Download PDF Microbiomes of the Built Environment September 15, 2022 Volume 52 Issue 3 The covid-19 pandemic suddenly directed awareness to potential health impacts of the built environment of everyday living – schools, dwellings, offices, public buildings, and other spaces. This issue explores the “microbiome” of the built environment in the postpandemic reality in terms of ventilation performance, filtration, understanding and quantification of transmission risk, protection of “benign” microbes, and the important role of equity, among others. Microbial Surface Transmission in the Built Environment and Management Methods Monday, September 19, 2022 Author: Amanda M. Wilson, Diane R. Gold, and Paloma I. Beamer An understanding of pathogen transmission is necessary to effectively protect the built—and human—microbiome. The early widespread concern during the covid-19 pandemic about surface transmission of the disease has waned. There was only one confirmed case, to our knowledge, of surface transmission: a susceptible elderly person used a toothpick after touching a contaminated elevator button (Xie et al. 2020). The dominant transmission route of current variants of covid-19 is airborne (Miller et al. 2021), but the potential risk of surface transmission—sometimes referred to as “fomite” (a surface capable of harboring pathogens) transmission (Boone and Gerba 2007)—is not zero. Anything in the air can end up on a surface and hands, leading to possible hand-to-mucosa transmission, given receptors in the mucosa of the nose, upper airways, and mouth (Prü 2022). Covid-19 transmission risk from a single touch with a contaminated surface is estimated at less than 1/10,000 (Pitol and Julian 2021; Wilson et al. 2021a), but the fomite transmission route is important for other pathogens and was even recognized historically. As early as the 17th century, the British intentionally gave blankets used by smallpox patients to Native Americans to infect them as a form of biological warfare (Patterson and Runge 2002). Transmission Methods and Factors Fomites can lead to infection via pathogen contact with an opening in the body (e.g., open wound, facial mucosal membrane). An infected individual can transfer a bodily fluid containing an infectious pathogen to their hand and (i) to others’ hands and eventually fomites or (ii) directly to fomites. These are then touched by susceptible individuals, who may then touch a facial mucosal membrane and/or contaminate other surfaces within hours (Reynolds et al. 2016). For respiratory pathogens, transmission may be via sputum, saliva, or nasal mucus (Adenaiye et al. 2021); for fecal-oral pathogens, the concern may be hand contamination from feces or vomit (Donskey 2010; Phan et al. 2018). Risk of contamination spread depends in part on the survivability of organisms and the frequency with which individuals touch their face, surfaces, or others’ hands. The risk of contamination spread also depends on the survivability of organisms (Casanova et al. 2010); the frequency with which individuals touch their face (Nicas and Best 2008), fomites (Beamer et al. 2012), or others’ hands (Jones et al. 2020); and transfer efficiency (the fraction of pathogens transferred to or from hands during a hand-to-fomite contact) (King et al. 2020). Examples of fecal-oral pathogens that pose fomite transmission risks are norovirus (Kraay et al. 2018), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (Tacconelli and Cataldo 2008), and Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) (Weber et al. 2013). For respiratory pathogens, an infected individual may aerosolize pathogens via sneezing, breathing, talking, coughing, singing, or playing a musical instrument (Coleman et al. 2022; Dhand and Li 2020; Fabian et al. 2008; He et al. 2021; Noti et al. 2012). While some infections (e.g., tuberculosis) are contracted strictly via inhalation, many respiratory viruses, such as rhino-virus (e.g., the “common cold”) or influenza A, can be transmitted via the upper airways, with receptors for the viruses in the mucosa (Jacobs et al. 2013; Richard et al. 2020), making surface transmission more theoretically relevant if aerosols containing these pathogens deposit on fomites that are then touched. Computational research has demonstrated that reduced airborne