Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:55:10.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation of the air–surface nexus of bacterial burden during routine patient care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2020

Werner E. BischoffOpen the ORCID record for Werner E. Bischoff[Opens in a new window] and
Gregory Russell
Werner E. Bischoff*
Affiliation:
Internal Medicine, Section on Infectious Diseases, and Infection Prevention and Health System Epidemiology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Gregory Russell
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
*
Author for correspondence: Werner E. Bischoff, E-mail: wbischof@wakehealth.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Research Brief
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 41 , Issue 11 , November 2020, pp. 1353 - 1354
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Bacterial pathogens have been detected in the air and can survive on surfaces for extended periods of time. Reference Jones and Brosseau1–Reference Weber, Anderson and Rutala3 Our current understanding of pathogen transmission distinguishes between airborne, droplet, direct (hands) and indirect (surfaces) contact pathways. 4 The 4 transmission pathways appear not to be exclusive, but pathogens can transition between them. Reference Ijaz, Zargar, Wright, Rubino and Sattar5 Interventions such as air purification or surface cleaning may affect not only 1 pathway, but several. Reference Ijaz, Zargar, Wright, Rubino and Sattar5,Reference Donskey6 This project determines the association between aerosol burden and surface contamination and the impact of a high-efficiency particulate air ultraviolet air recirculation system (HUAIRS) on transmission pathways.

Methods

Sampling was performed in a critical care decision unit (convenience sample) with no patient care activity restrictions. Three 6-stage Andersen samplers were used for air sampling and were placed at the head and foot of a patient’s bed along with 1 sampler at the exit doorway. Reference Bischoff, Russell, Willard and Stehle7 A sedimentation plate (standard petri dish surface area, 56.7 cm2) was placed next to each Andersen sampler. All samples were collected on blood agar plates (BBL: TSA II with Sheep Blood, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ).

After completion of 20-minute baseline sampling, the HUAIRS (Aerobiotix Illuvia 500uv system [450 cfm], Aerobiotix, Dayton, OH) was placed within the vicinity of the patient bed and was run for at least 1 complete room air exchange. This procedure was followed by air sampling for 20 minutes with the HUAIRS running. Door openings were recorded. Once completed, plates were incubated for 48 hours at 37 °C. After incubation, the number of colonies congruent with bacterial growth was recorded as colony-forming units (CFU) per plate. No further speciation of bacteria was performed.

Baseline, HUAIRS run, and sedimentation CFU data were summarized and analyzed. Andersen sampler stages were combined into particles <4.7 μm or >4.7 μm. To assess the change between baseline and HUAIRS run data, paired t tests were used to determine the magnitude of change, testing the observed versus expected mean of no change (mean of 0). Correlations between aerosol burden and surface contamination were calculated using Spearman coefficients. The impact of door openings on environmental bacterial burden was assessed using Spearman coefficients. Significance was assumed if P < .05. We used SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) for all analyses. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest School of Medicine.

Results

In total, 65 participants were enrolled in the study (46% women and 54% men). Two participants were excluded due to unusual activities (eg, door remained open or food served). During HUAIRS use at all locations, a reduction of 58% in aerosol burden was observed: head, −7.1 (95% CI, −10.5 to −3.7; P < .0001); foot, −8.3 (95% CI, −12.0 to −4.7; P < .0001); and exit, −8.8 (95% CI, −12.0 to −5.5; P < .0001). A reduction of 51% in surface contamination was observed: head, −0.6 (95% CI, −1.1 to −0.1; P = .024); foot, −0.5 (95% CI, −1.5, 0.3; P = .17); and exit, −0.7 (95% CI − 1.3, to −0.1; P = .016) (Supplementary Data online). Except at baseline for air burden, door openings were correlated with air burden contamination (baseline Spearman ρ: 0.09, P = .48; HUAIRS run, Spearman ρ: 0.18, P = .16) and surface burden surface contamination (baseline Spearman ρ: 0.72, P = .0001, HUAIRS run: Spearman ρ: 0.35, P = .0045). Table 1 presents moderate to strong correlations between aerosol and surface burden for baseline/HUAIRS run samples.

Table 1.

Correlation Between Aerosol Burden and Surface Contamination by Location and Particle Size

Discussion

To interrupt the chain of transmission of pathogens, one must understand how these pathogens are spread. Our study focused on the redistribution of bacteria from airborne burden to surface contamination in a patient room during routine care. We found moderate to strong correlations of the air–surface nexus, indicating a direct link between bacteria released into the air and subsequent contamination of environmental surfaces. Using an air purification system led to significant reductions in the bacterial load.

Deposition of aerosolized bacteria on surfaces has been previously described. Reference Napoli, Marcotrigiano and Montagna8,Reference Ling and Hui9 Ijaz et al Reference Ijaz, Zargar, Wright, Rubino and Sattar5 studied the air-to-surface pathway in an aerobiological test chamber. One-time nebulization of a Staphylococcus aureus suspension let to measurable amounts of bacteria settling onto chamber surfaces. Our study confirms previous experimental findings and adds the element of continual bacteria release through patients and staff members and their interactions during routine care. Even under the chaotic air movement within a patient room, we found moderate to strong correlations at all sample locations. The head area displayed the strongest correlation, which may be related to calmer, less disruptive room activities compared to the foot or exit areas. These findings may help better define the air–surface nexus and its impact on pathogen distribution within a healthcare setting.

In a previous study we demonstrated the impact of an air purification system to reduce the aerosol bacteria burden during routine care. Reference Bischoff, Russell, Willard and Stehle7 In this trial, we found a reduction of >50% in air burden and notably in surface contamination. This finding points to a dual benefit of air purification reducing airborne and indirect contact transmission. Further studies should focus on the effect on pathogen transmissions through room decontamination devices. Reference Carling and Bartley10

Our study has limitations. We studied the impact on the bacterial burden but not on direct pathogen-to-person transmission through air or contact. Using sedimentation plates may overestimate surface contamination due to favorable survival conditions. We also did not specify whether the bacteria collected included human pathogens.

We found moderate to strong correlations between aerosol bacterial burden and surface contamination throughout a patient care environment during routine care. Use of an air purifier led to significant reductions in both airborne and surface bacteria. Further studies are needed to define the impact of air purification on the transmission of bacteria and in view of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.436

Acknowledgments

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

Dr Bischoff reports grants from Aerobiotix, Dayton, OH, during the conduct of the study. All other authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

Jones, RM, Brosseau, LM. Aerosol transmission of infectious disease. J Occup Environ Med 2015;57:501–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dancer, SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clin Microbiol Rev 2014;27:665–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, DJ, Anderson, D, Rutala, WA. The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013;26:338–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings, 2007. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html. Published 2007. Accessed April 15, 2020.Google Scholar
Ijaz, MK, Zargar, B, Wright, KE, Rubino, JR, Sattar, SA. Generic aspects of the airborne spread of human pathogens indoors and emerging air decontamination technologies. Am J Infect Control 2016;44 suppl 9:S109–S120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donskey, CJ. Does improving surface cleaning and disinfection reduce health care-associated infections? Am J Infect Control 2013;41 suppl 5:S12–S19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bischoff, W, Russell, G, Willard, E, Stehle, J Jr Impact of a novel mobile high-efficiency particulate air-ultraviolet air recirculation system on the bacterial air burden during routine care. Am J Infect Control 2019;47:1025–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napoli, C, Marcotrigiano, V, Montagna, MT. Air sampling procedures to evaluate microbial contamination: a comparison between active and passive methods in operating theatres. BMC Public Health 2012;12:594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ling, S, Hui, L. Evaluation of the complexity of indoor air in hospital wards based on PM2.5, real-time PCR, adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay, microbial culture and mass spectrometry. BMC Infect Dis 2019;19:646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carling, PC, Bartley, JM. Evaluating hygienic cleaning in healthcare settings: what you do not know can harm your patients. Am J Infect Control 2010;38 suppl:S41–S50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1.Correlation Between Aerosol Burden and Surface Contamination by Location and Particle Size

Supplementary material: File

Bischoff and Russell supplementary material

Bischoff and Russell supplementary material

Download Bischoff and Russell supplementary material(File)
File 25.9 KB