29 research outputs found

    How effective are face coverings in reducing transmission of COVID-19?

    Full text link
    In the COVID-19 pandemic, among the more controversial issues is the use of face coverings. To address this we show that the underlying physics ensures particles with diameters & 1 μ\mum are efficiently filtered out by a simple cotton or surgical mask. For particles in the submicron range the efficiency depends on the material properties of the masks, though generally the filtration efficiency in this regime varies between 30 to 60 % and multi-layered cotton masks are expected to be comparable to surgical masks. Respiratory droplets are conventionally divided into coarse droplets (> 5-10 μ\mum) responsible for droplet transmission and aerosols (< 5-10 μ\mum) responsible for airborne transmission. Masks are thus expected to be highly effective at preventing droplet transmission, with their effectiveness limited only by the mask fit, compliance and appropriate usage. By contrast, knowledge of the size distribution of bioaerosols and the likelihood that they contain virus is essential to understanding their effectiveness in preventing airborne transmission. We argue from literature data on SARS-CoV-2 viral loads that the finest aerosols (< 1 μ\mum) are unlikely to contain even a single virion in the majority of cases; we thus expect masks to be effective at reducing the risk of airborne transmission in most settings.Comment: 5 pages + references, 3 figure

    Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract:an analysis of aerosol generation from oxygen delivery systems

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) provide enhanced oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19. CPAP and HFNO are currently designated as aerosol-generating procedures despite limited high-quality experimental data. We aimed to characterise aerosol emission from HFNO and CPAP and compare with breathing, speaking and coughing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded using the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers (n=25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosol than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50 L/min face mask leaks). Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity. HFNO was associated with aerosol emission, however, this was from the machine. Generated particles were small (<1 µm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, thereby unlikely to carry viral particles. More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n=8) than volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, standard non-humidified CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to be the main aerosol-generating risk out of all measured activities

    Prognostic significance of nonischaemic myocardial fibrosis in patients with normal left ventricular volumes and ejection-fraction

    Get PDF
    Objectives: This study aims to investigate the prognostic significance of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in patients without coronary artery disease and with normal range left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction. Background: Nonischemic patterns of LGE with normal LV volumes and ejection fraction are increasingly detected on cardiovascular magnetic resonance, but their prognostic significance, and consequently management, is uncertain. Methods: Patients with midwall/subepicardial LGE and normal LV volumes, wall thickness, and ejection fraction on cardiovascular magnetic resonance were enrolled and compared to a control group without LGE. The primary outcome was actual or aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD). Results: Of 748 patients enrolled, 401 had LGE and 347 did not. The median age was 50 years (interquartile range: 38-61 years), LV ejection fraction 66% (interquartile range: 62%-70%), and 287 (38%) were women. Scan indications included chest pain (40%), palpitation (33%) and breathlessness (13%). No patient experienced SCD and only 1 LGE+ patient (0.13%) had an aborted SCD in the 11th follow-up year. Over a median of 4.3 years, 30 patients (4.0%) died. All-cause mortality was similar for LGE+/- patients (3.7% vs 4.3%; P = 0.71) and was associated with age (HR: 2.04 per 10 years; 95% CI: 1.46-2.79; P < 0.001). Twenty-one LGE+ and 4 LGE- patients had an unplanned cardiovascular hospital admission (HR: 7.22; 95% CI: 4.26-21.17; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: There was a low SCD risk during long-term follow-up in patients with LGE but otherwise normal LV volumes and ejection fraction. Mortality was driven by age and not LGE presence, location, or extent, although the latter was associated with greater cardiovascular hospitalization for suspected myocarditis and symptomatic ventricular tachycardia

    Measurement of ϒ production in pp collisions at √s = 2.76 TeV

    Get PDF
    The production of ϒ(1S), ϒ(2S) and ϒ(3S) mesons decaying into the dimuon final state is studied with the LHCb detector using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.3 pb−1 collected in proton–proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of √s = 2.76 TeV. The differential production cross-sections times dimuon branching fractions are measured as functions of the ϒ transverse momentum and rapidity, over the ranges pT &#60; 15 GeV/c and 2.0 &#60; y &#60; 4.5. The total cross-sections in this kinematic region, assuming unpolarised production, are measured to be σ (pp → ϒ(1S)X) × B ϒ(1S)→μ+μ− = 1.111 ± 0.043 ± 0.044 nb, σ (pp → ϒ(2S)X) × B ϒ(2S)→μ+μ− = 0.264 ± 0.023 ± 0.011 nb, σ (pp → ϒ(3S)X) × B ϒ(3S)→μ+μ− = 0.159 ± 0.020 ± 0.007 nb, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic
    corecore