Search

SummaryManual facemask ventilation, a core component of elective and emergency airway management, is classified as an aerosol generating procedure. This designation is based on a single epidemiological study suggesting an association between facemask ventilation and transmission from the SARS 2003 outbreak. There is no direct evidence to indicate whether facemask ventilation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. We conducted aerosol monitoring during routine facemask ventilation, and facemask ventilation with an intentionally generated leak, in anaesthetised patients with neuromuscular blockade. Recordings were made in ultraclean theatres and compared against the aerosol generated by the patient’s own tidal breathing and coughs. Respiratory aerosol from tidal breathing was reliably detected above the very low background particle concentrations (191 (77-486 [3.8-1313]) versus 2.1 (0.7-4.6 [0-12.9] particles.l-1 median(IQR)[range], n=11, p=0.002). The average aerosol concentration detected during facemask ventilation both without a leak (3.0 particles.l-1 (0 – 9 [0-43])) and with an intentional leak (11 particles.l-1 (7.0 – 26 [1-62])) was 64-fold and 17-fold lower than that of tidal breathing (p=0.001 and p=0.002 respectively). The peak particle concentration during facemask ventilation both without a leak (60 particles.l-1 (0 – 60 [0-120])) and with a leak (120 particles.l-1 (60 – 180 [60-480]) were respectively 20-fold and 10-fold lower than a cough (1260 particles (800 – 3242 [100-3682]), p=0.002 and p=0.001 respectively). This study demonstrates that facemask ventilation, even performed with an intentional leak, does not generate high levels of bioaerosol. On the basis of this evidence, facemask ventilation should not be considered an aerosol generating procedure.

ObjectiveTo determine if oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (OGD) generates increased levels of aerosol in conscious patients and identify the source events.DesignA prospective, environmental aerosol monitoring study, undertaken in an ultraclean environment, on patients undergoing OGD. Sampling was performed 20 cm away from the patient’s mouth using an optical particle sizer. Aerosol levels during OGD were compared with tidal breathing and voluntary coughs within subject.ResultsPatients undergoing bariatric surgical assessment were recruited (mean body mass index 44 and mean age 40 years, n=15). A low background particle concentration in theatres (3 L−1) enabled detection of aerosol generation by tidal breathing (mean particle concentration 118 L−1). Aerosol recording during OGD showed an average particle number concentration of 595 L−1with a wide range (3–4320 L−1). Bioaerosol-generating events, namely, coughing or burping, were common. Coughing was evoked in 60% of the endoscopies, with a greater peak concentration and a greater total number of sampled particles than the patient’s reference voluntary coughs (11 710 vs 2320 L−1and 780 vs 191 particles, n=9 and p=0.008). Endoscopies with coughs generated a higher level of aerosol than tidal breathing, whereas those without coughs were not different to the background. Burps also generated increased aerosol concentration, similar to those recorded during voluntary coughs. The insertion and removal of the endoscope were not aerosol generating unless a cough was triggered.ConclusionCoughing evoked during OGD is the main source of the increased aerosol levels, and therefore, OGD should be regarded as a procedure with high risk of producing respiratory aerosols. OGD should be conducted with airborne personal protective equipment and appropriate precautions in those patients who are at risk of having COVID-19 or other respiratory pathogens.

Pulmonary function tests are fundamental to the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases. There is uncertainty around whether potentially infectious aerosols are produced during testing and there are limited data on mitigation strategies to reduce risk to staff. Healthy volunteers and patients with lung disease underwent standardised spirometry, peak flow and FENO assessments. Aerosol number concentration was sampled using an aerodynamic particle sizer and an optical particle sizer. Measured aerosol concentrations were compared with breathing, speaking and voluntary coughing. Mitigation strategies included a standard viral filter and a full-face mask normally used for exercise testing (to mitigate induced coughing). 147 measures were collected from 33 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with lung disease. The aerosol number concentration was highest in coughs (1.45–1.61 particles/cm3), followed by unfiltered peak flow (0.37–0.76 particles/cm3). Addition of a viral filter to peak flow reduced aerosol emission by a factor of 10 without affecting the results. On average, coughs produced 22 times more aerosols than standard spirometry (with filter) in patients and 56 times more aerosols in healthy volunteers. FENO measurement produced negligible aerosols. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) masks reduced aerosol emission when breathing, speaking and coughing significantly. Lung function testing produces less aerosols than voluntary coughing. CPET masks may be used to reduce aerosol emission from induced coughing. Standard viral filters are sufficiently effective to allow guidelines to remove lung function testing from the list of aerosol-generating procedures.

Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are defined as any procedure releasing airborne particles σ)) and peak positions (DP,C)). The aerosol size distribution provided a robust fingerprint of aerosol emission from a source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected above background. Where aerosol was detected, the percentage of procedure time that aerosol was observed above background ranged from 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling, to 42.9% for 3-in-1 air + water syringe. For ultrasonic scaling, 3-in-1 syringe use and surgical drilling, the aerosol size distribution matched the non-salivary contaminated instrument source, with no unexplained aerosol. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures with different size distributions to those measured from the phantom head controls (mode widths log(σ)) and peaks (DP,C), p< 0.002) and, therefore, may pose a greater risk of salivary contamination. This study provides evidence for sources of aerosol generation during common dental procedures, enabling more informed evaluation of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.

The nosocomial spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has focused attention on the risk of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in healthcare [1]. SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated from pleural fluid, which has the potential to infect staff or patients if viraemic fluid is aerosolised during procedures [2, 3]. However, evidence for aerosol generation from pleural procedures is very limited. Current guidelines for appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) while performing pleural procedures are based on expert opinion and application of the precautionary principle [4]. We set out to quantify if pleural procedures generated appreciable aerosol (aerosolised liquid particles that have the potential to carry virus) compared to aerosol sampled during normal respiratory activities of breathing and coughing., Percutaneous pleural procedures should not be considered aerosol generating. This study should inform future iterations of guidelines on the appropriate use of PPE when performing these procedures. https://bit.ly/3xFF71d

BackgroundRisk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 directly informs organisation of acute healthcare and PPE guidance. Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are widely used modes of oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19, with both considered as high risk aerosol generating procedures. However, there are limited high quality experimental data characterising aerosolisation during oxygen delivery and respiratory support.MethodsHealthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using oxygen and respiratory support systems. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were also recruited and had aerosol emissions measured during breathing, speaking, and coughing.FindingsIn healthy volunteers (n = 25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosols than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50L/m facemask leaks). HFNO did emit aerosols, but the majority of these particles were generated from the HFNO machine, not the patient. HFNO-generated particles were small (InterpretationIn healthy volunteers, CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to generate significant aerosols in a size range compatible with airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. As a consequence, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosolisation is likely to be high in all areas where patients with Covid-19 are coughing. Guidance on personal protective equipment policy should reflect these updated risks.FundingNIHR-UKRI Rapid COVID call (COV003), Wellcome Trust GW4-CAT Doctoral Training Scheme (FH), MRC CARP Fellowship(JD, MR/T005114/1). Natural Environment Research Council grant (BB, NE/P018459/1)Research in contextEvidence before this studyPubMed was searched from inception until 10/1/21 using the terms ‘aerosol’, and variations of ‘non-invasive positive pressure ventilation’ and ‘high-flow nasal oxygen therapy’. Studies were included if they measured aerosol generated from volunteers or patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) or high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO), or provided experimental evidence on a simulated human setting. One study was identified (Gaeckle et al, 2020) which measured aerosol emission with one methodology (APS) but was limited by high background concentration of aerosol and a low number of participants (n = 10).Added value of this studyThis study used multiple methodologies to measure aerosol emission from the respiratory tract before and during CPAP and high-flow nasal oxygen, in an ultra-clean, laminar flow theatre with near-zero background aerosol and recruited patients with COVID-19 to ensure similar aerosol distributions. We conclude that there is negligible aerosol generation with CPAP, that aerosol emission from HFNO is from the machine and not the patient, coughing emits aerosols consistent with airborne transmission of SARS CoV2 and that healthy volunteers are a reasonable proxy for COVID-19 patients.Implications of all the available evidenceCPAP and HFNO should not be considered high risk aerosol generating procedures, based on our study and that of Gaeckle et al. Recorded aerosol emission from HFNO stems from the machine. Cough remains a significant aerosol risk. PPE guidance should be updated to ensure medical staff are protected with appropriate PPE in situations when patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 are likely to cough.