concentrations due to source control (e.g., via infected individuals’ mask use) can reduce fomite transmission (Wilson et al. 2021b) and that airflow patterns can influence deposition patterns on fomites and thus pathogen accruement on hands (King et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2021c). The risks that fomites pose in this case depend, again, on the rates at which aerosols are produced and deposit on surfaces and the survivability of airborne pathogens on surfaces. Another factor influencing the importance of pathogens transmitted via surfaces is virulence versus pathogenicity. Some organisms (e.g., norovirus, SARS-CoV-2, rotavirus) are pathogenic in nonimmuno-compromised hosts; others (e.g., C. difficile, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus) are opportunistic, meaning they may be more pathogenic in compromised hosts relative to healthy nonelderly hosts. This can change the impact of fomite transmission of organisms like C. difficile by environment; for example, such transmission is of significant concern in healthcare settings with immunocompromised hosts. Survivability and factors that affect spatial spread are crucial to evaluating fomite transmission since environmental persistence influences environmental spread. Survivability factors such as temperature and humidity (Lin and Marr 2020; Marr et al. 2019) can affect transfer efficiency (Lopez et al. 2013). The concentrations of pathogens emitted from infected individuals are also a key consideration; a pathogen with a fast environmental decay rate could nonetheless pose meaningful risk if generated and introduced to the environment in large quantities. Importance of Human Behaviors Aside from environment survivability, human behavior is a key factor in characterizing risks posed by fomites, as even the most contaminated surface may pose little risk if it is rarely touched. Frequency of surface touches has a positive linear relationship with microbial bioburden on surfaces (Adams et al. 2017), suggesting surface cleaning and hands-free design as invaluable ways to reduce risk. Activity pattern studies of fomite exposures to microbial (and chemical) contaminants, to inform risk assessments, demonstrate that human interactions with fomites are frequent. For example, even older children may make over 1000 hand-to-surface contacts in an hour (Beamer et al. 2012). Hand-to-face contact data have been collected for children and adults (Beamer et al. 2012; Nicas and Best 2008) taking account of potential gender differences (or lack thereof) (Beamer et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2020), and the influence of environment type (indoor vs. outdoor setting; Tsou et al. 2018) and masked vs. unmasked (Lucas et al. 2020). Most of the data on hand-to-surface frequency for adults have been collected in the context of healthcare surfaces and healthcare worker hand hygiene (King et al. 2021; Phan et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2012). Such studies have been used to identify and define high-touch surfaces for prioritization in cleaning and disinfection protocols (Huslage et al. 2010) with careful selection of cleaning agents to reduce chemically induced health challenges. In office settings, studies have explored the role of hand dominance and social networks in fomite transmission (Zhang et al. 2018, 2020). More data on hand-to-nasal orifices and hand-to-eye contacts and their duration for children and adults are needed to advance fomite transmission microbial risk assessment capabilities. Infection Control Methods and Impacts Controlling transmission is increasingly important for pathogens that are more commonly transmitted via fomites, especially those with antimicrobial resistance, the “overlooked pandemic” (Laxminarayan 2022). A traditional control approach has been cleaning and disinfection. But while the intention is to reduce the presence of pathogens, this approach also affects overall microbial communities on surfaces, with potential human health impacts, raising a recent question, Are we too clean?, particularly in home settings when no one is sick. Protecting Nonharmful Microorganisms The “hygiene hypothesis” is that decreases in infections and simultaneous increases in autoimmune and allergic diseases are related: reduction of