Variation in Aerosol Production Across Oxygen Delivery Devices in Spontaneously Breathing Human Subjects

  1. Theodore J. Iwashyna
  2. Andre Boehman
  3. Jesse Capecelatro
  4. Amy M. Cohn
  5. James M. Cooke
  6. Deena Kelly Costa
  7. Richard M. Eakin
  8. Hallie C. Prescott
  9. Margaret S. Woolridge

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We sought to assess whether HHFNC results in greater production of aerosolized particles than 6 liters per minute nasal cannula, using state-of-the-art techniques of aerosol measurement, in spontaneously breathing human volunteers in a simulated hospital room.

For each volunteer, we first measured background aerosol levels in the room immediately prior to testing. We then measured aerosol levels while the healthy volunteer laid in bed - - with the head of bed at 30 degrees - - wearing the following oxygen delivery devices: (a) 6L/min nasal canula (NC) with humidification; (b) non-re-breather mask (NRB) with 15L/min gas flow, non-humidified; (c) HHFNC with 30L/min gas flow; (d) HHFNC with 60L/min gas flow. Two scanning mobility particle sizing (SMPS) systems (TSI 3080/3030, TSI 3080/3750) were used to measure aerosols 10 to 500 nanometer (nm) in size for each of the oxygen delivery devices.

There was no variation in aerosol level within patients between room air, 6 L/min NC, 15 L/min NRB, 30 L/min HHFNC, and 60 L/min HHFNC, regardless of coughing.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.15.20066688: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This work was conducted as a quality improvement project in order to inform care policy for COVID19 patients at the VA Ann Arbor and University of Michigan regarding infection control under oxygen support, and reviewed and deemed not regulated by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (HUM00179622).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.15.20066688v1 on medRxiv