Removing respiratory pathogens from indoor air through technological means could theoretically serve as a non-pharmaceutical infectious disease control strategy. But a new British study shows that in the real world, commonly used equipment such as air purifiers may not be able to reduce the risk of people being infected with respiratory pathogens.
The University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom issued a press release stating that researchers from the school, University College London, University of Essex and other institutions recently published a paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and conducted a systematic review of 32 studies published from 1970 to 2022 to find evidence that indoor air treatment technology is effective in preventing respiratory or gastrointestinal infections. The studies were conducted in real-world settings such as schools or nursing homes, with subjects spending at least 20 hours a week in public indoor spaces.
An analysis of data on subjects' infections or symptoms showed there was little evidence the techniques could protect people from respiratory or gastrointestinal infections. While available evidence suggests that several technologies, notably germicidal lamps and high-efficiency air filters (HEPA), can reduce contamination of indoor environments and surfaces, there is no strong evidence that these technologies can reduce or prevent respiratory pathogen infections in real-world settings.
The study covered indoor air treatment options such as air filtration equipment, germicidal lamps and ionizers. The researchers said that installing indoor air treatment equipment is expensive, and the findings of this study can help public health decision-makers understand the situation comprehensively and make more reasonable decisions about costs and benefits.