$1,500 Scholarship Grants to support Infection Preventionist education at APIC 2022 Conference

VALENCIA, Calif., April 21, 2022–(BUSINESS WIRE)–UVDI has announced a strategic partnership with the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) for 2022. APIC is the leading association for infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals, with more than 15,000 infection preventionist (IP) members.

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220421005081/en/

The UVDI-360 Room Sanitizer is globally trusted by over 1,100 hospitals. (Photo: Business Wire)

The APIC Strategic Partner program establishes long-term relationships with industry partners united in the common goal of advancing the science and practice of infection prevention and control in healthcare facilities and beyond. APIC Strategic Partners play an important role in supporting many of the educational initiatives and services that benefit APIC’s membership.

As part of its commitment to Infection Preventionists’ development and evidence-based education, UVDI announced five $1,500 2022 APIC Scholarship Grants to support attendance of the APIC 2022 Annual Conference, held June 13-15 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Five Grant Recipients will each receive a $1,500 gift card to apply against travel and registration fees. To apply for the 2022 APIC Scholarship Grants, Infection Preventionists worldwide can do so at www.uvdi.com/apic2022 by May 5th. The five Grant Recipients will be announced May 10th.

“UVDI is proud to support APIC as a Strategic Partner this year,” said Peter Veloz, CEO, UVDI. “Our APIC 2022 Scholarship Grants are intended to recognize and support the brave Infection Preventionists who work tirelessly every day to protect us all — not just for the past two years but far beyond.”

“We are excited to welcome UVDI as an APIC Strategic Partner as we celebrate APIC’s 50th anniversary,” said APIC CEO Devin Jopp, EdD, MS. “As we work toward advancing the science and practice of infection prevention and control, we welcome this generous initiative to support the in-person education and engagement of Infection Preventionists worldwide.”

Story continues

About UVDI:

UVDI’s Mission is to make a cleaner, safer, and healthier world through advanced Ultraviolet (UV) technology that disinfects the air and surfaces in the environments we live, work, and play in. UVDI’s UV air and surface disinfection solutions are manufactured in California, applying deep Research and Development excellence and 73 years of Family expertise. The UVDI-360 Room Sanitizer is globally trusted by more than 1,100 leading hospitals in 27 countries, where it has been independently proven effective in 14 peer-reviewed, published hospital studies. UVDI’s proven UV Indoor Air Quality solutions are now installed globally in over 10,000 Commercial facilities. UVDI is proud to be a certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE).

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220421005081/en/

Contacts

Will Gerard
Director of Global Marketing
661.289.2741 | [email protected]

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

The U.S. Department of Energy recently recognized the Boulder Valley School District for its sustainability work.

Boulder Valley was one of eight districts recognized nationwide, receiving an award for “Best in Class in Team Approach to Support Strategic Investments in Efficient and Healthy Schools and Notable Achievement in Efficient HVAC for Indoor Environmental Quality.”

The recognition is part of the Biden administration’s “Efficient and Healthy Schools Campaign.” Boulder Valley also will be invited to share its experiences with other school districts in a new webinar series.

“Having clear goals in place, and integrating these goals throughout our planning, both operationally and educationally, have had clear results for greenhouse gas emissions, improved indoor air quality, waste reduction and more,” BVSD sustainability coordinator Ghita Carroll said in a written statement.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

It was thought to be the end of a monthslong COVID-19 controversy in Japan.

The National Institute of Infectious Diseases announced its determination late last month that the coronavirus spreads when one inhales virus-laden aerosols, or tiny particles mixed with water floating in the air for an extended period of time, confirming a view long held by much of the scientific community.

The NIID’s March 28 statement said the virus is mainly transmitted three ways: breathing in virus-containing aerosols traveling over long distances; having relatively large droplets land on the mouth, nose or eyes through a sneeze or cough; and touching the eyes, nose or mouth with virus-infected hands. Previous reports issued by the health ministry-affiliated institute ruled out the possibility of aerosol transmission and referred only to the other two.

