Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg: ESBL, IHBE and BioBE director (University of Oregon)
BY BRIAN LIBBY
In these pandemic times, we're hearing a whole lot about Covid-19 testing, be it America's world-leading numbers of positive tests or our federal government's failure to provide enough testing kits.
But what if the key to ending or at least curbing the otherwise-necessary quarantines is to test not just people but buildings?
That's the epiphany being offered by the Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg and a group of interconnected entities at the University of Oregon he directs and/or co-directs: the Energy Studies In Buildings Laboratory, the Institute for Health in the Built Environment, and Biology in the Built Environment.
As Van Den Wymelenberg explained in a recent video, testing exhaust air regularly for biological evidence of the virus can act like a kind of radar for spotting infection invasions long before individuals who have contracted Covid-19 start showing symptoms.
"The key to restarting the engine of the economy is revealed by the unseen within buildings," the video narration goes. "By focusing on testing exhaust air for the virus, we can get a rapid signal of the presence of any individual with the virus. Empowered with that knowledge, we can act to support health and safety, triggering contact tracing and targeted human testing. We can implement building operational controls to avoid outbreaks. By retesting we can build confidence in our engineering solutions to minimize transmission risk."
"Blueprint to Save Lives AND Restore Livelihoods" (University of Oregon/YouTube)
"We cannot test every person for Coronavirus every day, but we can test every building every day. And soon, maybe every hour or every minute. Testing exhaust air provides an integrated signal for low-cost and frequent assessment of exposure risk. This awareness guides tactical actions. Every building has a range of engineering, design, and behavioral solutions to reduce transmission risk and support human health. Modified outside air exchange, humidification, filtration, and deep cleaning strategies, paired with spatial distancing, personal behaviors and policy controls create the necessary bundle of measures to enact a smart open and operations. Testing buildings for pathogens like Coronavirus is the key to restart the engine of the economy and can be layered into emerging reopening plans."
The idea is intriguing enough that Van Den Wymelenberg was even interviewed recently for a segment on TV's Good Morning America. I think that's because it's a rare glimmer of hope that actually has rigor, in the sharpest possible contrast to the quackery being peddled from the White House.
Recently I spoke with Van Den Wymelenberg to learn more about this potentially very impactful plan.
Portland Architecture: How were you and your team in the Institute for Health in the Built Environment and its sister organizations, the Biology in the Built Environment Center, well positioned to come up with this idea?
Van Den Wymelenberg: We’ve been studying microbes in buildings for about a decade. When I said that six months ago, people said, ‘That’s interesting—weird, but interesting.’ I might have also said we were looking at pathogens in hospitals and infections. People might say, ‘I’ve heard of that,’ or, ‘My niece got that.’ But of course with the pandemic it’s on top of everyone’s mind. We’ve found ourselves in a unique position with a lot of responsibility. There aren’t a lot of people who study microbes in buildings, even to the extent of I’ve done more media in the last six months than my entire life before that. But it’s an important piece of the campaign. This crisis is touching everyone. Sharing multiple modes of knowledge is so important.
So is it Covid-19 microbes you're testing for, essentially?
We were the first ones that we know of that looked at building air handling equipment and identified the RNA, the genetic material, associated with the virus. We’re testing for the presence of the RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. With our technique, we can detect the presence and abundance of the RNA of that virus. If you say virus you’re implying it’s a viable virus and potentially infectious. We’re testing for the signal of the virus. It could be viable virus or relic-RNA.
Has it been put to the test anywhere beyond the laboratory?
We've been collaborating with a local company, Enviraltech, that's been testing senior care centers this way. We’ve been sharing our experiences with one another, because we’re a university research lab and they’re in the private sector. They’ve had tremendous success. By testing the building surfaces with swabs, with Q-tips basically, identifying the RNA of the virus on a keyboard where staff members were clocking in, basically, they found it there and they quarantined the shift and asked folks to get tested. Within 24 hours they identified the person who was positive and asymptomatic. They say that was five days before that person began to show symptoms. They’re attributing that to preventing an outbreak. And they actually have several other stories like that. That’s evidence that this concept can work.
From "Blueprint to Save Lives AND Restore Livelihoods" (University of Oregon)
How often would building testing need to occur? What's realistic?
Just walking into a building and testing once is not what this should be about. It’s a surveillance model. It can be a subscription model. Eventually I think it could be a more low-tech version of the test that’s actually completed on site.
Has sustainable design and the increasing sophistication of air-handling systems helped enable this?
Yes. These are well established energy efficiency management concepts. You use CO2 measurements to drive fresh air accordingly. The same is possible with this. We can be doing surveillance to see if there’s a spike in the RNA. If you see a surge when you’re testing at least once per day, then you are probably seeing a surge of infectious virus. But if you only test the building one time, you can learn something about areas where you might have greater risks but it is harder to use just one data point to guide building operations.
Can you talk a little bit about how the process would work, and how building occupants might use that information?
If you subscribe to a surveillance protocol, a testing protocol, a classroom that was occupied on Monday you can test Monday night to see if anyone in that class had an exposure. If you did, you could self-quarantine. You could do more human testing, you could do deep cleaning. If you don’t have enough capacity to test all those people, then maybe you send out a notice saying, ‘There was some risk in class. If you’re high-risk or concerned, Wednesday’s class could be offered online. If you’re comfortable coming in, we’re going to be available.’
What if you walked up to a building and saw there’s a green light, a yellow light or a red light? That could be based upon the recent history of exposure in that building. You’d know what you were walking into: remind you to wear a mask, decide how long you wanted to stay. Maybe an event at a gymnasium for a couple hours is a bad idea. Maybe going in to buy a bottle of milk is okay.
At the end of the day, it seems like the RNA-surveillance system you're talking about for building exhaust systems could be cause for some optimism: that even if there isn't a vaccine anytime soon, we can further normalize life with Covid-19.
Absolutely. I think you hit it on the head. We’ve been fighting this kind of invisible problem. This in many ways is a way to visualize the problem and help bring data to guide action. I don’t think this is going to replace masks in the near term, or good hand protocols and hygiene. But I think it can be a layer of protection. More than anything, it’s a layer of knowledge, and so much of what we’ve been fighting has been with a lack of knowledge.
Advertisements
Comments