As students and office workers prepare to return to campus or their office buildings, it may not come down to a nasal swab or blood test. Instead, new technology shows that the standard for reopening may be to test buildings and not just people.
The technology, developed and tested at the University of Oregon, can provide new armor in the battle against the coronavirus.
“We cannot evaluate all people every day, but we can evaluate all buildings every day. Also, the buildings are being tested and the results arrive in 24 hours and can help guide the actions the next day or the operations of the building, controls or contact tracing, “Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg, director of the University of Oregon Institute for Built Environment and Health, told ABC News.
By testing air ducts, air particles, and surfaces, the researchers believe they can identify places where there has been exposure and whether the building puts the public at risk.
“We are looking for all the air in the entire room that is being returned and sucked into these return air vents, almost like a vacuum cleaner sucks in air along with dust,” said Van Den Wymelenberg.
PHOTO: New technology, developed and tested at the University of Oregon, would test buildings for signs of COVID-19. (ABC News)
The researchers say that if the virus is detected in a building, there are several mitigating factors that can be used to limit the spread, such as increasing filtration, disinfecting surfaces, or conducting human tests.
“I think buildings are really the engine of our economy and that testing buildings is the key to starting the engine again,” added Van Den Wymelenberg. “We can take that knowledge from testing in these buildings and help guide mitigation strategies and, if necessary, quarantine the building again for a short period of time to do a thorough cleanup and then reopen the building.” .
While it is not yet clear whether the virus can be transmitted through the air, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said it is possible.
MORE: Teachers have lots of questions about going back to school during the pandemic – here are 18 of them
Benedetta Allegranzi, WHO technical director for infection prevention and control, said airborne transmission of the coronavirus cannot be ruled out in “crowded, closed and poorly ventilated settings that have been described.”
CDC similarly reports whether the virus can be transmitted on surfaces, even if the transmission has not been documented.
“Coronavirus transmission occurs much more commonly through respiratory droplets than through objects and surfaces, such as door knobs, countertops, keyboards, toys, etc.,” advises the CDC. But he adds: “Current evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 can remain viable for hours or days on surfaces made of a variety of materials.”
PHOTO: The new technology, developed and tested at the University of Oregon, would examine buildings for signs of COVID-19 instead of evaluating people who use it. (ABC News)
Experts believe the technology could also help keep people in senior facilities safe and mitigate outbreaks.
Enviral Tech, a biotech company, found the virus on three surfaces inside the Springs Living facility in Lake Oswego, Oregon. One of those contaminated surfaces was an employee’s watch, which told the facility that there was probably an employee infected with COVID.
“It was a great detective story and he offered us a five-day warning before any of the positive employees showed symptoms,” said Brenda Connelly, nurse and director of operations for The Springs Living.
“So imagine if we hadn’t done this surface test, those … employees who tested positive would have continued to take care of our community’s work with staff members and possibly have spread it to others in the community. In this situation, we firmly believe that early detection through surface testing saved lives, “Connelly told ABC News.
MORE: Despite Trump’s claim, 13 states say some coronavirus supply orders have yet to be completed
One expert said the results encouraged him, but suggested there was more planning to consider about the reliability, cost, and practicality related to the technology.
“I think every step we take that contributes to what we call a ‘multiple barrier approach’ to disease prevention is excellent,” said Dr. Jim Malley, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New Hampshire specializing in disinfection.
“I am very concerned about a lot of false positives,” said Malley. “If we could come up with a cost-effective system, I would consider it as another good barrier to preventing disease transmission. So, for example, if we were to open up a university library or lecture hall and get reliable evidence that we knew wasn’t giving us many false positives, so we could take strategic steps to deal with results that show we have a high density of positive results. “
Different facilities and a different amount of testing that a facility wants to perform will affect costs. Enviral Tech told ABC News that the cost could generally be a few hundred dollars a week for eight different surfaces at once. For human testing, results return in 48 to 72 hours. With surface tests, results return in 24 hours.
“Now, does that tell us exactly who has the virus? No, it doesn’t. But it does tell us that we have a problem and we need to investigate further where we might not have done more human testing at the time if we hadn’t had completed the surface test, “Connelly told ABC News.
MORE: The ‘COVID Parties’ sound alarming, but are they really happening?
Van Den Wymelenberg said school districts have already asked about technology and whether it could help children return to school safely and keep them there.
Malley remains optimistic about technology, but emphasized the need to amplify things that have already proven effective.
“I think the concept of using modern tests to detect the infectious virus COVID-19 in buildings is a good hypothesis,” he said. “I think it’s worth a try. It could be a very valuable tool in the toolbox. However, my biggest concern would be that we don’t want it to replace [other precautions]. We don’t want it to give a false sense of security that leads people to think that they don’t have to wear masks or social distance or that they don’t have to do proper hygiene with soap and water and hand sanitizer. “
Related