But for many health experts in Japan, the revision didn’t go far enough and failed to outline how this should affect antivirus measures.

The health ministry is still sticking to the idea that there is a “clear distinction” between “aerosol transmission” and “airborne transmission,” denying the possibility that the coronavirus can spread through the latter.

The difference between the two, as explained by a health ministry official last week, is that aerosol transmission contains water but airborne transmission does not. “Airborne transmission occurs in measles and tuberculosis, for example,” the official said. “We do not think, at this point, that the coronavirus spreads through airborne transmission.”

The reluctance to admit that the coronavirus is airborne — in contrast with the World Health Organization — as well as the slow acknowledgment of aerosol transmission, has marred Japan’s response to the pandemic by making indoor air safety seem less essential, some experts say. Experts counter the government’s view that Japan has stressed the importance of ventilation by urging the public to avoid closed spaces, saying that the lack of clear guidance on aerosol and airborne transmission has led to confusion. The experts argue that has put elderly people in nursing homes and front-line care workers particularly at risk of “cluster” infections.

Not only that, this attitude might have led to excessive regulatory emphasis on surface cleaning and plastic partitions as preventive measures, when in fact infections via close-range droplets and contact may be rarer than once thought.

Over the course of the two-year-old pandemic, the international scientific community has come to a broad consensus that the coronavirus is airborne. In December, more than a year after some scientists flagged that the virus may be airborne, the WHO updated its website entry on how COVID-19 is spread. It now refers to “aerosol transmission” and “airborne transmission” synonymously and says this is a primary way the disease is passed on to others.

To take basic antivirus precautions, such as properly ventilating restaurants and homes, people need to know how the virus spreads, says Tsuyoshi Hondou, an associate professor of theoretical physics at Tohoku University. | BLOOMBERG

Tsuyoshi Hondou, an associate professor of theoretical physics at Tohoku University who has promoted efforts to have Japanese authorities acknowledge aerosols as a vehicle of COVID-19’s spread, hailed the NIID’s March 28 announcement, saying it’s a “step in the right direction.” But he says the institute and the health ministry should be more vocal in addressing the risks of — and tools to fight — the virus-laden aerosols.

In August 2021, at the height of the fifth wave of infections amid the spread of the delta variant, Hondou and 37 other scientists from across the nation released an urgent message calling for measures “based on the latest scientific findings” on airborne transmission.

The scientists, in particular, pushed for the use of tight-fitting, single-use nonwoven fabric masks and mechanical ventilation systems, such as air filters and heat exchangers, given that the scorching summer heat at that time made it difficult for people to open their windows and doors to let fresh air in.

Then in February, Hondou and nine others sent an open letter to NIID director Takaji Wakita, questioning a report by the institute issued the previous month that said the main transmission routes for the omicron variant were through contact and droplet transmissions. The group said the institute’s omission of aerosols “contradicted the global consensus.”

“(Government officials) say we should take all kinds of measures,” Hondou said. “But we are all busy and have limits in our budgets and time. That’s why we must have information on which of the three is the most important. They are not providing that information.”

To take basic precautions such as wearing tightly fitted nonwoven fabric masks and constantly ventilating restaurants and homes, people need to know how the virus spreads, he said.

“Why are (restaurant staff) wiping a chair every time somebody leaves? People also need to know why they need to have their masks fit tightly with no space.”

A reluctance to admit that the coronavirus is airborne — in contrast with the World Health Organization — as well as the slow acknowledgment of aerosol transmission, has marred Japan’s response to the pandemic by making indoor air safety seem less essential, some experts say. | BLOOMBERG

The health ministry, for its part, says they have always stressed the need for good ventilation. And there’s some truth to that — Japan prides itself on advocating from early in the pandemic the importance of avoiding the three Cs: crowded places, close-contact settings and closed spaces. Avoiding closed spaces has also come with a call for rooms to be well-ventilated.

