River Sediment Sampling and Environment Quality Standards: A Case Study of the Ravensbourne River

Sediment is a major sink for heavy metals in river, and poses significant risks not only to river quality but also to aquatic and benthic organisms. At present in the UK, there are no mandatory sediment quality standards. This is partly due to insufficient toxicity data but also due to problems with identification of appropriate sediment monitoring and analytical techniques. The aim of this research was to examine the sampling different river sediment compartments in order to monitor compliance with any future UK sediment environmental quality standards (EQS). The significance of sediment physical and chemical characteristics on sampling and analysis was also determined. The Ravensbourne River, a tributary of the River Thames located in the highly urbanised South Eastern area of London was used for this study. Sediment was collected from the bed using the Van Veer grab, the bank using hand trowel, and from the water column (suspended sediment) using the time integrated suspended tube sampler between the period of July 2010 and December, 2011. The result for the total metal extraction carried out using aqua regia found that there were no significant differences in the metal concentrations retained in the different compartments by the <63μm sediment fraction but there were differences between the 63μm-2mm fractions of the bed and bank. The metal concentration in the bed, bank and suspended sediment exceeded the draft UK sediment quality guidelines. Sequential extraction was also carried out to determine metal speciation in each sediment compartment using the Maiz et al. (1997) and Tessier et al. (1979) methods. The Maiz et al. (1997) found over 80% of the metals in each sediment compartment were not bioavailable, while Tessier et al. (1979) method found most of the metals to be associated with the Fe/Mn and the residual phase. The bed sediment compartment and the <2mm (<63μm + 63μm-2mm) fraction appears to be the most suitable sediment sample for sediment monitoring from this study.

A quantitative evaluation of three hand drying methods and the potential for dissemination of virus particles into the environment

The importance of hand hygiene in reducing the spread of pathogens has been long established and this has been highlighted recently in initiatives such as the NHS’s ‘clean your hands’ campaign. However, much of the focus on hand hygiene has concerned effective hand washing; there has been less emphasis on hand drying and its role in hygienic practices. This study aimed to compare three hand drying methods namely paper towels, a warm air dryer and a jet air dryer for their relative ability to disseminate virus particles into the washroom environment during hand drying. A bacteriophage model was used to compare these methods; hands were artificially contaminated with MS2 phage and dried using each device. Both air sampling and contact plates were assessed and a plaque assay was used to quantify virus dissemination. Samples were collected at set times, heights, angles and distances around each device. Both air sampling and contact plate results indicated that the jet air dryer produced significantly more virus dispersal than either paper towels or the warm air dryer in terms of quantity, distance travelled and the time spent circulating in the air around the device and potentially in the washroom environment.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.