Workplace exposure is an important source of ill health. The use of wearable sensors and sensing technologies may help improve and maintain worker health, safety, and wellbeing. Input from workers should inform the integration of these sensors into workplaces. We developed an online survey to understand the acceptability of wearable sensor technologies for occupational health and safety (OSH) management. The survey was disseminated to members of OSH-related organizations, mainly in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. There were 158 respondents, with over half (n = 91, 58%) reporting current use of wearable sensors, including physical hazards (n = 57, 36%), air quality (n = 53, 34%), and location tracking (n = 36, 23%), although this prevalence likely also captures traditional monitoring equipment. There were no clear distinctions in wearable sensor use between the reported demographic and occupational characteristics, with the exception that hygienists were more likely than non-hygienists (e.g. safety professionals) to use wearable sensors (66% versus 34%). Overall, there was an interest in how sensors can help OSH professionals understand patterns of exposure and improve exposure management practices. Some wariness was expressed primarily around environmental and physical constraints, the quality of the data, and privacy concerns. This survey identified a need to better identify occupational situations that would benefit from wearable sensors and to evaluate existing devices that could be used for occupational hygiene. Further, this work underscores the importance of clearly defining “sensor” according to the occupational setting and context.

BACKGROUND:There are still uncertainties in our knowledge of the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the environment - where it can be found, and potential exposure determinants - limiting our ability to effectively model and compare interventions for risk management. AIM:This study measured SARS-CoV-2 in three hospitals in Scotland on surfaces and in air, alongside ventilation and patient care activities. METHODS:Air sampling at 200 L/min for 20 min and surface sampling were performed in two wards designated to treat COVID-19-positive patients and two non-COVID-19 wards across three hospitals in November and December 2020. FINDINGS:Detectable samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found in COVID-19 treatment wards but not in non-COVID-19 wards. Most samples were below assay detection limits, but maximum concentrations reached 1.7×103 genomic copies/m3 in air and 1.9×104 copies per surface swab (3.2×102 copies/cm2 for surface loading). The estimated geometric mean air concentration (geometric standard deviation) across all hospitals was 0.41 (71) genomic copies/m3 and the corresponding values for surface contamination were 2.9 (29) copies/swab. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in non-patient areas (patient/visitor waiting rooms and personal protective equipment changing areas) associated with COVID-19 treatment wards. CONCLUSION:Non-patient areas of the hospital may pose risks for infection transmission and further attention should be paid to these areas. Standardization of sampling methods will improve understanding of levels of environmental contamination. The pandemic has demonstrated a need to review and act upon the challenges of older hospital buildings meeting current ventilation guidance.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence for air and surface contamination of workplace environments with SARS-CoV-2 RNA and the quality of the methods used to identify actions necessary to improve the quality of the data. Methods: We searched Web of Science and Google Scholar until 24 December 2020 for relevant articles and extracted data on methodology and results. Results: The vast majority of data come from healthcare settings, with typically around 6% of samples having detectable concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and almost none of the samples collected had viable virus.There were a wide variety of methods used to measure airborne virus, although surface sampling was generally undertaken using nylon flocked swabs. Overall, the quality of the measurements was poor. Only a small number of studies reported the airborne concentration of SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA, mostly just reporting the detectable concentration values without reference to the detection limit. Imputing the geometric mean air concentration assuming the limit of detection was the lowest reported value, suggests typical concentrations in healthcare settings may be around 0.01 SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA copies m -3 . Data on surface virus loading per unit area were mostly unavailable. Conclusions: The reliability of the reported data is uncertain.The methods used for measuring SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses in work environments should be standardized to facilitate more consistent interpretation of contamination and to help reliably estimate worker exposure.