microbes in environments leads to fewer interactions not only with pathogens but also with “old friends,” non-harmful microorganisms that aid in immune system development (Frew 2019). Evidence for this was observed in a study of Amish and Hutterite children: the Amish children, who worked more directly with animals, had lower rates of asthma and more diverse microbial communities in dust in their homes (Ober et al. 2017; Stein et al. 2016). Differences in microbial communities in dust between urban and rural environments (Shan et al. 2020) and between indoors and outdoors have also been reported (Barberán et al. 2015). Studies have been used to identify and define high-touch surfaces for prioritization in cleaning and disinfection protocols. Other beneficial microbiome health relationships include the skin microbiome vis-à-vis atopic dermatitis (Lynde et al. 2016), and the gut microbiome’s role in preventing infection from Helicobacter pylori (a risk factor for gastric cancer; Wroblewski et al. 2010) and C. difficile as well as its potential effects on irritable bowel syndrome and cardiovascular diseases (Shreiner et al. 2015). Health Impacts of Chemical Disinfection Further potential consequences of surface cleaning and disinfection include inhalation and dermal exposures to cleaning and disinfection chemicals, increasing health risks such as asthma, especially in occupational settings where cleaning and disinfection is frequent, such as in health care (Arif and Delclos 2012; Dumas et al. 2021), although some have demonstrated that these risks can be relatively low (Weber et al. 2016). When using cleaning and disinfection products, wipes instead of sprays can help reduce the aerosolization and inhalation of chemicals. Proper use of chemicals (e.g., observing recommended contact times) is also important to achieve effective microbial reductions. Disinfectants and sanitizers registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency[1] should be considered rather than products without evaluated efficacy data. The “more is better” rule does not apply to cleaning and disinfection. The “more is better” rule does not apply to cleaning and disinfection. Targeted surface hygiene approaches have been proposed that can be tailored to the virulence and primary routes of a pathogen, by, for example, focusing on high-touch surfaces (Huslage et al. 2010) or specific moments (e.g., right after cooking with raw meat) to guide cleaning and disinfection (Bloomfield 2019). Engineering Strategies Engineering strategies can also be used to control fomite transmission. They may include proper ventilation and air filtration (Morawska et al. 2020), use of ultraviolet light (Kovach et al. 2017), and incorporation of antimicrobial materials such as silver-impregnated fabrics (Gerba et al. 2016) and copper materials (Bryce et al. 2022). For all types of transmission routes, engineering controls are more effective and reliable than those that are administrative or related to the use of personal protective equipment (Sehgal and Milton 2021). The latter methods may involve cleaning and disinfection, hand hygiene compliance, or glove use, all of which rely on consistent human behaviors in order to be effective. Ideally, multiple controls with rigorous protocols should be layered to enhance infection control. We note, however, that time, personnel, products, and resources to effect multiple controls may not be equally available. Inequities may place greater infection burdens on low-income and/or marginalized communities with limited financial, communal, or geographical access to necessary infrastructure, resources, and technologies.[2] Conclusion While likely not a primary route for covid-19 transmission, fomites are important for a number of other pathogens of concern. Layered strategies are needed to control fomite transmission routes, including engineering controls (e.g., ventilation and air filtration to reduce the settling of pathogens on surfaces), fomite cleaning and disinfection, and hand hygiene. Strategies for targeted hygiene are recommended to reduce potential negative health effects from exposure to cleaning and disinfection chemicals and the unnecessary removal of beneficial and nonharmful microorganisms. Acknowledgments Wilson was funded by a University of Health -Sciences Career Development Award. Gold was supported, in part, by the Harvard Chan School NIEHS Center for Environmental Health (NIEHS P30-ES000002). Beamer and Wilson are supported by the Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center (NIEHS P30 ES006694). This article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. References Adams CE, Smith J, Watson V, Robertson C, Dancer SJ. 2017. Examining the association between surface bio-burden and frequently touched sites in intensive care. Hospital Infection 95(1):76–80. Adenaiye OO, Lai J, Bueno de Mesquita PJ, Hong F, Youssefi S, German J, Tai S-HS, Albert B, Schanz M, Weston S, and 11 others. 2021. Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in exhaled aerosols and efficacy of masks during early mild infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciab797. Arif AA, Delclos GL. 2012. Association between cleaning-related chemicals and work-related asthma and asthma symptoms among healthcare professionals. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 69(1):35–40. Barberán A, Dunn RR, Reich BJ, Pacifici K, Laber EB, -Menninger HL, Morton JM, Henley JB, Leff JW, Miller SL, Fierer N. 2015. The ecology of microscopic life in household dust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282(1814):20151139. Beamer PI, Luik CE, Canales RA, Leckie JO. 2012. Quanti-fied outdoor micro-activity data for children aged 7–12 years old. Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 22(1):82–92. Bloomfield SF. 2019. RSPH and IFH call for a clean-up of public understanding and attitudes to hygiene. Perspectives in Public Health 139(6):285–88. Boone SA, Gerba CP. 2007. Significance of fomites in the spread of respiratory and enteric viral disease. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 73(6):1687–96. Bryce EA, Velapatino B, Donnelly-Pierce T, Khorami HA, Wong T, Dixon R, Asselin E, McGeer A, Srigley JA, Katz K. 2022. Antimicrobial efficacy and durability of copper formulations over one year of hospital use. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 43(1):79–87. Casanova LM, Jeon S, Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Sobsey MD. 2010. Effects of air temperature and relative humidity on coronavirus survival on surfaces. Applied & Environ-mental Microbiology 76(9):2712–17. Coleman KK, Tay DJW, Tan KS, Ong SWX, Than TS, Koh MH, Chin YQ, Nasir H, Mak TM, Chu JJH, and 5 -others. 2022. Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory aerosols emitted by COVID-19 patients while breathing, talking, and singing. Clinical Infectious Diseases 74(10):1722–28. Dhand R, Li J. 2020. Coughs and sneezes: Their role in transmission of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2. American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine 202(5):651–59. Donskey CJ. 2010. Preventing transmission of Clostridium -difficile: Is the answer blowing in the wind? Clinical Infectious Diseases 50(11):1458–61. Dumas O, Gaskins AJ, Boggs KM, Henn SA, Le Moual N, Varraso R, Chavarro JE, Camargo CA 2021. Occupational use of high-level disinfectants and asthma incidence in -early- to mid-career female nurses: A prospective cohort study. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 78(4):244–47. Fabian P, McDevitt JJ, DeHaan WH, Fung ROP, Cowling BJ, Chan KH, Leung GM, Milton DK. 2008. Influenza virus in human exhaled breath: An observational study. PLoS One 3(7):e2691. Frew JW. 2019. The hygiene hypothesis, old friends, and new genes. Frontiers in Immunology 10:388. Gerba CP, Sifuentes LY, Lopez GU, Abd-Elmaksoud S, Calabrese J, Tanner B. 2016. Wide-spectrum activity of a silver-impregnated fabric. American Journal of Infection Control 44(6):689–90. Gold DR, Bryant-Stephens T, Matsui EC, Kahlor LA. 2022. Housing-based inequities in microbial exposure and respiratory infection risk. The Bridge 52(3):75–81. He R, Gao L, Trifonov M, Hong J. 2021. Aerosol generation from different wind instruments. Aerosol Science 151:105669. Huslage K, Rutala WA, Sickbert-Bennett E, Weber DJ. 2010. A quantitative approach to defining “high-touch” surfaces in hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 31(8):850–53. Jacobs SE, Lamson DM, St George K, Walsh TJ. 2013. Human rhinoviruses. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 26(1):135–62. Jones LD, Ha W, Pinto-Herrera N, Cadnum JL, Mana TSC, Jencson AL, Silva SY, Donskey CJ. 2020. Transfer of -bacteriophage MS2 by handshake versus fist bump. -American Journal of Infection Control 48(6):727–29. King M-F, Noakes CJ, Sleigh PA. 2015. Modeling environmental contamination in hospital single- and four-bed rooms. Indoor Air 25(6):694–707. King M-F, López-García M, Atedoghu KP, Zhang N, Wilson AM, Weterings M, Hiwar W, Dancer SJ, Noakes CJ, Fletcher LA. 2020. Bacterial transfer to fingertips during sequential surface contacts with and without gloves. Indoor Air 30(5):993–1004. King M-F, Wilson AM, López-García M, Proctor J, Peckham DG, Clifton IJ, Dancer SJ, Noakes CJ. 2021. Why is mock care not a good proxy for predicting hand contamination during patient care? Hospital Infection 109:44–51. Kovach CR, Taneli Y, Neiman T, Dyer EM, Arzaga AJA, -Kelber ST. 2017. Evaluation of an ultraviolet room disinfection protocol to decrease nursing home microbial burden, infection and hospitalization rates. BMC Infectious Diseases 17(1):186. Kraay ANM, Hayashi MAL, Hernandez-Ceron N, Spicknall IH, Eisenberg MC, Meza R, Eisenberg JNS. 2018. Fomite-mediated transmission as a sufficient pathway: A comparative analysis across three viral pathogens. BMC Infectious Diseases 18(1):540. Laxminarayan R. 2022. The overlooked pandemic of anti-microbial resistance. The Lancet 399(10325):606–07. Lin K, Marr LC. 2020. Humidity-dependent decay of -viruses, but not bacteria, in aerosols and droplets follows disinfection kinetics. Environmental Science & Technology 54(2):1024–32. Lopez GU, Gerba CP, Tamimi AH, Kitajima M, Maxwell SL, Rose JB. 2013. Transfer efficiency of bacteria and viruses from porous and nonporous fomites to fingers under different relative humidity conditions. Applied & Environ-mental Microbiology 79(18):5728–34. Lucas TL, Mustain R, Goldsby RE. 2020. Frequency of face touching with and without a mask in pediatric hematology/oncology health care professionals. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 67(9):e28593 Lynde CW, Andriessen A, Bertucci V, McGuaig C, Skotnicki S, Weinstein M, Wiseman M, Zip C. 2016. The skin microbiome in atopic dermatitis and its relationship to emollients. Cutaneous Medicine & Surgery 20(1):21–28. Marr LC, Tang JW, Van Mullekom J, Lakdawala SS. 2019. Mechanistic insights into the effect of humidity on airborne influenza virus survival, transmission and incidence. Royal Society Interface 16(150):20180298. Miller SL, Nazaroff WW, Jimenez JL, Boerstra A, Buonanno G, Dancer SJ, Kurnitski J, Marr LC, Morawska L, Noakes C. 2021. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by inhalation of respiratory aerosol in the Skagit Valley Chorale superspreading event. Indoor Air 31(2):314–23. Morawska L, Tang JW, Bahnfleth W, Bluyssen PM, Boerstra A, Buonanno G, Cao J, Dancer S, Floto A, Franchimon F, and 26 others. 2020. How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised? Environment International 142:105832. Nicas M, Best D. 2008. A study quantifying the hand-to-face contact rate and its potential application to predicting respiratory tract infection. Occupational & Environmental Hygiene 5(6):347–52. Noti JD, Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Cao G, Kashon ML, Thewlis RE, McMillen CM, King WP, Szalajda JV, Beezhold DH. 2012. Detection of infectious influenza virus in cough aerosols generated in a simulated patient examination room. Clinical Infectious Diseases 54(11):1569–77. Ober C, Sperling AI, von Mutius E, Vercelli D. 2017. Immune development and environment: Lessons from Amish and Hutterite children. Current Opinion in Immunology 48:51–60. Patterson KB, Runge T. 2002. Smallpox and the Native American. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 323(4):216–22. Phan L, Su Y-M, Weber R, Fritzen-Pedicini C, Edomwande O, Jones RM. 2018. Environmental and body contamination from cleaning vomitus in a health care setting: A simulation study. American Journal of Infection Control 46(4):397–401. Pitol AK, Julian TR. 2021. Community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by surfaces: Risks and risk reduction strategies. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 8(3):263–69. Prü BM. 2022. Variants of SARS CoV-2: Mutations, transmissibility, virulence, drug resistance, and antibody/vaccine sensitivity. Frontiers in Bioscience–Landmark 27(2):65. Reynolds KA, Beamer PI, Plotkin KR, Sifuentes LY, Koenig DW, Gerba CP. 2016. The healthy workplace project: Reduced viral exposure in an office setting. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 71(3):157–62. Richard M, van den Brand JMA, Bestebroer TM, Lexmond P, de Meulder D, Fouchier RAM, Lowen AC, Herfst S. 2020. Influenza A viruses are transmitted via the air from the nasal respiratory epithelium of ferrets. Nature Communications 11(1):766. Sehgal NJ, Milton DK. 2021. Applying the hierarchy of controls: What occupational safety can teach us about safely navigating the next phase of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health 9:747894. Shan Y, Guo J, Fan W, Li H, Wu H, Song Y, Jalleh G, Wu W, Zhang G. 2020. Modern urbanization has reshaped the bacterial microbiome profiles of house dust in domestic environments. World Allergy Organization Journal 13(8):100452. Shreiner AB, Kao JY, Young VB. 2015. The gut microbiome in health and in disease. Current Opinion in Gastro-enterology 31(1):69–75. Smith SJ, Young V, Robertson C, Dancer SJ. 2012. Where do hands go? An audit of sequential hand-touch events on a hospital ward. Hospital Infection 80(3):206–11. Stein MM, Hrusch CL, Gozdz J, Igartua C, Pivniouk V, -Murray SE, Ledford JG, Marques dos Santos M, Anderson RL, Metwali N, and 10 others. 2016. Innate immunity and asthma risk in Amish and Hutterite farm children. New England Journal of Medicine 375(5):411–21. Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA. 2008. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE): Transmission and control. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 31(2):99–106. Tsou MC, Özkaynak H, Beamer P, Dang W, Hsi H-C, Jiang C-B, Chien L-C. 2018. Mouthing activity data for children age 3 to <6 years old and fraction of hand area mouthed for children age <6 years old in Taiwan. Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 28(2):182–92. Weber DJ, Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Rutala WA. 2013. Role of the environment in the transmission of Clostridium difficile in health care facilities. American Journal of Infection Control 41(5):S105–10. Weber DJ, Consoli SA, Rutala WA. 2016. Occupational health risks associated with the use of germicides in health care. American Journal of Infection Control 44(5):e85–89. Wilson AM, Weir MH, Bloomfield SF, Scott EA, Reynolds KA. 2021a. Modeling COVID-19 infection risks for a single hand-to-fomite scenario and potential risk reductions offered by surface disinfection. American Journal of Infection Control 49(6):846–48. Wilson AM, Jones RM, Lugo Lerma V, Abney SE, King M-F, Weir MH, Sexton JD, Noakes CJ, Reynolds KA. 2021b. Respirators, face masks, and their risk reductions via multiple transmission routes for first responders within an ambulance. Occupational & Environmental Hygiene 18(7):345–60. Wilson AM, King M-F, López‐García M, Clifton IJ, Proctor J, Reynolds KA, Noakes CJ. 2021c. Effects of patient room layout on viral accruement on healthcare professionals’ hands. Indoor Air 31(5):1657–72. Wroblewski LE, Peek RM, Wilson KT. 2010. Helicobacter -pylori and gastric cancer: Factors that modulate disease risk. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 23(4):713–39. Xie C, Zhao H, Li K, Zhang Z, Lu X, Peng H, Wan-g D, Chen J, Zhang X, Wu D, and 4 others. 2020. The evidence of indirect transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reported in Guangzhou, China. BMC Public Health 20(1):1202. Zhang N, Li Y, Huang H. 2018. Surface touch and its network growth in a graduate student office. Indoor Air 28(6):963–72. Zhang N, Jia W, Wang P, King M-F, Chan P-T, Li Y. 2020. Most self-touches are with the nondominant hand. Scientific Reports 10(1):10457. [1] USEPA Pesticide Registration (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration) [2] For a discussion of inequities in access to effective infection control, see Gold et al. (2022) in this issue. About the Author:Amanda Wilson is an assistant professor and Paloma Beamer a professor, Department of Community, Environment, & Policy, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson. Diane Gold is a professor, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School.