T-Y. Hung , S-H. Yu , Y-C. Chen , Y-C. Su , H-L. Chen , B-H. Wu , S-C. Hu , T. Lin
{"title":"通风还是气溶胶抽吸?比较定向空气净化器、HEPA 抽风机和负压环境的功效。","authors":"T-Y. Hung , S-H. Yu , Y-C. Chen , Y-C. Su , H-L. Chen , B-H. Wu , S-C. Hu , T. Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2024.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study evaluated aerosol exposure during various respiratory activities (breathing, tachypnea, coughing, and oxygen therapy) in environments with directional air purifiers (DAPs), HEPA evacuators, and standard negative pressure (SNP) rooms to explore potential alternatives for addressing isolation room shortages<strong>.</strong></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Aerosol exposure was measured during various breathing conditions (normal, tachypnea, coughing, and recovery) with non-rebreather masks (NRMs) and nasal cannulas. The study analysed aerosol velocity and concentrations at the head, trunk and feet of a mannequin across settings including DAP, HEPA evacuator, SNP room, their combinations, and a reference group without intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>The DAP, HEPA evacuator and SNP environment all reduced aerosol build-up compared with the control group. The DAP and HEPA evacuator were consistently more effective than the SNP environment, especially during activities that increase expiratory flow. The HEPA evacuator showed higher aerosol concentrations at the head compared with the DAP when used with NRMs or nasal cannulas. Both the DAP and HEPA demonstrated better aerosol clearance than the SNP environment when minute ventilation exceeded 10 L/min.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DAP and HEPA evacuators provide effective aerosol reduction, suggesting their utility as alternatives to SNP isolation rooms during pandemics. While SNP environments continuously ventilate the space, DAP and HEPA evacuators are more efficient in early aerosol removal, preventing accumulation. However, aerosols dispersing in multiple directions during oxygen therapy can challenge the HEPA evacuator's single-point suction, unlike the broader coverage offered by the DAP.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":"155 ","pages":"Pages 198-208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ventilation or aerosol extraction: comparing the efficacy of directional air purifiers, HEPA evacuators and negative-pressure environments\",\"authors\":\"T-Y. Hung , S-H. Yu , Y-C. Chen , Y-C. Su , H-L. Chen , B-H. Wu , S-C. Hu , T. Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhin.2024.11.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study evaluated aerosol exposure during various respiratory activities (breathing, tachypnea, coughing, and oxygen therapy) in environments with directional air purifiers (DAPs), HEPA evacuators, and standard negative pressure (SNP) rooms to explore potential alternatives for addressing isolation room shortages<strong>.</strong></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Aerosol exposure was measured during various breathing conditions (normal, tachypnea, coughing, and recovery) with non-rebreather masks (NRMs) and nasal cannulas. The study analysed aerosol velocity and concentrations at the head, trunk and feet of a mannequin across settings including DAP, HEPA evacuator, SNP room, their combinations, and a reference group without intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>The DAP, HEPA evacuator and SNP environment all reduced aerosol build-up compared with the control group. The DAP and HEPA evacuator were consistently more effective than the SNP environment, especially during activities that increase expiratory flow. The HEPA evacuator showed higher aerosol concentrations at the head compared with the DAP when used with NRMs or nasal cannulas. Both the DAP and HEPA demonstrated better aerosol clearance than the SNP environment when minute ventilation exceeded 10 L/min.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DAP and HEPA evacuators provide effective aerosol reduction, suggesting their utility as alternatives to SNP isolation rooms during pandemics. While SNP environments continuously ventilate the space, DAP and HEPA evacuators are more efficient in early aerosol removal, preventing accumulation. However, aerosols dispersing in multiple directions during oxygen therapy can challenge the HEPA evacuator's single-point suction, unlike the broader coverage offered by the DAP.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"volume\":\"155 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 198-208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670124003876\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670124003876","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究评估了在使用定向空气净化器(DAP)、高效空气过滤器(HEPA)和标准负压室(SNP)的环境中进行各种呼吸活动(呼吸、呼吸急促、咳嗽和氧疗)时的气溶胶暴露情况,以探索解决隔离室短缺问题的潜在替代方法:使用非呼吸面罩(NRM)和鼻插管(NC)测量了各种呼吸条件(正常、呼吸急促、咳嗽和恢复)下的气溶胶暴露量。研究分析了人体模型头部、躯干和脚部在不同环境下的气溶胶速度和浓度,包括 DAP、HEPA 排气口、SNP 室、它们的组合以及无干预的参照组:与对照组相比,DAP、高效空气过滤器和 SNP 环境都减少了气溶胶的积聚。DAP 和 HEPA 抽风机始终比 SNP 环境更有效,尤其是在增加呼气流量的活动中。与 DAP 相比,在使用 NRM 或 NC 时,HEPA 抽风机在头部显示出更高的气溶胶浓度。当分钟通气量超过 10 升/分钟时,DAP 和 HEPA 的气溶胶清除率均高于 SNP 环境:结论:DAP 和 HEPA 排风器可有效减少气溶胶,这表明它们在大流行病期间可替代 SNP 隔离室。虽然 SNP 环境会持续对空间进行通风,但 DAP 和 HEPA 抽风机在早期清除气溶胶、防止气溶胶累积方面更为有效。不过,在氧疗过程中,气溶胶会向多个方向扩散,这对 HEPA 抽真空机的单点抽吸能力提出了挑战,而 DAP 的覆盖范围更广。
Ventilation or aerosol extraction: comparing the efficacy of directional air purifiers, HEPA evacuators and negative-pressure environments
Background
This study evaluated aerosol exposure during various respiratory activities (breathing, tachypnea, coughing, and oxygen therapy) in environments with directional air purifiers (DAPs), HEPA evacuators, and standard negative pressure (SNP) rooms to explore potential alternatives for addressing isolation room shortages.
Methods
Aerosol exposure was measured during various breathing conditions (normal, tachypnea, coughing, and recovery) with non-rebreather masks (NRMs) and nasal cannulas. The study analysed aerosol velocity and concentrations at the head, trunk and feet of a mannequin across settings including DAP, HEPA evacuator, SNP room, their combinations, and a reference group without intervention.
Findings
The DAP, HEPA evacuator and SNP environment all reduced aerosol build-up compared with the control group. The DAP and HEPA evacuator were consistently more effective than the SNP environment, especially during activities that increase expiratory flow. The HEPA evacuator showed higher aerosol concentrations at the head compared with the DAP when used with NRMs or nasal cannulas. Both the DAP and HEPA demonstrated better aerosol clearance than the SNP environment when minute ventilation exceeded 10 L/min.
Conclusions
DAP and HEPA evacuators provide effective aerosol reduction, suggesting their utility as alternatives to SNP isolation rooms during pandemics. While SNP environments continuously ventilate the space, DAP and HEPA evacuators are more efficient in early aerosol removal, preventing accumulation. However, aerosols dispersing in multiple directions during oxygen therapy can challenge the HEPA evacuator's single-point suction, unlike the broader coverage offered by the DAP.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience.
The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that:
provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings;
provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination;
provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises;
describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection;
throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship;
describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control;
improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change;
improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.