William P King

Pittsburgh Technical Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Are you William P King?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)10.65 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies have quantified the dispersion of potentially infectious bioaerosols produced by patients in the health care environment and the exposure of health care workers to these particles. Controlled studies are needed to assess the spread of bioaerosols and the efficacy of different types of respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing airborne disease transmission. An environmental chamber was equipped to simulate a patient coughing aerosol particles into a medical examination room, and a health care worker breathing while exposed to these particles. The system has three main parts: (1) a coughing simulator that expels an aerosol-laden cough through a head form; (2) a breathing simulator with a second head form that can be fitted with respiratory PPE; and (3) aerosol particle counters to measure concentrations inside and outside the PPE and at locations throughout the room. Dispersion of aerosol particles with optical diameters from 0.3 to 7.5 μm was evaluated along with the influence of breathing rate, room ventilation, and the locations of the coughing and breathing simulators. Penetration of cough aerosol particles through nine models of surgical masks and respirators placed on the breathing simulator was measured at 32 and 85 L/min flow rates and compared with the results from a standard filter tester. Results show that cough-generated aerosol particles spread rapidly throughout the room, and that within 5 min, a worker anywhere in the room would be exposed to potentially hazardous aerosols. Aerosol exposure is highest with no personal protective equipment, followed by surgical masks, and the least exposure is seen with N95 FFRs. These differences are seen regardless of breathing rate and relative position of the coughing and breathing simulators. These results provide a better understanding of the exposure of workers to cough aerosols from patients and of the relative efficacy of different types of respiratory PPE, and they will assist investigators in providing research-based recommendations for effective respiratory protection strategies in health care settings.
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 12/2012; 9(12):681-90. · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The potential for aerosol transmission of infectious influenza virus (ie, in healthcare facilities) is controversial. We constructed a simulated patient examination room that contained coughing and breathing manikins to determine whether coughed influenza was infectious and assessed the effectiveness of an N95 respirator and surgical mask in blocking transmission. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health aerosol samplers collected size-fractionated aerosols for 60 minutes at the mouth of the breathing manikin, beside the mouth, and at 3 other locations in the room. Total recovered virus was quantitated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and infectivity was determined by the viral plaque assay and an enhanced infectivity assay. Infectious influenza was recovered in all aerosol fractions (5.0% in >4 μm aerodynamic diameter, 75.5% in 1-4 μm, and 19.5% in <1 μm; n = 5). Tightly sealing a mask to the face blocked entry of 94.5% of total virus and 94.8% of infectious virus (n = 3). A tightly sealed respirator blocked 99.8% of total virus and 99.6% of infectious virus (n = 3). A poorly fitted respirator blocked 64.5% of total virus and 66.5% of infectious virus (n = 3). A mask documented to be loosely fitting by a PortaCount fit tester, to simulate how masks are worn by healthcare workers, blocked entry of 68.5% of total virus and 56.6% of infectious virus (n = 2). These results support a role for aerosol transmission and represent the first reported laboratory study of the efficacy of masks and respirators in blocking inhalation of influenza in aerosols. The results indicate that a poorly fitted respirator performs no better than a loosely fitting mask.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases 03/2012; 54(11):1569-77. · 9.37 Impact Factor