Zhu Shengwei, Jenkins Sara, Addo Kofi, Heidarinejad Mohammad, Romo Sebastian A, Layne Avery, Ehizibolo Joshua, Dalgo Daniel, Mattise Nicholas W, Hong Filbert, Adenaiye Oluwasanmi O, Bueno de Mesquita Jacob P, Albert Barbara J, Washington-Lewis Rhonda, German Jennifer, Tai Sheldon, Youssefi Somayeh, Milton Donald K, Srebric Jelena
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA; Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA.
Environ Int. 2020 Apr;137:105537. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105537. Epub 2020 Feb 3.
Strategies to protect building occupants from the risk of acute respiratory infection (ARI) need to consider ventilation for its ability to dilute and remove indoor bioaerosols. Prior studies have described an association of increased self-reported colds and influenza-like symptoms with low ventilation but have not combined rigorous characterization of ventilation with assessment of laboratory confirmed infections. We report a study designed to fill this gap. We followed laboratory confirmed ARI rates and measured CO concentrations for four months during the winter-spring of 2018 in two campus residence halls: (1) a high ventilation building (HVB) with a dedicated outdoor air system that supplies 100% of outside air to each dormitory room, and (2) a low ventilation building (LVB) that relies on infiltration as ventilation. We enrolled 11 volunteers for a total of 522 person-days in the HVB and 109 volunteers for 6069 person-days in the LVB, and tested upper-respiratory swabs from symptomatic cases and their close contacts for the presence of 44 pathogens using a molecular assay. We observed one ARI case in the HVB (0.70/person-year) and 47 in the LVB (2.83/person-year). Simultaneously, 154 CO sensors distributed primarily in the dormitory rooms collected 668,390 useful data points from over 1 million recorded data points. Average and standard deviation of CO concentrations were 1230 ppm and 408 ppm in the HVB, and 1492 ppm and 837 ppm in the LVB, respectively. Importantly, this study developed and calibrated multi-zone models for the HVB with 229 zones and 983 airflow paths, and for the LVB with 529 zones and 1836 airflow paths by using a subset of CO data for model calibration. The models were used to calculate ventilation rates in the two buildings and potential for viral aerosol migration between rooms in the LVB. With doors and windows closed, the average ventilation rate was 12 L/s in the HVB dormitory rooms and 4 L/s in the LVB dormitory rooms. As a result, residents had on average 6.6 L/(s person) of outside air in the HVB and 2.3 L/(s person) in the LVB. LVB rooms located at the leeward side of the building had smaller average ventilation rates, as well as a somewhat higher ARI incidence rate and average CO concentrations when compared to those values in the rooms located at the windward side of the building. Average ventilation rates in twenty LVB dormitory rooms increased from 2.3 L/s to 7.5 L/s by opening windows, 3.6 L/s by opening doors, and 8.8 L/s by opening both windows and doors. Therefore, opening both windows and doors in the LVB dormitory rooms can increase ventilation rates to the levels comparable to those in the HVB. But it can also have a negative effect on thermal comfort due to low outdoor temperatures. Simulation results identified an aerobiologic pathway from a room occupied by an index case of influenza A to a room occupied by a possible secondary case.
保护建筑物内人员免受急性呼吸道感染(ARI)风险的策略需要考虑通风,因为通风具有稀释和去除室内生物气溶胶的能力。先前的研究描述了自我报告的感冒和流感样症状增加与低通风之间的关联,但尚未将通风的严格特征与实验室确诊感染的评估相结合。我们报告了一项旨在填补这一空白的研究。在2018年冬春季节的四个月里,我们跟踪了实验室确诊的ARI发病率,并在两个校园宿舍测量了一氧化碳(CO)浓度:(1)一栋高通风建筑(HVB),配备专用室外空气系统,为每个宿舍房间供应100%的室外空气;(2)一栋低通风建筑(LVB),依靠渗透作为通风方式。我们在HVB招募了11名志愿者,共522人日,在LVB招募了109名志愿者,共6069人日,并使用分子检测法对有症状病例及其密切接触者的上呼吸道拭子进行检测,以确定是否存在44种病原体。我们在HVB观察到1例ARI病例(0.70/人年),在LVB观察到47例(2.83/人年)。同时,主要分布在宿舍房间的154个CO传感器从超过100万个记录数据点中收集了668390个有用数据点。HVB中CO浓度的平均值和标准差分别为1230 ppm和408 ppm,LVB中分别为1492 ppm和837 ppm。重要的是,本研究通过使用一部分CO数据进行模型校准,为HVB(有229个区域和983条气流路径)和LVB(有529个区域和1836条气流路径)开发并校准了多区域模型。这些模型用于计算两栋建筑的通风率以及LVB中房间之间病毒气溶胶迁移的可能性。门窗关闭时,HVB宿舍房间的平均通风率为12 L/s,LVB宿舍房间为4 L/s。结果,HVB的居民平均每人有6.6 L/(s·人)的室外空气,LVB为2.3 L/(s·人)。位于建筑物背风侧的LVB房间平均通风率较小,与位于建筑物迎风侧的房间相比,ARI发病率和平均CO浓度也略高。通过开窗,20个LVB宿舍房间的平均通风率从2.3 L/s提高到7.5 L/s,开门提高到3.6 L/s,同时开窗开门提高到8.8 L/s。因此,在LVB宿舍房间同时开窗开门可将通风率提高到与HVB相当的水平。但由于室外温度低,这也可能对热舒适度产生负面影响。模拟结果确定了一条从甲型流感索引病例居住的房间到可能的二代病例居住的房间的空气生物学传播途径。