Building & Environment Volume (183, October 2020) 107186

Performance analysis of portable HEPA filters and

temporary plastic anterooms on the spread of
surrogate coronavirus

Ehsan S. Mousavi, Krystal J.Godri Pollitt,

Jodi Sherman, Richard A.Martinello
 Highlights

1 Temporary anteroom and portable HEPA

filter were used to make an expedient
isolation room.

2 The HEPA filter unit was most effective

when placed inside the isolation space next
to patient bed.

The combination of anteroom, HEPA

3 filtration, and negative pressure is an
effective isolation strategy

2
1. Introduction
 Introduction
• SARS-CoV-2 has caused over 18 million infections worldwide and nearly
700,000 deaths as of August 05, 2020 [1]
• It’s expected that the primary of transmission is by respiratory droplets and
possibly small aerosols [4,5]
• To contain potentially infectious aerosols from suspected patients, CDC
recommends them to be placed in airborne infection isolation room (AIIR),
also known as a negative pressure room [6]
• CDC has suggested the use of portable fan systems with HEPA filtration to
provide surge capacity during a pandemic, this unit can clean the indoor air and
create negative pressure [6,14]
 Introduction
• Moreover, anterooms were shown to be effective in containing airborne
infectious particles by adding another layer of physical barrier to the AIIR
[18,19].
• We performed an experimental study to determine the effectiveness and
ideal placement of portable HEPA units. Then evaluated the temporary
anteroom structure on minimizing the dispersion of contaminants in the
hospital space.
2. Method
 2.1 Experimental Setup

The room was 6.3 m (L) x 3.9 m (W) x 3.0 m (H) and connected to the hallway that was sealed from
other adjacent spaces with block walls and drywall ceilings.

8
2.1 Experimental Setup

9
2.1 Experimental Setup
● 2 portable HEPA machines were used to establish
various pressurization schemes across the plastic
barrier with 1500 m3 h-1 air flow rate
● the specific machine used in this experimental need
to produced higher ACH than the hospital design set
point for airborne infection isolation rooms [21] (i.e.,
12 ACH).

● Table 1. HEPA machine Configurations and pressure

relationships (ΔP).

*Test 5 : leaving the zipper door half open

*Test 6 : leaving an open space underneath the zipper door
*Test 7 : making 15cm tear in the plastic barrier

10
2.1 Experimental Setup

11
 2.2 Test Procedure

● Two OmniGuard DPM pressure monitoring devices were used (at plastic barrier and at the main
door)
● An oil-based substance (BIS-2-ethylhexyl sebacate) was used to generate aerosols using a
pharmaceutical nebulizer connected to an air pump.
● Aerosols released into the space at the patient bed, to simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus from
an infected patient.
● Resulted in concentrations that were nearly 1000 times of those of the background measurements
(<1000 of 0. 3 μm particles per liter). [22]
● Background concentrations of particles were measured for 2 min prior to aerosolization
● Experiments were designed to simulate a typical visit with an infected patient.

12
2.2 Test Procedure

13
 2.2 Test Procedure

● Particle counters (ExTEch VPC300) were placed in the walking pathways inside the isolation room
(PC-ISO), temporarty anteroom (PC-ANT), at the main door (PC-Door), in the hallway (PC-HW)
● For this study only the concentration of the 0.3 µm, 1.0 µm, 3 µm were measured
● Emphasis on the 0.3 µm sd yhis size is the cosest to the size range of SARS_COV-2 virus

14
3. Result and Discussion
 3.1 Distribution of aerosols
Particle Counts per liter Curves for all locations and tests

17
 3.1 Distribution of aerosols
Migration Rates from the isolation spaces for different particle sizes.

18
3.2 Effect of plastic barrier

19
 3.3 Effect of pressurization

● Negative pressure impacted the efficiency of the plastic barrier.

● Test 1 & 2, migration ratio was less than 1%
● increasing ΔP from 4.0 Pa (Test 2) to 12Pa (Test 1) did not have a significant impact on the migration
rate. suggesting that over-pressurization did not provide extra containment
● Tests 3 and 4 had no pressure differential across the plastic barrier, yet the HEPA machine in the
anteroom was effective in removing the particles from the anteroom through HEPA filtration

20
3.4 Effect of anteroom

21
3.4 Effect of anteroom

22
3.5 Effect of deffects in plastic barrier

23
3.5 Effect of defects in plastic barrier

24
 Conclussion
• Isolation room are designed to contain and remove pathogenic agents
quickly. The portable HEPA limited aerosol dispersion (a) by removing the
particles from the air, and (b) by creating a negative pressure across the
plastic barrier.
• in the absence of portable air filters, the plastic barrier could prevent up to
80% of the surrogate particles from spreading to adjacent spaces.
• When combined with a portable HEPA air purifier, aerosol containment
raised to more than 99%
• in general, the best outcome was achieved when both machines were
operating. the best location for a single HEPA machine is inside the isolation
space