Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May-Jun;42(3):102888.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102888. Epub 2021 Jan 4.

The FEES box: A novel barrier to contain particles during aerosol-generating procedures

Michelle G Ganann  1 , Merertu Kitila  2 , Ravi Patel  3 , Christopher D Brook  4 , Jessica M Pisegna  5
Affiliations

The FEES box: A novel barrier to contain particles during aerosol-generating procedures

Michelle G Ganann et al. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021 May-Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) have been deemed high-risk and in some cases restricted, indicating the need for additional personal protective equipment. The aim of this study was to erect and study a protective barrier for FEES.

Materials and methods: A PVC cube was constructed to fit over a patient while allowing for upright endoscopy. A plastic drape was fitted over the cube, and the protective barrier was subsequently named the "FEES Box." Three different particulate-generating tasks were carried out: sneezing, coughing, and spraying water from an atomizer bottle. Each task was completed within and without the FEES Box, and particulate was measured with a particle counter. The average particles/L detected during the three tasks, and baseline measurements, were statistically compared.

Results: Without the FEES Box in place, the sneezing and spraying tasks resulted in a statistically significant increase in particles above baseline (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively); coughing particulate never reached levels significantly higher than baseline (p = 0.230). With use of the FEES Box, there was no statistically significant increase in particles above baseline in any of the three tasks.

Conclusion: The FEES Box effectively contained particles generated during sneezes and an atomizer spray. It would also likely mitigate coughing particulate, but coughing did not generate a significant increase in particles above baseline. Further research is warranted to test the efficacy of the FEES Box in containing particulate matter during a complete FEES procedure.

Keywords: Aerosols; COVID-19; FEES; Particulate; Speech-Language Pathology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare they have no financial, consultant, institutional, or other relationships that may lead to a bias or conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PCE-PCO 1 particle counter.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
FEES Box set up on clinic chair for experimental design.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A, Participant set-up without FEES Box. B, Participant set-up with FEES Box.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A, FEES Box frame. B, Various hook attachments for different bed and chair types. C, FEES Box frame with cover and hook, next to FEES cart on hospital unit.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The mean particle count during simulated sneezing with and without the FEES box. ** Indicates a statistically significant difference from baseline at the 5% level. Error bars represent a 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
The mean particle counts during simulated coughing with and without the FEES box. There was no statistically significant difference in either condition from baseline at the 5% level. Error bars represent a 95% confidence interval.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
The mean particle counts during simulated coughing with and without the FEES box. ** Indicates a statistically significant difference from baseline at the 5% level. Error bars represent a 95% confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heinzerling A S.M., Scheuer T. Transmission of COVID-19 to health care personnel during exposures to a hospitalized patient — Solano County, California, February 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69 - PMC - PubMed
    1. M. Klompas, M. A. Baker, and C. Rhee, “Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: theoretical considerations and available evidence,” (in eng), JAMA, vol. 324, no. 5, pp. 441–442, Aug 2020, doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12458. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leung N.H.L. Author correction: respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks (in eng) Nat Med. 06 2020;26(6):981. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0946-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. W. H. Organization. "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations." (accessed October 26, 2020).
    1. Anfinrud P., Stadnytskyi V., Bax C.E., Bax A. Visualizing speech-generated oral fluid droplets with laser light scattering, (in eng) N Engl J Med. 05 2020;382(21):2061–2063. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2007800. - DOI - PMC - PubMed