John W Cherrie1,2, Mark P C Cherrie1,3, Alice Smith1, David Holmes1, Sean Semple4, Susanne Steinle1, Ewan Macdonald5, Ginny Moore6, Miranda Loh1. 1. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Avenue North, Edinburgh, UK. 2. Heriot Watt University, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Biophysics and Bioengineering, Riccarton, Edinburgh, UK. 3. University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences, Edinburgh, UK. 4. University of Stirling, Institute for Social Marketing and Health, Stirling, UK. 5. University of Glasgow, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Glasgow, UK. 6. National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence for air and surface contamination of workplace environments with SARS-CoV-2 RNA and the quality of the methods used to identify actions necessary to improve the quality of the data. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and Google Scholar until 24 December 2020 for relevant articles and extracted data on methodology and results. RESULTS: The vast majority of data come from healthcare settings, with typically around 6% of samples having detectable concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and almost none of the samples collected had viable virus. There were a wide variety of methods used to measure airborne virus, although surface sampling was generally undertaken using nylon flocked swabs. Overall, the quality of the measurements was poor. Only a small number of studies reported the airborne concentration of SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA, mostly just reporting the detectable concentration values without reference to the detection limit. Imputing the geometric mean air concentration assuming the limit of detection was the lowest reported value, suggests typical concentrations in healthcare settings may be around 0.01 SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA copies m-3. Data on surface virus loading per unit area were mostly unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the reported data is uncertain. The methods used for measuring SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses in work environments should be standardized to facilitate more consistent interpretation of contamination and to help reliably estimate worker exposure.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate theevidence for air and surface contamination of workplaceenvironments with SARS-CoV-2 RNA and the quality of the methods used to identify actions necessary to improve the quality of the data. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and Google Scholar until 24 December 2020 for relevant articles andextracted data on methodology and results. RESULTS: The vast majority of data come from healthcare settings, with typically around 6% of samples having detectable concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and almost none of the samples collected had viable virus. There were a wide variety of methods used to measure airborne virus, although surface sampling was generally undertaken using nylon flocked swabs. Overall, the quality of the measurements was poor. Only a small number of studies reported the airborne concentration of SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA, mostly just reporting the detectable concentration values without reference to the detection limit. Imputing the geometric mean air concentration assuming the limit of detection was the lowest reported value, suggests typical concentrations in healthcare settings may be around 0.01 SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA copies m-3. Data on surface virus loading per unit area were mostly unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the reported data is uncertain. The methods used for measuring SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses in work environments should be standardized to facilitate more consistent interpretation of contamination and to help reliably estimate worker exposure.
Authors: Jonathon D Kotwa; Alainna J Jamal; Hamza Mbareche; Lily Yip; Patryk Aftanas; Shiva Barati; Natalie G Bell; Elizabeth Bryce; Eric Coomes; Gloria Crowl; Caroline Duchaine; Amna Faheem; Lubna Farooqi; Ryan Hiebert; Kevin Katz; Saman Khan; Robert Kozak; Angel X Li; Henna P Mistry; Mohammad Mozafarihashjin; Jalees A Nasir; Kuganya Nirmalarajah; Emily M Panousis; Aimee Paterson; Simon Plenderleith; Jeff Powis; Karren Prost; Renée Schryer; Maureen Taylor; Marc Veillette; Titus Wong; Xi Zoe Zhong; Andrew G McArthur; Allison J McGeer; Samira Mubareka Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Alexandra Lj Freeman; Simon Parker; Catherine Noakes; Shaun Fitzgerald; Alexandra Smyth; Ron Macbeth; David Spiegelhalter; Harry Rutter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jostein Gohli; Ane Marie Anderson; Arne Broch Brantsaeter; Kari Oline Bøifot; Carola Grub; Cathrine Lund Hadley; Andreas Lind; Ellen Susanne Pettersen; Arne Vasli Lund Søraas; Marius Dybwad Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 6.554
Authors: Alberto Pivato; Gianni Formenton; Francesco Di Maria; Tatjana Baldovin; Irene Amoruso; Tiziano Bonato; Pamela Mancini; Giusy Bonanno Ferraro; Carolina Veneri; Marcello Iaconelli; Lucia Bonadonna; Teresa Vicenza; Giuseppina La Rosa; Elisabetta Suffredini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.614