Ronald Eugene Shaffer

Poor air quality affects the health and wellbeing of large populations around the globe. Although source controls are the most effective approaches for improving air quality and reducing health risks, individuals can also take actions to reduce their personal exposure by staying indoors, reducing physical activity, altering modes of transportation, filtering indoor air, and using respirators and other types of face masks. A synthesis of available evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects or unintended consequences of personal interventions for air pollution is needed by clinicians to assist patients and the public in making informed decisions about use of these interventions. To address this need, the American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2018 to bring together a multidisciplinary group of international experts to review the current state of knowledge about personal interventions for air pollution and important considerations when helping patients and the general public to make decisions about how best to protect themselves. From these discussions, recommendations were made regarding when, where, how, and for whom to consider personal interventions. In addition to the efficacy and safety of the various interventions, the committee considered evidence regarding the identification of patients at greatest risk, the reliability of air quality indices, the communication challenges, and the ethical and equity considerations that arise when discussing personal interventions to reduce exposure and risk from outdoor air pollution.

Recent high-profile infectious disease outbreaks illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate control measures to protect a wider range of employees, other than those in healthcare settings. In such settings, where routine exposure risks are often high, control measures may be more available, routinely implemented, and studied for effectiveness. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines or established best practices for selecting appropriate control measures, employers may unduly rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) because of its wide availability and pervasiveness as a control measure, circumventing other effective options for protection. Control banding is one approach that may be used to assign job tasks into risk categories and prioritize the application of controls. This article proposes an initial control banding framework for workers at all levels of risk and incorporates a range of control options, including PPE. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk groups as a surrogate for toxicity and combining the exposure duration with the exposure likelihood, we can generate the risk of a job task to the worker.

Increased understanding of influenza transmission is critical for pandemic planning and selecting appropriate controls for healthcare personnel safety and health. The goals of this pilot study were to assess environmental contamination in different areas and at two time periods in the influenza season and to determine the feasibility of using surgical mask contamination to evaluate potential exposure to influenza virus. Bioaerosol samples were collected over 12 days (two 6-day sessions) at 12 locations within a student health center using portable two-stage bioaerosol samplers operating 8 hr each day. Surface samples were collected each morning and afternoon from common high-contact non-porous hard surfaces from rooms and locations where bioaerosol samplers were located. Surgical masks worn by participants while in contact with patients with influenza-like illness were collected. A questionnaire administered to each of the 12 participants at the end of each workday and another at the end of each workweek assessed influenza-like illness symptoms, estimated the number of influenza-like illness patient contacts, hand hygiene, and surgical mask usage. All samples were analyzed using qPCR. Over the 12 days of the study, three of the 127 (2.4%) bioaerosol samples, 2 of 483 (0.41%) surface samples, and 0 of 54 surgical masks were positive for influenza virus. For the duration of contact that occurred with an influenza patient on any of the 12 days, nurse practitioners and physicians reported contacts with influenza-like illness patients >60 min, medical assistants reported 15–44 min, and administrative staff reported <30 min. Given the limited number of bioaerosol and surface samples positive for influenza virus in the bioaerosol and surface samples, the absence of influenza virus on the surgical masks provides inconclusive evidence for the potential to use surgical masks to assess exposure to influenza viruses. Further studies are needed to determine feasibility of this approach in assessing healthcare personnel exposures. Information learned in this study can inform future field studies on influenza transmission.

Healthcare personnel are at high risk for exposure to influenza by direct and indirect contact, droplets and aerosols, and by aerosol generating procedures. Information on air and surface influenza contamination is needed to assist in developing guidance for proper prevention and control strategies. To understand the vulnerabilities of healthcare personnel, we measured influenza in the breathing zone of healthcare personnel, in air and on surfaces within a healthcare setting, and on filtering facepiece respirators worn by healthcare personnel when conducting patient care. Thirty participants were recruited from an adult emergency department during the 2015 influenza season. Participants wore personal bioaerosol samplers for six hours of their work shift, submitted used filtering facepiece respirators and medical masks and completed questionnaires to assess frequency and types of interactions with potentially infected patients. Room air samples were collected using bioaerosol samplers, and surface swabs were collected from high-contact surfaces within the adult emergency department. Personal and room bioaerosol samples, surface swabs, and filtering facepiece respirators were analyzed for influenza A by polymerase chain reaction. Influenza was identified in 42% (53/125) of personal bioaerosol samples, 43% (28/ 96) of room bioaerosol samples, 76% (23/30) of pooled surface samples, and 25% (3/12) of the filtering facepiece respirators analyzed. Influenza copy numbers were greater in personal bioaerosol samples (17 to 631 copies) compared to room bioaerosol samples (16 to 323 copies). Regression analysis suggested that the amount of influenza in personal samples was approximately 2.3 times the amount in room samples (Wald χ2 = 16.21, p<0.001). Healthcare personnel may encounter increased concentrations of influenza virus when in close proximity to patients. Occupations that require contact with patients are at an increased risk for influenza exposure, which may occur throughout the influenza season. Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care.

