Real-world test of ionization in a campus building. We did not see a reduction in particle number concentrations at supply vent when system was on vs. off, measured using TSI Aerotrak. /1
Thanks to @VTFacilities for suggesting this and providing access. Photo shows the ionization unit in blue inside the HVAC duct. /2
@ajprussin and David Kormos took turns holding the particle counter at the supply vent. /3
Concentrations were actually 2, 8, 13, 4, 4, 111% higher (by size bin, p = 0.01, 0.00, 0.08, 0.84, 0.88, 0.17) when ionization unit was on, but we necessarily did this sequentially in time, so it's not a perfect comparison. /4
I handled ozone measurements with Thermo 49C (not recently calibrated). It was 28 ppb outside and 10 ppb in the classroom, so not a problem. /5
This was just one set of measurements at one point in time, but I'd say there's no way the ionization system is reducing particle concentrations by 90% or more in this real-world application. Ionization does work in electrostatic precipitators with collection plates. /6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Latest from our lab @jinpan et al. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… Why are seasonal patterns of flu & other viruses different in temperate (more in winter) vs. tropical (sporadic, maybe with rainy periods) regions? Indoor climate may be a driver. /1
But most studies look at disease incidence vs. outdoor weather; outdoor data more readily available. Need to understand relationship between indoor & outdoor climate to better interpret results. /2
Indoor temp usually 20-30 C everywhere, but humidity varies widely seasonally (very low in winter in temperate regions) and is higher in tropics. Indoor relative & abs humidity usually well-correlated with outdoor AH, except with heavy A/C use. /3
Why the big debate over airborne transmission? Exchanges with @OlabisiLab Matthew Meselson @kprather88 over the weekend helped me crystallize some thoughts about the disconnect. /1
Traditional discussion about transmission routes centers around operational definitions in infection control and prevention in hospitals. There are "airborne" diseases/precautions and "droplet" diseases/precautions. /2
The problem is that we have been trying to impose these operational definitions on the actual mechanisms of transmission and apply them in community (non-hospital) settings. /3
Deep dive by @zeynep from a sociological perspective on what we who have studied airborne transmission for a while, have been observing. nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opi… /1
There is a paradigm shift taking place, to correct misunderstanding in how respiratory infections are actually transmitted. /2
Traditional understanding of transmission routes was defined mainly by epidemiological observations--who gets sick when and where--and relied on being able to envision viruses moving between people in large droplets or on objects (fomites). /3
"tracing the origins of the 5 μm threshold...ultimately revealed a conflation between various understandings and definitions of 'aerosols.' Most contemporary sources use this threshold only to explain which particles stay suspended in the air for longer times,..." /2
"yet the 5 μm distinction is clearly not based on what stays airborne but on what reaches deepest in the lungs...." /3
COVID-19 is transmitted mainly by breathing in aerosol particles carrying the virus. Two other possible routes are 1) touching a sick person or contaminated object and 2) being sprayed by large respiratory droplets. These other routes are rarer. /1
Many cases of COVID-19 have been traced to “close contacts,” and this was incorrectly interpreted to mean that large droplets were responsible for transmitting the disease. /2
We shouldn't be afraid to call SARS-CoV-2 "airborne." This is the clearest way to convey how it is transmitted. It's not waterborne, foodborne, bloodborne, or vector-borne. It's airborne. The word can still retain its special meaning in hospitals, like the word "chart." /1
A couple of updates to my 🧵from last year: I said there is no hard cutoff between droplets and aerosols. Well, there is a difference in how we are exposed: by large droplets being sprayed on us or by breathing in aerosols. /2
The associated size cut is in the range of 50-100 μm, depending on velocity of exhalation, local air flows, humidity, etc. The size cut is nowhere near the canonical 5 μm. /3