Surface and Air Contamination With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in Toronto, Canada, March–May 2020

Abstract

Background We determined the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces in rooms of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and investigated patient characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination. Methods Nasopharyngeal swabs, surface, and air samples were collected from the rooms of 78 inpatients with COVID-19 at six acute care hospitals in Toronto from March to May 2020. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, cultured to determine potential infectivity, and whole viral genomes were sequenced. Association between patient factors and detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in surface samples were investigated. Results SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from surfaces (125/474 samples; 42/78 patients) and air (3/146 samples; 3/45 patients); 17% (6/36) of surface samples from three patients yielded viable virus. Viral sequences from nasopharyngeal and surface samples clustered by patient. Multivariable analysis indicated hypoxia at admission, PCR-positive nasopharyngeal swab (cycle threshold of ≤30) on or after surface sampling date, higher Charlson co-morbidity score, and shorter time from onset of illness to sampling date were significantly associated with detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in surface samples. Conclusions The infrequent recovery of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus from the environment suggests that the risk to healthcare workers from air and near-patient surfaces in acute care hospital wards is likely limited.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in the operating room and birthing room setting: a cross-sectional study

“…We used standard techniques for air and floor sampling and found evidence of aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2. 6 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 51 Although the frequency of positive tests was low, this does indicate that aerosolization of the virus does occur in the surgical or obstetric environments; however, the source of the virus (respiratory, or surgical or obstetric fields) is unknown. It is possible that the true positive rates were higher since some contamination was likely below the detection limits of the tests.…”

“…It is possible that the true positive rates were higher since some contamination was likely below the detection limits of the tests. 6 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 51 …”

“…Active air sampling via the GilAir Plus sampler was used at 2 locations: as close to the surgical site as possible (within 0.5–1.0 m) and 2–3 m away (Sensidyne, https://www.sensidyne.com/air-sampling-equipment/gilian-air-sampling-pumps/gilair-plus/ ). 35 Passive air sampling was performed using an open Petri dish to collect any viral particles settling by gravity in the dish (within 1–2 m of the patient, 1 m off the floor). 33 , 36 – 39 Passive air sampling was added for the last third of the cases because of newly published information.…”

Viral cultures for assessing fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Seven studies were conducted in the USA, 3 in Canada, 2 each in Brazil, China and the United Kingdom, and 1 each in Finland, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea ( Table 1 ). Eleven studies were conducted exclusively in hospitals [ 12 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , [31] , [32] , [33] ], one of which was exclusively in an ICU [ 22 ]. Three studies were conducted in both hospital and quarantine or home/community settings [ 16 , 24 , 30 ].…”

Persistent infection with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a patient with untreated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

“…1). 8 He received 2 doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine 3 and 4 months prior to admission. He was asymptomatic but was hospitalized for monitoring given his immunocompromised state related to longstanding untreated HIV infection (his CD4 count was 110 cells/mm 3 2 months prior to admission).…”