7th March
Due to generating the greatest quantity and largest size of particles, care and adherence to procedures are required when an operator enters a cleanroom through the changing rooms. This article looks at the particle deposition risk within cleanroom changing rooms and some of the controls required to minimise operator cross-contamination.
When gowning, there is a risk of both a rising concentration of suspended particles in the airstream and of particle deposition. The larger the particle, the more likely they are to settle out of the airstream. Particles that leave the air will settle onto surfaces - these can easily become resuspended through human activity (resuspension refers to the detachment from surfaces and re-entrainment into the air of previously deposited particles).
As well as large particles settling, resuspension increases with particle size (particularly 10 μm and larger) 1. At 40 μm and larger, around 90% of particles are likely to settle on a surface 2. Furthermore, resuspended particles tend to have more microorganisms compared with particles first suspended in the air.
Quantitative comparisons between bacterial populations in indoor air and potential sources, suggest that resuspended particles are an important contributor to bacterial aerosol populations during occupancy 3. These are primarily bacteria associated with human skin, hair and nostrils.
Assessing particle deposition rates is complicated due to the limitations of accurately counting particles above 1 micrometre in diameter. However, specialised studies can reveal the extent of risk that these particles pose. Regular cleaning and disinfection are important for addressing floor level contamination.
For these reasons, a cleanroom changing room requires:
The number of operators permitted in a cleanroom changing room will depend on several factors. Generally, the space that an operator occupies will need to be larger than the minimum spaces allocated for conventional changing rooms. For a standard space (such as a swimming pool changing cubicle) many countries stipulate a space of 1 m2 per person. For a cleanroom changing room, it is often recommended that 4m2 is allocated (accounting for the indoor concentration gradient created from an individual’s ‘personal activity cloud’). However, this is dependent on the other factors.
It is also known that each additional person into any cleanroom space increases the particle concentration as well as the opportunity for particle mass exchange (the transfer of contamination from one person to another). The rate of particle concentration increase will depend on the type of clothing worn (and for how long) and the rate of operator movement. Deposition also comes in since most larger particles fall to the floor due to gravity, although this can be enhanced through air turbulence. Estimating particle release is not straight forward and localised body emissions need to be considered in combination with simplified bodily movements and accounting for all areas of the body (including the mouth and nose 4).
Therefore, we have:
Without cleanroom clothing, a typical human releases 8 million particles/h in the diameter range 1-10 μm [4] in a sitting position. In total, humans shed around one billion skin cells each day 5.
As well as generating particles, operator activity also resuspends particles through contact with the floor. The primary mechanism of particle resuspension involves rolling detachment adhesive forces can be greatly reduced by microscopic surface roughness. While footwear contact can resuspend a level of particles, other activities that can help to scoop up particles and increase the concentration, such as the cleanroom gown contacting the floor, must be avoided (resuspension is a significant contaminant re-distributor) 6. This is necessary to minimise the cross-contamination of personnel, especially those who have donned the cleanroom gown.
Wearing clean clothing, such as a cleanroom smock or jumpsuit, on entry to the changing room significantly reduces the particle load compared with personnel accessing a cleanroom wearing outdoor clothing 7. Under the EU GMP framework, this is required for entry into Grade C cleanrooms, although based on particle reduction it is recommended for prior entry into any controlled environment.
Once the cleanroom garment is worn, contamination release is substantially lowered. Cleanroom synthetic garment systems show a better performance, achieving 10 to 30 times fewer particle emission rates in wider movements and almost zero microbiological release compared with standard clean clothing. Not all cleanroom garments are of the same quality - they differ by material, fabric warping and sewing, shape and donning 8. Emission rates tend to be lower for disposable garments compared with reusable ones, although operator comfort, as well as cost, needs to be balanced.
Keeping temperature relatively cool (such as 15 to 21oC) reduces operator perspiration. This, along with appropriate humidity, can contribute towards control. High humidity can also lead to easier particle resuspension 9.
As well as excessive movement, activities like the cleaning of changing rooms should not take place whilst personnel are in the room for gowning or degowning. A simple process like dry-mopping the floor will increase the total particle count by five-fold 10. Normal cleanroom airflow generally does not resuspend particles - it is operator activities that are the cause 11.
This article has looked at some of the risk factors that affect cleanroom gowning and the use of changing rooms. The biggest risk factors are the types of clothing worn, the number of operators, the speed of activity and the gown potentially touching the floor.
1. Qian J, Peccia J, Ferro AR. Walking-induced particle resuspension in indoor environments. Atmos Environ. 2014; 89: 464-481
2. Whyte W., Agricola K., Comparison of the loss of macroparticles and MCPs in cleanrooms by surface deposition and mechanical ventilation. Clean Air and Containment Review. 2018, Issue 35, pp4-10. Available at: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/167850/1/167850.pdf
3. Hospodsky D, Qian J, Nazaroff WW, et al. (2012) Human Occupancy as a Source of Indoor Airborne Bacteria. PLoS ONE 7(4): e34867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034867
4. Licina D, Tian Y, Nazaroff WW. Emission rates and the personal cloud effect associated with particle release from the perihuman environment. Indoor air. 2017;27(4):791-802
5. Milstone LM (2004) Epidermal desquamation. Journal of Dermatological Science 36: 131–140
6. McDonagh, M.A. Byrne, The influence of human physical activity and contaminated clothing type on particle resuspension, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Volume 127,2014., pp 119-126
7. You R, Cui W, Chen C, Zhao B. Measuring the short-term emission rates of particles in the “personal cloud” with different clothes and activity intensities in a sealed chamber. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2012; 13(3): 911-921
8. Francesco Romano, Samanta Milani, Cesare M. Joppolo Airborne particle and microbiological human emission rate investigation for cleanroom clothing combinations, Building and Environment, Volume 180, 2020, 106967
9. Ibrahim, A. H., Dunn, P. F., and Brach, R. M. (2003). Micro-particle Detachment from Surfaces Exposed to TurbulentAir Flow: Controlled Experiments and Modeling. J. AerosolSci., 34:765–782
10. R.M Lum, T.E Graedel Measurements and models of indoor aerosol size spectra, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 7, Issue 8, 1973, pp 827-842
11. 11. Whyte W., Agricola K., Derks M., Airborne particle deposition in cleanrooms: Deposition mechanisms. Clean Air and Containment Review. 2015, Issue 24, pp4-9. Available at: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/111678/1/111678.pdf