, which had a suggested 9-month change-out schedule, to V Bank mechanical, wet-laid, glass fiber filters. The results of a 3-year evaluation showed that the V Bank filters had better filter efficiency after 3 years of service than the electrostatic filters had at 9 months. Both studies employed matched OPC instruments to reduce instrument-to-instrument bias. The methodology is adaptable to monitoring the total efficiency of most air filtration systems, and results can help make decisions about upgrading filter performance.