Health UK (Commonwealth Union) – Airborne diseases are illnesses caused by pathogens that can be transmitted through the air, typically in the form of respiratory droplets or tiny particles. These diseases pose significant public health challenges, affecting individuals worldwide and often spreading rapidly. When looking into the characteristics of airborne diseases, their common sources, prevention strategies, and the evolving landscape of airborne disease research has been taken into account by scientists when looking for attempts to control or mitigate airborne diseases.
New research from the University of East Anglia indicates that air filtration systems do not diminish the risk of contracting viral infections. A recently published study challenges the efficacy of technologies aimed at enhancing safety during indoor social interactions, such as air filtration, germicidal lights, and ionizers. Despite an exhaustive examination of available evidence, the study found limited support for the idea that these technologies effectively render indoor air safe from respiratory or gastrointestinal infections. Prof Paul Hunter from UEA’s Norwich Medical School pointed out that air cleaners, designed to filter pollutants or contaminants from the air, to provide the expected protection against viral infections.
“When the Covid pandemic hit, many large companies and governments – including the NHS, the British military, and New York City and regional German governments – investigated installing this type of technology in a bid to reduce airborne virus particles in buildings and small spaces.
“But air treatment technologies can be expensive. So it’s reasonable to weigh up the benefits against costs, and to understand the current capabilities of such technologies.”
The research team investigated whether air cleaning technologies effectively protect individuals from acquiring airborne respiratory or gastrointestinal infections. They scrutinized evidence related to microbial infections or symptoms in individuals who were exposed to air treatment technologies versus those who were not, drawing data from 32 studies conducted in real-world settings such as schools or care homes. It is noteworthy that, as of now, none of the studies on air treatment initiated during the Covid era have been published.
Dr. Julii Brainard, the lead researcher from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, indicated that the technologies they assessed, including filtration, germicidal lights, ionizers, and other methods of safely eliminating or deactivating viruses in breathable air, showed no compelling evidence of providing protection in real-world settings.
She further elaborated that while existing evidence indicates that certain air treatment strategies, particularly germicidal lights and high-efficiency particulate air filtration (HEPA), can reduce environmental and surface contamination, their comprehensive analysis suggested that these technologies do not prevent or decrease illness.
Dr. Brainard highlighted, that there was some weak evidence suggesting a reduced likelihood of infection with air treatment methods, but this evidence appeared to be biased and imbalanced. they strongly suspect that relevant studies with minimal or no effect may not have been published.
Expressing disappointment in the findings, she emphasized, that it is crucial for public health decision-makers to have a complete understanding. They hope that studies conducted during the Covid era will be published soon, allowing for a more informed assessment of the value of air treatment during the pandemic.
The University of East Anglia spearheaded this research in collaboration with partners from University College London, the University of Essex, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Trust, and the University of Surrey.
The study received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, overseen by Kings College London and UEA in conjunction with the UK Health Security Agency. The findings of this research, titled ‘Effectiveness of filtering or decontaminating air to reduce or prevent respiratory infections: A systematic review,’ have been published in Preventive Medicine.
