TY - JOUR T1 - Risk and mitigation of aerosolisation from lung function testing: results from the AERATOR study JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.03.06.21253033 SP - 2021.03.06.21253033 AU - S Sheikh AU - F Hamilton AU - GW Nava AU - F Gregson AU - D Arnold AU - C Riley AU - J Brown AU - AERATOR group AU - B Bzdek AU - J Reid AU - N Maskell AU - JW Dodd Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/10/2021.03.06.21253033.abstract N2 - Introduction Lung function tests are fundamental diagnostic and monitoring tools for patients with respiratory symptoms. There is significant uncertainty around whether potentially infectious aerosol is produced during different lung function testing modalities; and limited data on possible mitigation strategies to reduce risk to staff and limit fallow time.Methods Healthy volunteers were recruited in an ultraclean, laminar flow theatre and had standardised spirometry as per ERS/ATS guidance, as well as peak flow measurement and FENO assessment of airway inflammation. Aerosol emission was sampled minimum once each second using both an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) and Optical Particle Sizer (OPS), and compared to breathing, speaking and coughing. Mitigation strategies such as a peak flow viral filter and a CPET facemask (to mitigate induced coughing) were tested.Results 33 healthy volunteers were recruited. Aerosol emission was highest in cough (1.61 particles/cm3/sample), followed by unfiltered peak flow (0.76 particles/cm3/sample). Filtered spirometry produced lower peak aerosol emission (0.11 particles/ cm3/sample) than that of a voluntary cough, and addition of a viral filter to the mouthpiece reduced peak flow aerosol emission to similar levels. The filter made little difference to recorded FEV peak flow values. Peak aerosol FENO measurement produced negligible aerosol. Reusable CPET masks with filter reduced aerosol emission when breathing, speaking, and coughing significantly.Conclusions Compared to voluntary coughing, all lung function testing produced fewer aerosol particles. Filtered spirometry produces lower peak aerosol emission than peak voluntary coughing, and should not be deemed an aerosol generating procedure. The use of viral filters reduces aerosol emission in peak flow by > 10 times, and has little impact on recorded peak flow values. CPET masks are a useful option to reduce aerosol emission from induced coughing while performing spirometry.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunding: This study was funded by the UKRI-NIHR Rapid COVID Call (COV003) Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was performed as part of the wider AERATOR study to assess the risk of aerosolised transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings. Ethical approval was given by the North West Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/NW/0393, HRA Approved 18/9/20). All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRaw data will be available with the full paper at the Bristol University Data Repository. http://www.data.bris.ac.uk ER -