Effectiveness of HEPA Filters at Removing Infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the Air
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads by airborne transmission; therefore, the development and functional evaluation of air-cleaning technologies are essential for infection control. Air filtration using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters may be effective; however, no quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of these filters in the removal of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from the air has been reported. To evaluate the removal effect of HEPA filtration on airborne SARS-CoV-2, here, we disseminated infectious SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in a test chamber in a biosafety level 3 facility and filtered the air with a HEPA-filtered air cleaner in the chamber. The air cleaner with the HEPA filter continuously removed the infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the air in a running-time-dependent manner, and the virus capture ratios were 85.38%, 96.03%, and >99.97% at 1, 2, and 7.1 ventilation volumes, respectively. The air-cleaning performance of a HEPA filter coated with an antiviral agent consisting mainly of a monovalent copper compound was also evaluated, and the capture ratio was found to be comparable to that of the conventional HEPA filter. This study provides insights into the proper use and performance of HEPA-filtered air cleaners to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
IMPORTANCE Air filtration simulation experiments quantitatively showed that an air cleaner equipped with a HEPA filter can continuously remove SARS-CoV-2 from the air. The capture ratios for SARS-CoV-2 in the air when the air cleaner was equipped with an antiviral-agent-coated HEPA filter were comparable to those with the conventional HEPA filter, and there was little effect on SARS-CoV-2 in the air that passed through the antiviral-reagent-coated HEPA filter.
OBSERVATION
The airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a key infectious route for the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1, 2). It has been suggested that air filtration using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters might be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 wafting in the air (3). In the United States, the guidelines and recommended practices of the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST-RP-CC001) define an efficient HEPA filter as one that captures more than 99.97% of submicrometer particles at 0.3 μm (4). Air filtration was found to substantially remove SARS-CoV-2 in experimental room air when viral RNA was measured by using quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) (3, 5, 6). The effects of air filtration on the removal of infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles have also been evaluated by using aerosolized bacteriophages as mimetic viruses (7); however, no reports to date have quantitatively evaluated the effectiveness of HEPA filters in the removal of infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles (size range of approximately 60 to 140 nm) contained in aerosols (size range of approximately 0.001 to 100 μm) from the air (8, 9).
To investigate the filtration efficacy of HEPA filters, we constructed a test chamber in a biosafety level 3 (BSL3) facility and placed an air cleaner with a HEPA filter in the chamber (see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). A compressor nebulizer connected to one side plate of the chamber was charged with 6 mL of a SARS-CoV-2 suspension to generate virus droplets/aerosols. The generated particles (initial-mass median diameter, 5.5 ± 0.2 μm) may have become smaller as they wafted in the test chamber during the experiments (10). After the chamber was filled with virus aerosols, the air cleaner in the chamber was operated for 5, 10, or 35.5 min, providing 12 chamber volume filtrations per h. After air filtration, the viral aerosols still wafting through the chamber were collected by an air sampler, and a plaque assay was used to determine the viral titer (11, 12) (Text S1). The air cleaner with the HEPA filter removed the infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the chamber in a running-time-dependent manner (Fig. 1A). The virus capture ratios with the HEPA filter were 85.38%, 96.03%, and >99.97% when the filtration times were 5, 10, and 35.5 min, respectively (Table S1).
FIG 1
We next tested the filtration efficacy of a HEPA filter coated with the antiviral reagent Cufitec. Cufitec is a monovalent copper compound that inactivates viruses such as influenza virus and feline calicivirus by generating OH radicals without hydrogen peroxide (13, 14). The efficiency of airborne SARS-CoV-2 removal by the Cufitec-coated HEPA filter was comparable to that of the regular HEPA filter, with capture ratios of 90.35%, 98.34%, and >99.99% at filtration times of 5, 10, and 35.5 min, respectively (Fig. 1B and Table S2).
Our study shows that air filtration using HEPA filters can consistently remove infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the air. Under our experimental conditions, approximately 90% of the infectious SARS-CoV-2 still wafted in the air after the filtration of 1 chamber volume, and at least 7.1 chamber volumes were required to reduce the viral load to below the detection limit. This finding indicates that the air in the chamber does not pass through the air cleaner evenly and that there are areas where the aerosols tend to linger. Therefore, when using an air cleaner, in addition to using a HEPA filter, it would be desirable to filtrate the entire room, including areas where air tends to be congested. Alternatively, an air cleaner system in combination with air ventilation may achieve more efficient air cleaning in a short time.
The capture ratios for SARS-CoV-2 in the air when the HEPA filter was coated with an antiviral agent were comparable to those with the conventional HEPA filter, and there was little effect on SARS-CoV-2 in the air that passed through the antiviral-reagent-coated HEPA filter. Although only one type of antimicrobial coating was tested in our study, and other, additional products should be evaluated, this finding suggests that once aerosols are captured on HEPA filters, they do not detach (15, 16); therefore, antiviral reagents on HEPA filters may have a slight effect on the removal of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from the air. Several methods of applying antiviral treatments to air filters have been attempted, and they appear to have inactivation effects on pathogens on the filter surface (17–19); therefore, applying antiviral reagents to HEPA filters may reduce the risk to personnel who change filters.
Our data provide valuable information on the proper use and performance of HEPA-filtered air purifiers in hospitals and in daily life and will help in determining whether they need to be used in combination with other protective equipment (e.g., face masks or room ventilation) to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Supplemental Material
REFERENCES
1.
Greenhalgh T, Jimenez JL, Prather KA, Tufekci Z, Fisman D, Schooley R. 2021. Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet 397:1603–1605.
2.
Harrison AG, Lin T, Wang P. 2020. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and pathogenesis. Trends Immunol 41:1100–1115.
3.
Conway Morris A, Sharrocks K, Bousfield R, Kermack L, Maes M, Higginson E, Forrest S, Pereira-Dias J, Cormie C, Old T, Brooks S, Hamed I, Koenig A, Turner A, White P, Floto RA, Dougan G, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Gouliouris T, Baker S, Navapurkar V. 30 October 2021. The removal of airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosols by air filtration on COVID-19 surge units. Clin Infect Dis https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab933.
4.
Liu DT, Phillips KM, Speth MM, Besser G, Mueller CA, Sedaghat AR. 2022. Portable HEPA purifiers to eliminate airborne SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 166:615–622.
5.
Curtius J, Granzin M, Schrod J. 2021. Testing mobile air purifiers in a school classroom: reducing the airborne transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2. Aerosol Sci Technol 55:586–599.
6.
Parhizkar H, Dietz L, Olsen-Martinez A, Horve PF, Barnatan L, Northcutt D, Van Den Wymelenberg KG. 6 January 2022. Quantifying environmental mitigation of aerosol viral load in a controlled chamber with participants diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac006.
7.
Cadnum JL, Bolomey A, Jencson AL, Wilson BM, Donskey CJ. 31 January 2022. Effectiveness of commercial portable air cleaners and a do-it-yourself minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV)-13 filter box fan air cleaner in reducing aerosolized bacteriophage MS2. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2022.5.
8.
Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, Zhao X, Huang B, Shi W, Lu R, Niu P, Zhan F, Ma X, Wang D, Xu W, Wu G, Gao GF, Tan W, China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. 2020. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med 382:727–733.
9.
Gesellschaft für Aerosolforschung. 2020. Position paper of the Gesellschaft für Aerosolforschung on understanding the role of aerosol particles in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Gesellschaft für Aerosolforschung, Cologne, Germany.
10.
Berg EB, Picard RJ. 2009. In vitro delivery of budesonide from 30 jet nebulizer/compressor combinations using infant and child breathing patterns. Respir Care 54:1671–1678.
11.
Hatagishi E, Okamoto M, Ohmiya S, Yano H, Hori T, Saito W, Miki H, Suzuki Y, Saito R, Yamamoto T, Shoji M, Morisaki Y, Sakata S, Nishimura H. 2014. Establishment and clinical applications of a portable system for capturing influenza viruses released through coughing. PLoS One 9:e103560.
12.
Ueki H, Furusawa Y, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, Imai M, Kabata H, Nishimura H, Kawaoka Y. 2020. Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere 5:e00637-20.
13.
Fujimori Y, Sato T, Hayata T, Nagao T, Nakayama M, Nakayama T, Sugamata R, Suzuki K. 2012. Novel antiviral characteristics of nanosized copper(I) iodide particles showing inactivation activity against 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:951–955.
14.
Shionoiri N, Sato T, Fujimori Y, Nakayama T, Nemoto M, Matsunaga T, Tanaka T. 2012. Investigation of the antiviral properties of copper iodide nanoparticles against feline calicivirus. J Biosci Bioeng 113:580–586.
15.
Nazarenko Y. 2020. Air filtration and SARS-CoV-2. Epidemiol Health 42:e2020049.
16.
Stadnytskyi V, Bax CE, Bax A, Anfinrud P. 2020. The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:11875–11877.
17.
Ju Y, Han T, Yin J, Li Q, Chen Z, Wei Z, Zhang Y, Dong L. 2021. Bumpy structured nanofibrous membrane as a highly efficient air filter with antibacterial and antiviral property. Sci Total Environ 777:145768.
18.
Watson R, Oldfield M, Bryant JA, Riordan L, Hill HJ, Watts JA, Alexander MR, Cox MJ, Stamataki Z, Scurr DJ, de Cogan F. 2022. Efficacy of antimicrobial and anti-viral coated air filters to prevent the spread of airborne pathogens. Sci Rep 12:2803.
19.
Park K-T, Hwang J. 2014. Filtration and inactivation of aerosolized bacteriophage MS2 by a CNT air filter fabricated using electro-aerodynamic deposition. Carbon N Y 75:401–410.
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
mSphere
Volume 7 • Number 4 • 31 August 2022
eLocator: e00086-22
Editor: Nicole M. Bouvier, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
PubMed: 35947419
Copyright
© 2022 Ueki et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
History
Received: 8 February 2022
Accepted: 17 June 2022
Published online: 10 August 2022
Keywords
Contributors
Editor
Nicole M. Bouvier
Editor
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Note: There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.