Air Filter Market and Proactive Program For Suppliers

Mask Virus Removal Efficiency will be Important Focus in August 20 Webinar

TSI says Through the Wall Pressure Sensors are Best Approach for Isolation Rooms

Nano-copper is a Good Choice for Antimicrobial Coatings

Particles in the Air and Impact on Mask One Stop Efficiency

One Stop Measurment Versus Viral Load

Researchers Analyze Coughs and Sneezes and Their Transmission

Vaping and Smoking Tied to COVID

Smoking Increases Small Particle Exhalation Fifteen Fold

How Much Virus is Transmitted by Cloth Mask Wearers?

Face Mask Insert Could Help Diagnose Conditions

_____________________________________________________________________________

Air Filter Market and Proactive Program For Suppliers

In order to win the battle against COVID there will need to be massive investment in air filters and laminar flow air systems. McIlvaine is providing enough information in the daily alerts and analysis to make it possible to justify the investment in a specific type of filter for a specific location in a specific process and determine the risk reduction. Many influencers and purchasers do not understand the differences in filter efficiency and are therefore not investing in the right products to reduce their risk to levels they believe acceptable.

As a result the market for efficient filters and systems is much smaller than it will be when buyers and influencers are presented with reliable cost/benefit information. There is the opportunity for the suppliers to greatly increase sales by joining in a program to

1.      Ascertain reliable cost/benefit information for every application in every country for each type of process

2.      Communicate that information to the influencers and decision makers with webinars, magazine articles, and white papers

3.      Receive market forecasts for the thousands of individual opportunities with an understanding of competitive advantages and disadvantages

 

123,000 forecasts are supplied and continually revised for 80 geographical segments including 72 countries and 8 small country aggregations.

There will be a big market to upgrade systems from MERV 8 and lower filters to MERV 9-13 and higher. Based on recent evidence of small aerosol travel the largest increase will be in MERV 14-16 and MERV 17-20. The market for large room purifiers will grow faster.

Applications	Products
Commercial	Filter-MERV 8
Education	Filter MERV 13
Government	Filter MERV 16
Hospitals	Filter  MERV 20
Nursing Homes	Media  MERV 8
Food Processing	Media  MERV 13
Pharmaceutical	Media MERV 16
Semiconductor	Media MERV 20
Other Healthcare	Small Room Air Purifiers
Other Industrial	Large Room Air Purifiers
Residential	Fan-Filter Units
Transportation	Laminar Flow Systems
Entertainment, Dining, Sports

 

 

The program includes a number of routes for communication with customers and other decision makers as well as others within the company. Webinars, white papers and a custom website are included as described in 4 Lane Knowledge Bridge

 Click here to view a video description or Click here for the power point display.

Mask Virus Removal Efficiency will be Important Focus in August 20 Webinar

There is growing evidence that N95 respirators will be the best mask selection for many applications and not just for doctors and nurses. A webinar on August 20 will provide debate and discussion on mask design as a function of viral load. The webinar will cover a number of factors related to the virus, the processes and applications, the mask designs and a common metric to measure all harm and good. Information on the market will be included as described at   Click here to view a video description or Click here for the power point display.

One subject which needs attention and has not been previously analyzed is a new approach to measure mask efficiency based on one stop rather than direct. Now testing measures how much virus is initially captured on a mask but not how much is just stopping on its way to the final destination.

To measure the potential virus transmission of airline travelers from Seattle to Atlanta you need to take into account one stop as well as direct flights. The same is true for masks and filters.

How much virus is captured as larger droplets on the filter media and then converted to small aerosols?  Research is now showing that with inefficient masks and filters the one stop flight is a significant contributor.

Experts on droplet evaporation have much to add to this discussion. We conducted an interview with one of these experts  July 24, 2020 - Abhishek Saha Interview on Droplet Travel   https://youtu.be/F790vEfB4ws

In our Alert on August 11 we quoted Duke University Researchers who said,  "We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask."

On August 6 we quoted the Center on Infectious Research “We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission.” 

If a mask stops the larger droplet but is not able to capture smaller aerosols then it stands to reason that as the droplet evaporates and water vapor, smaller droplets, and salts make their way through the mask they will carry a significant amount of the virus from the larger droplet.

These questions can be laid to rest with one stop testing. Instead of just injecting droplets into a mask and measuring the initial capture over a few seconds, it will be necessary to measure the emission from the mask over time. A person may wear a mask for several hours and will be exhaling breath as many as 1000 times during that period. So this whole procedure can be duplicated in a laboratory setting.

The average individual in a room of average air purity will breath in and exhale many millions of particles every minute. Here are the particles by size in each breath.

 

During the two hour period after a large droplet is deposited on the mask interior the wearer will exhale some percentage of  more than 700 million particles 0.1 micron and larger (depends on mask efficiency).  How will these particles interact with the large droplet? How many will act as carriers for virus?

We need input on this from filter companies and in the Alert on August 12 display some slides prepared by Kari Luukkonen of Fibertex relative to the number of particles in filter intake air in various locations and also the impact of humidity, fog etc.

One challenge will be to measure small droplets which flow through openings around the mask as well as those which flow through the mask. This being the case the difference between respirators and surgical masks needs to be understood.

Another variable is the amount of virus which will cause infection and the difference between momentary and continuous transmission. The only rationale for cloth surgical masks is that they prevent a momentary barrage of millions of viral particles.  But what if those particles are transmitted as small aerosols over time. If the recipient receives those millions of particles over two hours is that the same as if he received them in 5 seconds.

A related issue is what is the minimum infectious dose. If it is millions of particles a surgical mask makes some sense. But if it is thousands then the aerosol re-emission is important. Also a large droplet will lodge in nasal passages whereas small aerosols will reach the lungs. What are the health implications?

The August 12 Alert quotes UK experts who say the minimum infectious dose is 100 to 1000 and that accumulation over time is significant.

For more information on the webinar or to register click on http://home.mcilvainecompany.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/1574-coronavirus-webinars

TSI says Through the Wall Pressure Sensors are Best Approach for Isolation Rooms

Designing a hospital for positive room pressure or negative room pressure differentials is not enough. Room pressure differential must be monitored to ensure occupant health and to comply with standards. Two technologies are used to measure room pressure differential: capacitive pressure transducers and through-the-wall (TTW) pressure sensors.

TSI says the top choice is the TTW. They use thermal anemometry to measure air velocity and direction through a small opening in the wall. TTW sensors convert the air velocity to pressure differential, just like pitot tubes are often used to measure air velocity by measuring air pressure. TTW pressure sensors are the most accurate way to measure room pressure differential. Most importantly, they are proven to be stable so the room pressure measurement does not need frequent calibration to remain accurate.

TSI experts Dave Ruhland and Ryan O’Grady presented a 1-hour webinar, “Converting Spaces to Isolation Rooms for COVID-19 - HVAC Design & Monitoring.”  

The comparison of the two approaches is shown at https://tsi.com/solutions/solutions-by-application/hospital-monitoring-and-control/

Nano-copper is a Good Choice for Antimicrobial Coatings

When incorporated directly into a substrate, nano-copper can deliver similar antimicrobial benefits to many coating applications says Selina Ambrose, Technical Manager at Promethean Particles. The company based in Nottingham, UK, is home to the world's largest multi-material nanomaterial plant of its kind. It manufactures nano-copper as a liquid dispersion using a unique production process that enables the delivery of high-quality inorganic nanomaterials at scale, reducing cost and process complexities. By manufacturing particles in liquid dispersions, rather than as powders, Promethean avoids the tendency for nanomaterials to agglomerate together. When this happens, the benefits of nanotechnology can be lost.

The company has collaborated with textile companies and leading research facilities as part of an Innovate UK-funded project, ACTIn, to explore the antimicrobial effects of its nano-copper particles when incorporated into fabrics for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The requirements for disposal and use of gowns and garments differ according to cleanroom classification and application. Whilst some dispose of PPE after each exit and entry others, with the highest particle thresholds, may only change garments a few times per week.

Particles in the Air and Impact on Mask One Stop Efficiency

A presentation by Kari Luukkonen of Fibertex related to cabin air and other filter performance analyzed the impact of the distribution of particles in the air and the humidity, fog etc. If an electrostatically charged filter is affected by the conditions so will a meltblown mask. What about the millions of particles which will be passing into and then being discharged through the mask ? There are large numbers of particles of different origin.

 

This display showing fine particles/cm2 correlates with the McIlvaine  example of 7 million particles per minute being inhaled or captured by the mask.