But Hideki Yamazaki, a psychiatrist and director of Seizankai, a medical corporation based in Miyagi Prefecture that operates 50 nursing homes and other facilities mostly for elderly people with dementia, says measures against aerosols aren’t mandated on the ground, saying many care workers are not aware of the danger of infectious viral particles in the air.

So far, Yamazaki’s group has reported 18 COVID-19 cases among patients and staff, but no “cluster” infections, which refers to an outbreak of more than five people in the same area at the same time. In addition to in-house PCR testing and a system that supports staff when they become infected or become close contacts, the group has mandated proper ventilation and the use of N95 masks among staff working in the “red zone,” where infected patients are cared for.

At care facilities in general, however, N95 masks are probably used less than half the time, he said. At other facilities where his staff have been dispatched as emergency helpers, red-zone workers in protective gowns and face shields were scrambling to disinfect their hands and the floors while their surgical masks were loosely fitted, he noted.

“Workers at care facilities and restaurants would understand the importance of ventilation far better if they are told the virus is airborne, rather than having the minute differences between droplets, droplet nuclei, microscopic droplets and aerosols explained to them,” Yamazaki said, citing the explanation on particles of different sizes currently provided by the ministry.

While it’s unclear why Japan is reluctant to admit the virus is airborne, Hondou speculated that public health officials — mostly comprised of licensed medical doctors — may have a hard time breaking away from the traditional mindset they adopted from medical textbooks that airborne transmission typically occurs in diseases that are far more infectious than the coronavirus, such as measles, tuberculosis and chicken pox.

There are also dissenting views among scientists on how often airborne COVID-19 transmission takes place. Academics also seem divided on the exact definition of aerosol transmission.

Differing views aside, government guidelines for facilities caring for the elderly, who are most vulnerable, should be urgently updated, reflecting the best science available so far, Yamazaki said.

Yamazaki pointed to a recent feature in the journal Nature that probed why the WHO itself took two years to say the coronavirus is airborne, citing a quote from a historian and public policy expert who said that the organization failed in two respects: “Being reluctant to change your mind, and being reluctant to tell people you changed your mind.”

“The health ministry is committing a sin of omission by explaining that aerosol transmission is different from airborne transmission,” Yamazaki said. “To me, it runs parallel to the failures of the WHO.”

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

PHOTO GALLERY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

At every stage of the pandemic, a disproportionate number of infections have been traced to a relatively small number of gatherings, also known as superspreader events. The recent Gridiron dinner, after which over 70 people tested positive including members of the Biden administration, is just the latest example.

Some public health experts argue that tolerating these events is what living with Covid looks like. As far as we know, no one who tested positive after the Gridiron dinner became severely ill, but we don’t know if these cases also spread to workers and beyond. There’s little reason to accept this as a new normal.

There’s a better way to hold indoor events without masks, and it doesn’t rely on vaccines and rapid tests. Vaccinations can prevent the worst possible outcomes of Covid-19, but cannot always prevent infections. Pre-event testing is imperfect and to be most effective, people need to test right before entering an event.

Putting this much of the onus of infection control on individuals is both unlikely to work well to prevent superspreading and also lets hosts of large events off the hook for keeping their attendees, workers and others safe. Instead, there are ways that building owners can make indoor environments safer by disinfecting indoor air. One of the best technologies to do so — germicidal ultraviolet light — has been studied for decades and can now be used safely.

The White House recently embraced improving indoor air quality as critical to stemming the pandemic. This includes three methods that can bring clean air into rooms or clean the air already in them: ventilation, air filtration and air disinfection. Of these three, the last may be the most powerful, even as it’s the least utilized.

The risk of catching an airborne infection like Covid, measles, tuberculosis and likely many other respiratory infections including the flu, depends in large part on the amount of infectious viruses — or bacteria in the case of TB — in the air we breathe. The number of these germs in indoor air is controlled by two things: the rate at which infected people in a room exhale germs and the rate at which infectious germs are removed from the air.

