Business is booming.

Covid-19 proved bad indoor air quality makes us sick. We can fix that.

0 108


If a waiter at a restaurant brought you a murky, stinky glass of water, that would be unacceptable. But yet, many waiters — at least before the Covid-19 pandemic hit — were forced to breathe poorly ventilated air in restaurants and other indoor spaces where people packed together.

And still today, “if anybody asks a restaurant owner, ‘what’s the ventilation here?’ they will probably look strangely at them,” says Lidia Morawska, a physicist and an aerosol expert at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia who has advised the World Health Organization on the spread of airborne pathogens.

In the post-pandemic world, Morawska wants all of us to ask the question — “what’s the ventilation like in here?” — more often. And not just of restaurant owners, but of the managers of the crowded indoor spaces we visit. We should expect to breathe in clean, virus-free air just like we should expect to get clean water in a glass. And it’s not just up to individuals to demand better air quality — governments and engineering associations need to set new standards to ensure clean air for all.

The pandemic has made clear we can be infected with respiratory viruses more easily in poorly ventilated spaces, where the virus people are breathing out of their nose and mouth can linger in the air longer. Ventilation works by either replacing stale, potentially infectious air with fresh clean outdoor, or passing that stale air through a filter.

Earlier in the pandemic, Morawska led a group of air quality experts who asked the WHO to recognize that the coronavirus can spread in aerosols across long distances (as opposed to just occurring in close contact situations of 6 feet or less). Eventually, the WHO and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized this more explicitly in their scientific guidance.

But when the pandemic is over, we’ll still need better ventilation to prevent future outbreaks of respiratory diseases including coronaviruses, but also the cold and flu.

Last week, Morawska and a few dozen other air quality experts put out a manifesto of sorts in Science, calling for “a paradigm shift to combat indoor respiratory infection.

“Governments have for decades promulgated a large amount of legislation and invested heavily in food safety, sanitation, and drinking water for public health purposes,” Morawska and her co-authors write. “By contrast, airborne pathogens and respiratory infections, whether seasonal influenza or Covid-19, are addressed fairly weakly, if at all, in terms of regulations, standards, and building design and operation, pertaining to the air we breathe.”

Recently, I spoke with Morawska about what the public needs to know about indoor air and how we can use carbon dioxide monitors to quickly determine ventilation quality in a space. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Brian Resnick

You and your co-authors write there needs to be a “paradigm shift” in how we think about ventilation in infection prevention. What’s the shift?

Lidia Morawska

We compare the shift in thinking, and action, in relation to clean water. There was no clean water [standard] before a 19th-century movement started. People accepted that water could be contaminated, or they could get sick drinking water.

So there was a paradigm shift. This is the same thinking: We don’t have to accept that we get sick due to respiratory [viruses that spread easily in poorly ventilated indoor air]. We should do something about it.

Brian Resnick

So we now have a centralized system for cleaning water and taking pathogens out of it: treatment plants, distribution. For air, there’s no centralized system for distributing it in a community the way there is for clean water. Is this problem a lot harder than water quality?

Lidia Morawska

It is harder, but it’s not unresolvable.

With water, the point is if water was contaminated, and then you get sick quickly after [drinking it], the whole neighborhood would make a big fuss about it. But you don’t know if the air in the building is contaminated or not. If you come down with a cold or flu three, four days later, you don’t know whether you contracted it in the building.

Brian Resnick

So how could we do better in making sure air in indoor spaces isn’t contaminated?

Lidia Morawska

We don’t really need to come up with some new technologies. We just need to use them. The simplest (though perhaps over-simplistic) would be a display of CO2 concentration. [Either via handheld CO2 monitors or CO2 monitors mounted in a public, visible space.]

Brian Resnick

And CO2 concentration would tell you that there’s a lot of people breathing in this room and what they’re exhaling isn’t being cleared out very quickly?

Lidia Morawska

That’s right.

There are standards for CO2 concentrations, though in many buildings no one checks. But if it was mandated [to display CO2 concentrations in an indoor space] individuals could see the ventilation is bad.

Brian Resnick

I would imagine there would have to be a lot of education to do there. I don’t have an intuitive sense of what a high CO2 concentration is. And it might be confusing, because CO2 is a few steps removed from the thing you actually want to know which is: Is this air contaminated?

Lidia Morawska

This technology has been used in Europe particularly in Germany for at least 10 years if not longer, in schools. It’s not just a CO2 meter, it also has this traffic light system: green, yellow, and red. The students and the teachers don’t have…



Read More: Covid-19 proved bad indoor air quality makes us sick. We can fix that.

2021-05-17 17:00:00

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Watch Sky News