Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety guidelines in the workplace, the authors analyzed the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the source of COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), together with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Material and Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in tertiary hospitals in the Uusimaa region, Finland, with 1072 volunteers being enrolled in the study from among the HCWs at the Helsinki University Hospital. Overall, 866 (80.8%) HCWs (including 588 nurses, 170 doctors, and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) completed the questionnaire by July 15, 2020, with 52% of the participants taking care of COVID-19 patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding their use of PPE, the ability to follow safety guidelines, exposure to COVID-19, and the source of potential COVID-19 infections. The participants with COVID-19 symptoms were tested with the SARS-CoV-2 realtime polymerase chain reaction method. All infected participants were contacted, and their answers were confirmed regarding COVID-19 exposure. Results: In total, 41 (4.7%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 22 (53.6%) of infections being confirmed or likely occupational, and 12 (29.3%) originating from colleagues. In 14 cases (63.6%), occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask, and all infections originating from patients occurred while using a surgical mask or no mask at all. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and following aerosol precautions. The combined odds ratio for working at an intensive care unit, an emergency department, or a ward was 3.4 (95% CI: 1.2-9.2, p = 0.016). Conclusions: A high infection rate was found among HCWs despite safety guidelines. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the use of FFP2/3 respirators in all patient contacts with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, along with the use of universal masking, also in personnel rooms.

Objective: To analyse the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and trace the source of COVID-19 infections in tertiary hospitals healthcare workers in light of the used PPE and their ability to maintain social distances and follow governmental restrictions. Design: Cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary hospitals in Uusimaa region, Finland Participants: Of 1072 enrolled, 866 HCWs (588 nurses, 170 doctors and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) from the Helsinki University Hospital completed the questionnaire by July 15th, 2020. The average age of participants was 42.4 years and 772 (89.0%) were women. The participants answered a detailed questionnaire of their PPE usage, ability to follow safety restrictions, exposure to COVID-19, the source of potential COVID-19 infection and both mental and physical symptoms during the first wave of COVID-19 in Finland. Main outcome measures: All participants with COVID-19 symptoms were tested with either RT-PCR or antibody tests. The infections were traced and categorised based on the location and source of infection. The possibility to maintain social distance and PPE usage during exposure were analyzed. Results: Of the HCWs that participated, 41 (4.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, marking a substantially higher infection rate than that of the general population (0.3%); 22 (53.6%) of infections were confirmed or likely occupational, including 7 (31.8%) from colleagues. Additionally, 5 (26.3%) of other infections were from colleagues outside the working facilities. 14 (63.6%) of occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and aerosol precautions while treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: While treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, HCWs should wear an FFP2/3 respirator and recommended PPE. Maintaining safety distances in the workplace and controlling infections between HCWs should be priorities to ensure safe working conditions.

Objective COVID-19 spreads through aerosols produced in coughing, talking, exhalation, and also in some surgical procedures. Use of CO2 laser in laryngeal surgery has been observed to generate aerosols, however, other techniques, such cold dissection and microdebrider, have not been sufficiently investigated. We aimed to assess whether aerosol generation occurs during laryngeal operations and the effect of different instruments on aerosol production. Methods We measured particle concentration generated during surgeries with an Optical Particle Sizer. Cough data collected from volunteers and aerosol concentration of an empty operating room served as references. Aerosol concentrations when using different techniques and equipment were compared with references as well as with each other. Results Thirteen laryngological surgeries were evaluated. The highest total aerosol concentrations were observed when using CO2 laser and these were significantly higher than the concentrations when using microdebrider or cold dissection (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001) or in the background or during coughing (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). In contrast, neither microdebrider nor cold dissection produced significant concentrations of aerosol compared with coughing (p = 0.146, p = 0.753). In comparing all three techniques, microdebrider produced the least aerosol particles. Conclusions Microdebrider and cold dissection can be regarded as aerosol-generating relative to background reference concentrations, but they should not be considered as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures, as the concentrations are low and do not exceed those of coughing. A step-down algorithm from CO2 laser to cold instruments and microdebrider is recommended to lower the risk of airborne infections among medical staff.