 

 

With regard to the one stop emisison measuremen, we need to know how all these particles and conditions impact the mask efficiency With no mask we can assume that an individual inhales and exhales 7 million particles per minute. With a very inefficient cloth mask maybe he inhales 6 million particles per minute. The mask would also capture exhaled particles. So possibly 5 million particles are being exhaled. If there is a large cough droplet on the mask it is going to be bombarded 15 x per minute with particles coming in and particles going out. If it is foggy will that impact electrostatic charged masks?

We know that viruses are carried on particles. We know that large droplets evaporate and form small droplets.  We need to take the information relative to cleaning ambient air from Fibertex and other filtration media companies and apply it to the one stop mask efficiency measurement issue.

One Stop Measurment Versus Viral Load

One argument that aeroaol generation of cough droplets on the mask is not important is that to become infected you need to be indundated with millions of virus particles such as you would receive from someone without a mask who sneezes on you. If he is wearing a mask and the millions of particles virus particles are subsequently emitted as virus particles no one individual is going  to be inundated with large quantities of particles.

The counter argument is that it takes relatively few particles to cause an infection and the small aerosols will penetrate the lungs potentially causing more harm than would a large droplet on the nasal passage.

Professor Willem van Schaik, Professor in Microbiology and Infection at the University of Birmingham, said: “The minimal infective dose is defined as the lowest number of viral particles that cause an infection in 50% of individuals (or ‘the average person’).

For many bacterial and viral pathogens we have a general idea of the minimal infective dose but because SARS-CoV-2 is a new pathogen we lack data. For SARS, the infective dose in mouse models was only a few hundred viral particles. It thus seems likely that we need to breathe in something like a few hundred or thousands of SARS-CoV-2 particles to develop symptoms. This would be a relatively low infective dose and could explain why the virus is spreading relatively efficiently”.

Dr Michael Skinner, Reader in Virology, Imperial College London, said: “Viruses are not poisons, within the cell they are self-replicating. That means an infection can start with just a small number of articles (the ‘dose’). The actual minimum number varies between different viruses and we don’t yet know what that ‘minimum infectious dose’ is for COVID-19, but we might presume it’s around a hundred virus particles.” McIlvaine comment: Since many millions of virus particles could be on one retained cough droplet it stands to reason that aersols generated from the droplet could contain 100 or more viral particles.

Prof Jonathan Ball, Professor of Molecular Virology, University of Nottingham, said: “We know that the likelihood of virus transmission increases with duration and frequency of exposure of an uninfected individual with someone infected with the virus”  McIlvaine comment. So if you are around someone wearing a surgical mask and he sneezes you will not receive an immediate barrage but if he is emitting aerosols over the next hour from that one droplet and you are in the vicinity the impact will be cumulative.

These and similar comments are found at   www.sciencemediacentre.org/tag/covid-19/

Researchers Analyze Coughs and Sneezes and Their Transmission

Coughs and sneezes create respiratory droplets of variable size that spread respiratory viral infections. Because these droplets are forcefully expelled, they are dispersed in the environment and can be inhaled by a susceptible host. Whereas most respiratory droplets are filtered by the nose or deposit in the oropharynx, the smaller droplet nuclei become suspended in room air and individuals farther away from the patient could inhale them. These finer particles are carried by the airstream into the lungs, where their site of deposition depends on their size and shape and is governed by various mechanisms, including impaction, sedimentation, Brownian diffusion, turbulent mixing, interception, and electrostatic precipitation

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1263PP

Vaping and Smoking Tied to COVID

A new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health shows that teens and young adults may have a heightened risk of COVID-19 if they vape or smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smokers are seven times more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile, people who vape are five times more likely to be diagnosed with the viral infection

The researchers have found that teens and young adults who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes in the last 30 days were almost five times more likely to experience COVID-19 symptoms, including fever, coughing, and difficulty of breathing compared to those who never vaped or smoked.

The finding explains why they were at a heightened risk of receiving COVID-19 testing. Further, depending on which nicotine products they were using and how recently they used them, teens and young adults who vaped or smoked, or both, were 2.6 to nine times as likely to receive COVID-19 tests than those who never used these nicotine-based products.