Ventilation and filtration can remove germs floating indoors by either blowing them out of the building and replacing the air with fresh outdoor air, or by capturing them while moving the indoor air through a filter. At two air changes per hour, which is commonly provided in large buildings, a little more than half of the existing germs are removed every 30 minutes. At six air changes per hour, which is common in hospital rooms and classrooms with multiple portable HEPA air filters, a little more than half of the germs are removed every 10 minutes.

That’s good, but there are a couple of challenges. Methods that move air through rooms can be energy intensive, expensive and noisy. A highly infectious person with the coronavirus could add enough germs to the air to infect over 16 people every minute; over 900 people per hour, although in practice some of those viral doses would not find a person to infect. Omicron may now be approaching the infectiousness of measles, the most contagious respiratory virus known, where one highly infectious person can exhale enough virus to infect 93 people per minute, or over 5,500 per hour. Removing half of that amount of virus every 10 minutes may make superspreading events smaller but it’s not enough to prevent them in large indoor gatherings. That’s where air disinfection with germicidal ultraviolet light, or GUV, comes in.

GUV can easily and silently kill half of the germs floating in indoor air every two minutes or less. It was first developed and tested beginning in the 1930s using some of the same technology in fluorescent light fixtures. It is still commonly used in TB wards, as well as some major hospital systems and homeless shelters.

There are three types of ultraviolet light rays: UVA, UVB and UVC. GUV uses UVC, which unlike the UVA and UVB in sunlight, doesn’t cause skin cancer because it cannot sufficiently penetrate the skin. The conventional GUV technology could cause temporary eye irritation and therefore is mounted above people’s heads in rooms with ceilings around nine feet or higher. It is also best used alongside ceiling fans to make sure germs in a room are blown up into the zone where the GUV can render them harmless.

Newer, commercially available GUV technologies are even safer for skin and do not irritate the eyes. They can be used safely at lower areas of a room and can directly disinfect the air between people sitting at a dinner table.

A major barrier to wider use is that GUV technologies need to be expertly installed and require a different set of technical skills than what’s needed to improve a building’s ventilation and filtration systems (both of which are still critically important). The initial costs for equipment and installation of a highly effective GUV system can often be cheaper than upgrading or replacing ventilation systems. GUV also disinfects the air faster and with far less electricity than ventilation and filtration, which means it’s a climate-friendly solution for high-risk environments.

As experts who study the ways viruses can spread indoors, we believe that air disinfection using germicidal ultraviolet light, or GUV, could have prevented the Gridiron superspreader event. The technology should become the norm for large indoor gatherings where meals are served and masks cannot be worn. The coronavirus pandemic has made it clear that removing germs from indoor air needs to be a top priority for preventing coronavirus infections and future pandemics. Increased ventilation has been known to be associated with reduced work absence and fewer airborne viruses in workplace air.

Americans have long been able to turn on the tap with confidence that drinking the water will not give us cholera or another illness. Like drinking clean water, breathing sanitary indoor air, especially in crowded public places, will prevent respiratory epidemics before they happen. Outbreaks will become much easier to control without economic disruption and politicization. Ventilation and filtration will make important contributions to reducing transmission in homes and offices. Disinfecting the air can make higher-risk settings for superspreading, like conference rooms, restaurants, meat and poultry packing plants, nursing homes, prisons and more, safer.

GUV is commercially available right now, and building owners and operators should be encouraged to adopt it through subsidies and tax incentives. We can end large superspreader events and make public events and dining safer for everyone. What are we waiting for?

Donald K. Milton is a professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. Edward A. Nardell is a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School. David Michaels is a professor of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University School of Public Health. He was the assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from 2009 to 2017.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

ABM Supports EPA’s New IAQ Guidelines, “Clean Air in Buildings Challenge” | ACHR News

This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

This Website Uses Cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn More
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here