A Systems Approach to Assess Transport and Diffusion of Hazardous Airborne Particles in a Large Surgical Suite: Potential Impacts on Viral Airborne Transmission

  1. Marc Garbey
  2. Guillaume Joerger
  3. Shannon Furr

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Airborne transmission of viruses, such as the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in hospital systems are under debate: it has been shown that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus goes beyond droplet dynamics that is limited to 1 to 2 m, but it is unclear if the airborne viral load is significant enough to ensure transmission of the disease. Surgical smoke can act as a carrier for tissue particles, viruses, and bacteria. To quantify airborne transmission from a physical point of view, we consider surgical smoke produced by thermal destruction of tissue during the use of electrosurgical instruments as a marker of airborne particle diffusion-transportation. Surgical smoke plumes are also known to be dangerous for human health, especially to surgical staff who receive long-term exposure over the years. There are limited quantified metrics reported on long-term effects of surgical smoke on staff’s health. The purpose of this paper is to provide a mathematical framework and experimental protocol to assess the transport and diffusion of hazardous airborne particles in every large operating room suite. Measurements from a network of air quality sensors gathered during a clinical study provide validation for the main part of the model. Overall, the model estimates staff exposure to airborne contamination from surgical smoke and biological material. To address the clinical implication over a long period of time, the systems approach is built upon previous work on multi-scale modeling of surgical flow in a large operating room suite and takes into account human behavior factors.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.11.20097725: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 6. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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 10.3390/ijerph17155404
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.20097725v1 on medRxiv