The team also revealed that the likelihood of being diagnosed with COVID-19 was five times more among e-cigarette users only, seven times more among those who both vaped and smoked, and 6.8 times more likely among those who vaped and smoked in the past 30 days. Further, the symptoms of COVID-19 were 4.7 times more likely among those who vaped or smoked in the previous 30 days.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200811/Smoking-and-vaping-significantly-increase-risk-of-COVID-19-in-teens-and-young-adults.aspx

Smoking Increases Small Particle Exhalation Fifteen Fold

Tobacco smoking entails inhaling millions of fine particles with each puff, and it is intuitive that after smoking a cigarette it will take a certain time to washout residual tobacco smoke (RTS) from the lungs with subsequent breaths.

A study determined the washout time of 0.3–1.0 µm particles after the last puff in 10 volunteer smokers by using equipment capable of measuring particle concentration in real time in the exhaled air.

Mean (standard deviation (SD)) lung RTS washout time was 58.6 (23.6) s, range 18–90 s, and corresponded to 8.7 (4.6) subsequent breathings. The contribution of individual and overall RTS to indoor pollution was calculated by subtracting incremental background particle concentration from room concentration after 10 consecutive re‐entries of smokers after the last puff into a room of 33.2 m³, with an air exchange rate per hour in the range of 0.2–0.4. Mean (SD) individual RTS contribution consisted of 1402 (1490) million particles (range 51–3611 million), whereas RTS increased room 0.3–1.0 µm particle concentration from a baseline of 22,283 particles/l to a final room concentration of 341,956 particles/l, corresponding to a total increase in particulate matter (2.5) from a background of 0.56 up to 3.32 µg/m³.   McIlvaine comment: Smoking greatly increases the amount of fine particles exhaled in the 0.3 micron and larger range. These particles could be virus carriers.  Since people do not smoke with  masks on this fact alone can increase transmission. For recipients wearing cloth masks many of these particles will penetrate and be inhaled.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598442/

How Much Virus is Transmitted by Cloth Mask Wearers?

Smoking generates second hand smoke which along with other indoor air pollutant generation sources contributes to the contaminants in the air being breathed by individuals within a space.  They will inhale these particles and then exhale them along with any viruses generated in the lungs by splashing phenomenon. They will also cough and sneeze larger droplets.

The virus percentage emitted direct through the mask could be small. When the amount escaping around the mask the amount increases. The amount added by the one stop phenomenon (aerosol generation of the retained cough droplets) could be substantial.

Virus Emissions Through a Cloth Mask

 

There is a lot to be learned about mask efficiency under varying conditions including particulate load, humidity as well as virus load. Experts on industrial hygiene, air pollution, smoking, filtration media, droplet physics, virology, infectious diseases and other specialties all can contribute to better understanding of the challenges  and selection of masks.

Face Mask Insert Could Help Diagnose Conditions

Given current events, many people are wearing face masks to protect themselves and others. But that same face mask could someday also collect useful health information. Researchers reporting in ACS’ Analytical Chemistry have demonstrated that a fiber inserted into an ordinary N95 face mask can collect compounds in exhaled breath aerosols for analysis. The new method could allow screening for disease biomarkers on a large scale.

Exhaled breath is an aerosol that contains a variety of volatile and non-volatile compounds dissolved in microdroplets. Some of these molecules could provide important health information, such as whether a person has a certain disease, or how their body metabolizes medications they’re taking. Mass spectrometry is a sensitive technique that can help identify these compounds. But first, sufficient amounts of the molecules must be collected, which often requires tedious procedures such as breathing into a tube or bag. Bin Hu and colleagues wondered if they could find a way to use face masks, which many people are wearing anyway, to collect and concentrate compounds exhaled in breath for later mass spectrometry analysis.

To test their idea, the researchers clipped a solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fiber inside an N95 face mask. SPME fibers have been used previously to extract compounds from breath collected by other methods. Volunteers performed many different activities, including eating a banana or garlic, smoking a cigarette or drinking a cup of coffee. Then, the volunteers wore the masks for 2 hours, and the researchers removed the SPME fibers and analyzed them by mass spectrometry. For each activity, the researchers detected specific compounds, even some that were present at trace amounts: for example, volatile sulfur compounds from eating garlic, nicotine from smoking and caffeine from drinking coffee. The researchers hope that the method will inspire biomarker studies for respiratory illnesses that require people to wear masks in everyday life.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL-TEXT ARTICLE