Hospital indoor air quality monitoring for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus

Abstract

On December 31, 2019, the novel human coronavirus (COVID-19) was identified in Wuhan, China and swiftly spread in all nations and territories around the globe. There is much debate about the major route of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions. So, more evidence is required to determine the potential pathway of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 including airborne transmission. Therefore, we examined the potential aerosol transmission of the virus through hospital wards indoor air by confirmed COVID-19 patients on May 7, 2020. In order to capture airborne SARS-CoV-2, the liquid impinger biosampler was used to take fourteen air samples in different wards of the indoor air of the hospital. The specific primer and probe real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were applied to detect viral genomes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in positive air samples. Accordingly, we found two positive air samples (in the ICU) out of 14 ones taken from different wards with confirmed COVID-19 patients. The results revealed the possibility of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 though more studies are required to determine the role of actual mechanisms such as cough, sneeze, normal breathing and speaking in the emission of airborne size carrier aerosols. Likewise, more quantitative analyses are needed to estimate airborne viability of SARS-CoV-2 in the carrier aerosols.

Aerosol Release by Healthy People during Speaking: Possible Contribution to the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

“…The positive samples were both in a corner close to a patient bed. The result is consistent with potential airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [27].…”

Assessment of Air Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in Hospital Settings

“…After further screening and supplementary searching of articles published or posted between January 1 and October 27, 2020, we identified an additional article, and a total of 24 articles were included in the review ( Figure 1 ). 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 …”

“…Of the 24 included studies, all were cross-sectional observational studies. Ten studies (41.7%) were from China, [9][10][11]15,[18][19][20]22,25,29 and the remaining were from the United States (4 [16.7%]), 12,13,26,30 Hong Kong (2 [8.3%]), 14,21 Korea (2 [8.3%]), 24,27 Singapore (2 [8.3%]), 3,16 Iran (2 [8.3%]), 8,28 the United Kingdom (1 [4.2%]), 19 and Italy (1 [4.2%]). 23 Of all included articles and studies, 20…”

“…(83.3%) 3,[8][9][10][11][14][15][16][17][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] were published in peer-reviewed journals, and 4 (16.7%) 12,13,17,18 were posted on preprint servers.…”

“…(50.0%) 3,[9][10][11][12][17][18][19][20]23,24,28 in clinical areas away from patients, 8 (33.3%) [9][10][11][12][13]19,23,29 in staff areas, 6 (25.0%) 3,9,[17][18][19]22 in toilets and/or bathrooms, and 6 (33.3%) 9,10,12,17,20,28 in public areas ( Table 1). The clinical context of patients hospitalized in the targeted areas was detailed in 18 studies, of which 10 (50.0%) [8][9][10][11]22,23,25,[27][28][29] were performed in units hospitalizing patients with severe or critical illness, 11 (61.1%) 3,11,12,[14][15][16]…”