Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.

<h4>Background</h4>Nasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for tre...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M C Jermy, C J T Spence, R Kirton, J F O'Donnell, N Kabaliuk, S Gaw, H Hockey, Y Jiang, Z Zulkhairi Abidin, R L Dougherty, P Rowe, A S Mahaliyana, A Gibbs, S A Roberts
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246123
id doaj-990e8fedc0cc431c9a387f7c6caa30e6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-990e8fedc0cc431c9a387f7c6caa30e62021-03-04T13:07:13ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01162e024612310.1371/journal.pone.0246123Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.M C JermyC J T SpenceR KirtonJ F O'DonnellN KabaliukS GawH HockeyY JiangZ Zulkhairi AbidinR L DoughertyP RoweA S MahaliyanaA GibbsS A Roberts<h4>Background</h4>Nasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for treating COVID-19 patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Liquid particles within the exhaled breath of healthy participants were measured with two protocols: (1) high speed camera imaging and counting exhaled particles under high magnification (6 participants) and (2) measuring the deposition of a chemical marker (riboflavin-5-monophosphate) at a distance of 100 and 500 mm on filter papers through which air was drawn (10 participants). The filter papers were assayed with HPLC. Breathing conditions tested included quiet (resting) breathing and vigorous breathing (which here means nasal snorting, voluntary coughing and voluntary sneezing). Unsupported (natural) breathing and NHF at 30 and 60 LPM were compared.<h4>Results</h4>Imaging: During quiet breathing, no particles were recorded with unsupported breathing or 30 LPM NHF (detection limit for single particles 33 μm). Particles were detected from 2 of 6 participants at 60 LPM quiet breathing at approximately 10% of the rate caused by unsupported vigorous breathing. Unsupported vigorous breathing released the greatest numbers of particles. Vigorous breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, released half the number of particles compared to vigorous breathing without NHF.Chemical marker tests: No oral/nasal fluid was detected in quiet breathing without NHF (detection limit 0.28 μL/m3). In quiet breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, small quantities were detected in 4 out of 29 quiet breathing tests, not exceeding 17 μL/m3. Vigorous breathing released 200-1000 times more fluid than the quiet breathing with NHF. The quantities detected in vigorous breathing were similar whether using NHF or not.<h4>Conclusion</h4>During quiet breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy may cause oral/nasal fluid to be released as particles, at levels of tens of μL per cubic metre of air. Vigorous breathing (snort, cough or sneeze) releases 200 to 1000 times more oral/nasal fluid than quiet breathing (p < 0.001 with both imaging and chemical marker methods). During vigorous breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy caused no statistically significant difference in the quantity of oral/nasal fluid released compared to unsupported breathing. NHF use does not increase the risk of dispersing infectious aerosols above the risk of unsupported vigorous breathing. Standard infection prevention and control measures should apply when dealing with a patient who has an acute respiratory infection, independent of which, if any, respiratory support is being used.<h4>Clinical trial registration</h4>ACTRN12614000924651.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246123
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M C Jermy
C J T Spence
R Kirton
J F O'Donnell
N Kabaliuk
S Gaw
H Hockey
Y Jiang
Z Zulkhairi Abidin
R L Dougherty
P Rowe
A S Mahaliyana
A Gibbs
S A Roberts
spellingShingle M C Jermy
C J T Spence
R Kirton
J F O'Donnell
N Kabaliuk
S Gaw
H Hockey
Y Jiang
Z Zulkhairi Abidin
R L Dougherty
P Rowe
A S Mahaliyana
A Gibbs
S A Roberts
Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
PLoS ONE
author_facet M C Jermy
C J T Spence
R Kirton
J F O'Donnell
N Kabaliuk
S Gaw
H Hockey
Y Jiang
Z Zulkhairi Abidin
R L Dougherty
P Rowe
A S Mahaliyana
A Gibbs
S A Roberts
author_sort M C Jermy
title Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
title_short Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
title_full Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
title_fullStr Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
title_sort assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2021-01-01
description <h4>Background</h4>Nasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for treating COVID-19 patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Liquid particles within the exhaled breath of healthy participants were measured with two protocols: (1) high speed camera imaging and counting exhaled particles under high magnification (6 participants) and (2) measuring the deposition of a chemical marker (riboflavin-5-monophosphate) at a distance of 100 and 500 mm on filter papers through which air was drawn (10 participants). The filter papers were assayed with HPLC. Breathing conditions tested included quiet (resting) breathing and vigorous breathing (which here means nasal snorting, voluntary coughing and voluntary sneezing). Unsupported (natural) breathing and NHF at 30 and 60 LPM were compared.<h4>Results</h4>Imaging: During quiet breathing, no particles were recorded with unsupported breathing or 30 LPM NHF (detection limit for single particles 33 μm). Particles were detected from 2 of 6 participants at 60 LPM quiet breathing at approximately 10% of the rate caused by unsupported vigorous breathing. Unsupported vigorous breathing released the greatest numbers of particles. Vigorous breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, released half the number of particles compared to vigorous breathing without NHF.Chemical marker tests: No oral/nasal fluid was detected in quiet breathing without NHF (detection limit 0.28 μL/m3). In quiet breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, small quantities were detected in 4 out of 29 quiet breathing tests, not exceeding 17 μL/m3. Vigorous breathing released 200-1000 times more fluid than the quiet breathing with NHF. The quantities detected in vigorous breathing were similar whether using NHF or not.<h4>Conclusion</h4>During quiet breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy may cause oral/nasal fluid to be released as particles, at levels of tens of μL per cubic metre of air. Vigorous breathing (snort, cough or sneeze) releases 200 to 1000 times more oral/nasal fluid than quiet breathing (p < 0.001 with both imaging and chemical marker methods). During vigorous breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy caused no statistically significant difference in the quantity of oral/nasal fluid released compared to unsupported breathing. NHF use does not increase the risk of dispersing infectious aerosols above the risk of unsupported vigorous breathing. Standard infection prevention and control measures should apply when dealing with a patient who has an acute respiratory infection, independent of which, if any, respiratory support is being used.<h4>Clinical trial registration</h4>ACTRN12614000924651.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246123
work_keys_str_mv AT mcjermy assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT cjtspence assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT rkirton assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT jfodonnell assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT nkabaliuk assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT sgaw assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT hhockey assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT yjiang assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT zzulkhairiabidin assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT rldougherty assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT prowe assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT asmahaliyana assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT agibbs assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
AT saroberts assessmentofdispersionofairborneparticlesoforalnasalfluidbyhighflownasalcannulatherapy
_version_ 1714800627120340992