Exhaled breath is a significant source of SARS-CoV-2 emission

Ma, Jingjiao; Xiao, Qin; Chen, Haoxuan; Li, Xinyue; Zhan, Zheng; Wang, Haibin; Sun, Lingli; Zhang, Lu; Guo, Jiazhen; Morawska, Lidia; Grinshpun, Sergey A.; Biswas, Pratim; Flagan, Richard C.; Yao, Maosheng

doi:10.1101/2020.05.31.20115154

Cited by 64 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The COVID-19 outbreak caused by a novel coronavirus referred to as SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in more than 1.1 million deaths in 189 countries/regions as of October 26 th , 2020 (Johns Hopkins University 2020). One of the major routes of human to human transmission is the inhalation of respiratory droplets produced by infected individuals through coughing, sneezing, and even talking or breathing within a close proximity of 1.8 m (Acter et al 2020;Ma et al 2020;Xie et al 2007). Although larger droplets usually settle quickly within a short distance from the origin, smaller particles can travel longer distances (Morawska 2006;Morawska et al 2009;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the effectiveness of using various face coverings to mitigate the transport of airborne particles produced by coughing indoors

Niu

Zhu

2020

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to respiratory droplets contributes greatly to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study investigates the effectiveness of various face coverings to reduce cough-generated airborne particle concentrations at 0.3, 0.9, and 1.8 m away from the source in an indoor environment. We measured the particle number concentration (PNC) and particle size distribution under seven different conditions: (1) no face covering; (2) face shield only; (3) cloth mask; (4) face shield + cloth mask; (5) surgical mask; (6) face shield + surgical mask; (7) N95 respirator or equivalent (i.e., KN95 mask). We observed significant increases in PNCs at 0.3 m under conditions #1-4 and a trend toward an increase at 1.8 m, compared to the background. The face shield by itself provided little protection with a particle reduction of 4 ± 23% relative to no face covering, while the cloth masks reduced the particles by 77 ± 7%. Surgical and N95/KN95 masks performed well and substantially reduced the cough droplets to ≤ 6% at 0.3 m. In this study, most cough-generated particles were found less than 2.5 µm with an average mode diameter of ~ 0.6 µm at 0.3 m. Approximately 80% of the particles ≤ 2.5 µm were able to travel to 0.9 m, and 10% of the particles ≤ 1.1 µm likely reached 1.8 m. Based on these results, face coverings, especially surgical and N95/KN95 masks, should be recommended as effective preventive measures to reduce outward transport of respiratory droplets during the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the effectiveness of using various face coverings to mitigate the transport of airborne particles produced by coughing indoors

Niu

Zhu

2020

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few studies have examined aerosols containing SARS-CoV-2. Ma et al (2020) detected SARS-CoV-2 in the exhaled breath of COVID-19 patients. van Doremalen et al (2020) found that SARS-CoV-2 in experimentally generated aerosols (<5 lm) remained viable for at least 3 h. Santarpia et al (2020) collected high volume air samples in biocontainment and quarantine units housing SARS-CoV-2 infected persons at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and found aerosols containing SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in 63% of samples from isolation rooms of patients, including from samplers placed >6 feet from the patient.…”

Section: Covid-19 and The Workplace: Research Questions For The Aerosmentioning

confidence: 94%

Multiparametric optical characterization of airborne dust with single particle extinction and scattering

Cremonesi

Passerini

Tettamanti

et al. 2020

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The maximum transmission distance of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol might be 4 m. Other COVID-19 aerosol studies involving viral cultures concluded no viable virus in air samples. [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] According to the RT-PCR data, the quantity of RNA detected was in extremely low numbers in large volumes of air. [59] Bullard et al have concluded that the RT-PCR assay result is not necessarily indicative of replicationand infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection.…”

Section: Aerosol Viral Rna (H1 N1 and Covid-19) Detection By Rt-pcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] According to the RT-PCR data, the quantity of RNA detected was in extremely low numbers in large volumes of air. [59] Bullard et al have concluded that the RT-PCR assay result is not necessarily indicative of replicationand infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection. [68] In a most recent literature, Zhu et al, investigates the associations of six air pollutants (PM 2.5 , PM 10 , SO 2 , CO, NO 2 and O 3 ) with COVID-19 confirmed cases.…”

Section: Aerosol Viral Rna (H1 N1 and Covid-19) Detection By Rt-pcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensors and Analytical Technologies for Air Quality: Particulate Matters and Bioaerosols

Sutarlie

Loh

2020

Chemistry An Asian Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Particulate matters (PMs), e. g. dusts, fibres, smokes, fumes, mists, liquid droplets and airborne respirable solid or liquid particles, are the major sources of air pollution concerning outdoor and indoor air quality. Among various PMs, bioaerosols are airborne particles that are either living organisms (bacteria, viruses, and fungi) or originate from living organisms (endotoxin, allergen, etc). PMs and/or bioaerosols have adverse health effects of infection, allergy, and irritation. Proper management and source identification of PMs and bioaerosols will reduce their negative health impact. In this review, we will discuss the analytical technologies and sensors for PMs and bioaerosols. We will first introduce four types of PM analysers, namely, filter-based gravimetric method (GMM), optical method, β-ray absorption method (BAM), and tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM). We will provide examples of how commercial PM analyzers of different principles have been compared and calibrated for specific applications under different climate conditions of specific geographic locations. For bioaerosols, having more complex biological and biochemical identity, we will start from air sampling techniques, followed by a discussion of various detection methods (plate culture, molecular methods, immunoassays and biosensors) in association with compatible sampling technologies. Using Influenza A (H1 N1) virus and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus as examples, we have highlighted air sampling and detection challenges for viral aerosols relative to bacterial and fungal aerosols. Finally, we provide a perspective for future trends according to the limitation of current commercial products and the key challenges in this field.

show abstract

Exhaled breath is a significant source of SARS-CoV-2 emission

Cited by 64 publications

References 16 publications

Assessing the effectiveness of using various face coverings to mitigate the transport of airborne particles produced by coughing indoors

Assessing the effectiveness of using various face coverings to mitigate the transport of airborne particles produced by coughing indoors

Multiparametric optical characterization of airborne dust with single particle extinction and scattering

Sensors and Analytical Technologies for Air Quality: Particulate Matters and Bioaerosols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About