Background: Intubation, laryngoscopy, and extubation are considered highly aerosolgenerating procedures, and additional safety protocols are used during COVID-19 pandemic in these procedures. However, previous studies are mainly experimental and have neither analyzed staff exposure to aerosol generation in the real-life operating room environment nor compared the exposure to aerosol concentrations generated during normal patient care. To assess operational staff exposure to potentially infectious particle generation during general anesthesia, we measured particle concentration and size distribution with patients undergoing surgery with Optical Particle Sizer. Methods: A single-center observative multidisciplinary clinical study in HelsinkiUniversity Hospital with 39 adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Mean particle concentrations during different anesthesia procedures were statistically compared with cough control data collected from 37 volunteers to assess the differences in particle generation.Results: This study measured 25 preoxygenations, 30 mask ventilations, 28 intubations, and 24 extubations. The highest total aerosol concentration of 1153 particles (p)/cm³ was observed during mask ventilation. Preoxygenations, mask ventilations, and extubations as well as uncomplicated intubations generated mean aerosol concentrations statistically comparable to coughing. It is noteworthy that difficult intubation generated significantly fewer aerosols than either uncomplicated intubation (p = .007) or coughing (p = 0.006).Conclusions: Anesthesia induction generates mainly small (<1 µm) aerosol particles.Based on our results, general anesthesia procedures are not highly aerosol-generating compared with coughing. Thus, their definition as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures should be re-evaluated due to comparable exposures during normal patient care. Implication Statement:The list of aerosol-generating procedures guides the use of protective equipments in hospitals. Intubation is listed as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure, however, aerosol generation has not been measured thoroughly. WeThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

SARS‐CoV‐2 has been detected both in air and on surfaces, but questions remain about the patient‐specific and environmental factors affecting virus transmission. Additionally, more detailed information on viral sampling of the air is needed. This prospective cohort study (N = 56) presents results from 258 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home‐treated COVID‐19 index patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compares the results between the measured environments and patient factors. Additionally, epidemiological and experimental investigations were performed. The proportions of qRT‐PCR‐positive air (10.7% hospital/17.6% homes) and surface samples (8.8%/12.9%) showed statistical similarity in hospital and homes. Significant SARS‐CoV‐2 air contamination was observed in a large (655.25 m3) mechanically ventilated (1.67 air changes per hour, 32.4–421 L/s/patient) patient hall even with only two patients present. All positive air samples were obtained in the absence of aerosol‐generating procedures. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA was detected in the following particle sizes: 0.65–4.7 μm, 7.0–12.0 μm, >10 μm, and <100 μm. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun.

Objective Coronavirus disease 2019 has highlighted the lack of knowledge on aerosol exposure during respiratory activity and aerosol-generating procedures. This study sought to determine the aerosol concentrations generated by coughing to better understand, and to set a standard for studying, aerosols generated in medical procedures. Methods Aerosol exposure during coughing was measured in 37 healthy volunteers in the operating theatre with an optical particle sizer, from 40 cm, 70 cm and 100 cm distances. Results Altogether, 306 volitional and 15 involuntary coughs were measured. No differences between groups were observed. Conclusion Many medical procedures are expected to generate aerosols; it is unclear whether they are higher risk than normal respiratory activity. The measured aerosol exposure can be used to determine the risk for significant aerosol generation during medical procedures. Considerable variation of aerosol generation during cough was observed between individuals, but whether cough was volitional or involuntary made no difference to aerosol production.

COVID‐19 has highlighted the need for indoor risk‐reduction strategies. Our aim is to provide information about the virus dispersion and attempts to reduce the infection risk. Indoor transmission was studied simulating a dining situation in a restaurant. Aerosolized Phi6 viruses were detected with several methods. The aerosol dispersion was modeled by using the Large‐Eddy Simulation (LES) technique. Three risk‐reduction strategies were studied: (1) augmenting ventilation with air purifiers, (2) spatial partitioning with dividers, and (3) combination of 1 and 2. In all simulations infectious viruses were detected throughout the space proving the existence long‐distance aerosol transmission indoors. Experimental cumulative virus numbers and LES dispersion results were qualitatively similar. The LES results were further utilized to derive the evolution of infection probability. Air purifiers augmenting the effective ventilation rate by 65% reduced the spatially averaged infection probability by 30%–32%. This relative reduction manifests with approximately 15 min lag as aerosol dispersion only gradually reaches the purifier units. Both viral findings and LES results confirm that spatial partitioning has a negligible effect on the mean infection‐probability indoors, but may affect the local levels adversely. Exploitation of high‐resolution LES jointly with microbiological measurements enables an informative interpretation of the experimental results and facilitates a more complete risk assessment.

SARS-CoV-2 has been detected both in air and on surfaces, but questions remain about the patient-specific and environmental factors affecting virus transmission to the environment. Additionally, more detailed information on viral findings in air is needed. This cross-sectional study presents results from 259 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home-treated COVID-19 patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compares the results between the measured environments and patient factors. The proportions of PCR-positive air and surface samples showed statistical similarity in hospital and in the home. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected even after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the following particle sizes: 0.65–4.7 µm, >7 µm, >10 µm, and <100 µm. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun.