4.6 Article

Frequent recovery of influenza A but not influenza B virus RNA in aerosols in pediatric patient rooms

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 805-815

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12669

关键词

aerosol; healthcare settings; infection control; influenza transmission; influenza virus; pediatrics

资金

  1. Guangzhou Medical University Highlevel University Innovation Team Training Program [159]
  2. Guangzhou Medical University High-level University Clinical Research and Cultivation Program [160]
  3. Guangdong -Hong Kong Technology Cooperation [2016A050503047]
  4. Theme-based Research Scheme Project [T11-705/14N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Influenza transmission occurs through the air, but the relative importance of small droplets, or aerosols, in influenza transmission especially within healthcare facilities remains uncertain. Detections of influenza virus in aerosols in cough and exhaled breath from infected patients and from the air in outpatient or inpatient healthcare facilities have been studied, but most studies were done in adults with very few data involving children. We aimed to assess the potential of influenza transmission via aerosols in pediatric patient rooms. Two-stage cyclone (NIOSH) air samplers were used to collect the air in 5-bed pediatric patient rooms with patients with influenza-like illness. Influenza A virus RNA was recovered in 15/19 (79%) air sampling occasions with >= 1 patient with laboratory-confirmed influenza A virus infections, in all air size fractions (>4 mu m, 1-4 mu m and <1 mu m). Influenza B virus RNA was significantly less detected (2/10 occasions, 20%). We estimated a ventilation rate of 1.46 ACH in a similar but unoccupied 5-bed patient room. High quantities of influenza A virus RNA detected in the air in pediatric patient rooms suggests other individuals in pediatric patient rooms including other patients, visitors, caretakers and healthcare workers could be exposed to influenza A virus in aerosols while caring for infected children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据