Contact transmission of pathogens from personal protective equipment is a concern within the healthcare industry. During public health emergency outbreaks, resources become constrained and the reuse of personal protective equipment, such as N95 filtering facepiece respirators, may be needed. This study was designed to characterize the transfer of bacteriophage MS2 and fluorescein between filtering facepiece respirators and the wearer's hands during three simulated use scenarios. Filtering facepiece respirators were contaminated with MS2 and fluorescein in droplets or droplet nuclei. Thirteen test subjects performed filtering facepiece respirator use scenarios including improper doffing, proper doffing and reuse, and improper doffing and reuse. Fluorescein and MS2 contamination transfer were quantified. The average MS2 transfer from filtering facepiece respirators to the subjects' hands ranged from 7.6–15.4% and 2.2–2.7% for droplet and droplet nuclei derived contamination, respectively. Handling filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with droplets resulted in higher levels of MS2 transfer compared to droplet nuclei for all use scenarios (p = 0.007). MS2 transfer from droplet contaminated filtering facepiece respirators during improper doffing and reuse was greater than transfer during improper doffing (p = 0.008) and proper doffing and reuse (p = 0.042). Droplet contamination resulted in higher levels of fluorescein transfer compared to droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators for all use scenarios (p = 0.009). Fluorescein transfer was greater for improper doffing and reuse (p = 0.007) from droplet contaminated masks compared to droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators and for improper doffing and reuse when compared improper doffing (p = 0.017) and proper doffing and reuse (p = 0.018) for droplet contaminated filtering facepiece respirators. For droplet nuclei contaminated filtering facepiece respirators, the difference in MS2 and fluorescein transfer did not reach statistical significance when comparing any of the use scenarios. The findings suggest that the results of fluorescein and MS2 transfer were consistent and highly correlated across the conditions of study. The data supports CDC recommendations for using proper doffing techniques and discarding filtering facepiece respirators that are directly contaminated with secretions from a cough or sneeze.

This study assessed key test parameters and pass/fail criteria options for developing a respirator fit capability (RFC) test for half-mask air-purifying particulate respirators. Using a 25-subject test panel, benchmark RFC data were collected for 101 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-certified respirator models. These models were further grouped into 61 one-, two-, or three-size families. Fit testing was done using a PortaCount® Plus with N95-Companion accessory and an Occupational Safety and Health Administration-accepted quantitative fit test protocol. Three repeated tests (donnings) per subject/respirator model combination were performed. The panel passing rate (PPR) (number or percentage of the 25-subject panel achieving acceptable fit) was determined for each model using five different alternative criteria for determining acceptable fit. When the 101 models are evaluated individually (i.e., not grouped by families), the percentages of models capable of fitting >75% (19/25 subjects) of the panel were 29% and 32% for subjects achieving a fit factor ≥100 for at least one of the first two donnings and at least one of three donnings, respectively. When the models are evaluated grouped into families and using >75% of panel subjects achieving a fit factor ≥100 for at least one of two donnings as the PPR pass/fail criterion, 48% of all models can pass. When >50% (13/25 subjects) of panel subjects was the PPR criterion, the percentage of passing models increased to 70%. Testing respirators grouped into families and evaluating the first two donnings for each of two respirator sizes provided the best balance between meeting end user expectations and creating a performance bar for manufacturers. Specifying the test criterion for a subject obtaining acceptable fit as achieving a fit factor ≥100 on at least one out of the two donnings is reasonable because a majority of existing respirator families can achieve an PPR of >50% using this criterion. The different test criteria can be considered by standards development organizations when developing standards.