The performing arts have been significantly restricted due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We report measurements of aerosol and droplet concentrations generated when playing woodwind and brass instruments and comparisons with breathing, speaking, and singing. These measurements were conducted in a room with zero number concentration aerosol background in the 0.5-20 µm diameter size range, allowing clear attribution of detected particles to specific activities. A total of 13 instruments were examined across 9 participants. Respirable particle number concentrations and size distributions for playing instruments are consistent with those from the participant when breathing, based on measurements with multiple participants playing the flute and piccolo as well as measurements across the entire cohort. Due to substantial interparticipant variability, we do not provide a comparative assessment of the aerosol generated by playing different instruments, instead considering only the variation in aerosol yield across all instruments studied. Both particle number and mass concentrations from playing instruments are lower than those from speaking and singing at high volume, and no large droplets >20 µm diameter are detected. Combined, these observations suggest that playing instruments generates less aerosol than speaking or singing at high volumes. Moreover, there is no difference between the aerosol concentrations generated by professional and amateur performers while breathing, speaking, or singing, suggesting conclusions for professional singers may also apply to amateurs.

The potential aerosolised transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is of global concern. Airborne precaution personal protective equipment and preventative measures are universally mandated for medical procedures deemed to be aerosol generating. The implementation of these measures is having a huge impact on healthcare provision. There is currently a lack of quantitative evidence on the number and size of airborne particles produced during aerosol-generating procedures to inform risk assessments. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time, high-resolution environmental monitoring in ultraclean ventilation operating theatres during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences. Continuous sampling with an optical particle sizer allowed characterisation of aerosol generation within the zone between the patient and anaesthetist. Aerosol monitoring showed a very low background particle count (0.4 particles.l−1) allowing resolution of transient increases in airborne particles associated with airway management. As a positive reference control, we quantitated the aerosol produced in the same setting by a volitional cough (average concentration, 732 (418) particles.l−1, n = 38). Tracheal intubation including facemask ventilation produced very low quantities of aerosolised particles (average concentration, 1.4 (1.4) particles.l−1, n = 14, p < 0.0001 vs. cough). Tracheal extubation, particularly when the patient coughed, produced a detectable aerosol (21 (18) l−1, n = 10) which was 15-fold greater than intubation (p = 0.0004) but 35-fold less than a volitional cough (p < 0.0001). The study does not support the designation of elective tracheal intubation as an aerosol-generating procedure. Extubation generates more detectable aerosol than intubation but falls below the current criterion for designation as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure. These novel findings from real-time aerosol detection in a routine healthcare setting provide a quantitative methodology for risk assessment that can be extended to other airway management techniques and clinical settings. They also indicate the need for reappraisal of what constitutes an aerosol-generating procedure and the associated precautions for routine anaesthetic airway management.

Background: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by bioaerosols is of increasing concern. The enhanced levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) and preventative measures to attenuate viral transmission during aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are having a huge impact on healthcare provision. There is no quantitative evidence on the number and size of airborne particles produced during AGPs to inform risk assessments. Methods: Real-time, high-resolution environmental monitoring was conducted in ultraclean ventilation operating theatres. Continuous sampling with an optical particle sizer allowed characterisation of aerosol generation within the airway management zone during endotracheal intubation and extubation for urgent orthopaedic trauma or neuro-surgery. Findings: Aerosol monitoring showed a very low background particle count allowing resolution of the transient airborne particle plume produced by reference volitional coughs (maximum concentration, 1,690±140 particles.L‑1,n=38). By comparison, endotracheal intubation including mask ventilation produced negligible quantities of aerosolised particles (maximum concentration, 80±10 L‑1,n=14, P

Introductioncontinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) provide enhanced oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19. CPAP and HFNO are currently designated as aerosol-generating procedures despite limited high-quality experimental data. We aimed to characterise aerosol emission from HFNO and CPAP and compare with breathing, speaking and coughing.Materials and methodsHealthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded using the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward.ResultsIn healthy volunteers (n=25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosol than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50 L/min face mask leaks). Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity. HFNO was associated with aerosol emission, however, this was from the machine. Generated particles were small (ConclusionsIn healthy volunteers, standard non-humidified CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to be the main aerosol-generating risk out of all measured activities.