Objective: Personal protective equipment (PPE) provides health care workers with a barrier to prevent human contact with viruses like Ebola and potential transmission of the disease. However, PPE can also introduce an additional physiological burden from potentially increased heat stress. This study evaluated the human physiological and subjective responses to continuous light exercise within environmental conditions similar to those in West Africa while wearing 3 different, commonly used PPE ensembles (E1, E2, and E3).Methods: Six healthy individuals were tested in an environmental chamber (32°C, 92% relative humidity) while walking (3 METs, 2.5 mph, 0% incline) on a treadmill for 60 minutes. All subjects wore medical scrubs and PPE items. E1 also had a face shield and fluid-resistant surgical gown; E2 additionally included goggles, coverall, and separate hood; and E3 also contained a highly impermeable coverall, separate hood, and surgical mask cover over the N95 respirator.Results: Heart rate and core temperature at the end of the exercise were significantly higher for E2 and E3 than for E1. Subjective perceptions of heat and exertion were significantly higher for E2 and E3 than for E1.Conclusions: Heat stress and PPE training, as well as the implementation of a work-to-rest ratio that avoids dehydration and possible heat stress issues, are recommended. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:580–586)

Objective: Cooling devices (CDs) worn under personal protective equipment (PPE) can alleviate some of the heat stress faced by health care workers responding to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.Methods: Six healthy, young individuals were tested while wearing 4 different CDs or no cooling (control) under PPE in an environmental chamber (32°C/92% relative humidity) while walking (3 METs, 2.5 mph, 0% grade) on a treadmill for 60 minutes. Exercise was preceded by a 15-minute stabilization period and a 15-minute donning period.Results: The control condition resulted in a significantly higher rectal temperature (T_re) at the end of the exercise than did all CD conditions (CD1,P=0.004; CD2,P=0.01; CD3,P=0.000; CD4,P=0.000) with CD1 and CD2 resulting in a higher T_rethan CD3 and CD4 (PP=0.01) and CD4 (P=0.009) conditions, whereas the HR of the CD1 and CD2 conditions was higher than that of the CD3 and CD4 conditions (PP=0.003) and CD4 (P=0.01) conditions. Significant differences in subjective measurements of thermal stress were found across conditions and time.Conclusions: Use of CDs can be advantageous in decreasing the negative physiological and subjective responses to the heat stress encountered by health care workers wearing PPE in hot and humid environments. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:573–579)

NIOSH published a Federal Register Notice to explore the possibility of incorporating FDA required filtration tests for surgical masks (SMs) in the 42 CFR Part 84 respirator certification process. There have been no published studies comparing the filtration efficiency test methods used for NIOSH certification of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95 FFRs) with those used by the FDA for clearance of SMs. To address this issue, filtration efficiencies of "N95 FFRs" including six N95 FFR models and three surgical N95 FFR models, and three SM models were measured using the NIOSH NaCl aerosol test method, and FDA required particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) and bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) methods, and viral filtration efficiency (VFE) method. Five samples of each model were tested using each method. Both PFE and BFE tests were done using unneutralized particles as per FDA guidance document. PFE was measured using 0.1 µm size polystyrene latex particles and BFE with ∼3.0 µm size particles containing Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. VFE was obtained using ∼3.0 µm size particles containing phiX 174 as the challenge virus and Escherichia coli as the host. Results showed that the efficiencies measured by the NIOSH NaCl method for "N95 FFRs" were from 98.15-99.68% compared to 99.74-99.99% for PFE, 99.62-99.9% for BFE, and 99.8-99.9% for VFE methods. Efficiencies by the NIOSH NaCl method were significantly (p = <0.05) lower than the other methods. SMs showed lower efficiencies (54.72-88.40%) than "N95 FFRs" measured by the NIOSH NaCl method, while PFE, BFE, and VFE methods produced no significant difference. The above results show that the NIOSH NaCl method is relatively conservative and is able to identify poorly performing filtration devices. The higher efficiencies obtained using PFE, BFE and VFE methods show that adding these supplemental particle penetration methods will not improve respirator certification.