Combining Phi6 as a surrogate virus and computational large-eddy simulations to study airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a restaurant.

COVID-19 has highlighted the need for indoor risk-reduction strategies. Our aim is to provide information about the virus dispersion and attempts to reduce the infection risk. Indoor transmission was studied simulating a dining situation in a restaurant. Aerosolized Phi6 viruses were detected with several methods. The aerosol dispersion was modeled by using the Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) technique. Three risk-reduction strategies were studied: (1) augmenting ventilation with air purifiers, (2) spatial partitioning with dividers, and (3) combination of 1 and 2. In all simulations infectious viruses were detected throughout the space proving the existence long-distance aerosol transmission indoors. Experimental cumulative virus numbers and LES dispersion results were qualitatively similar. The LES results were further utilized to derive the evolution of infection probability. Air purifiers augmenting the effective ventilation rate by 65% reduced the spatially averaged infection probability by 30%-32%. This relative reduction manifests with approximately 15 min lag as aerosol dispersion only gradually reaches the purifier units. Both viral findings and LES results confirm that spatial partitioning has a negligible effect on the mean infection-probability indoors, but may affect the local levels adversely. Exploitation of high-resolution LES jointly with microbiological measurements enables an informative interpretation of the experimental results and facilitates a more complete risk assessment.

SARS-CoV-2 indoor environment contamination with epidemiological and experimental investigations.

SARS-CoV-2 has been detected both in air and on surfaces, but questions remain about the patient-specific and environmental factors affecting virus transmission. Additionally, more detailed information on viral sampling of the air is needed. This prospective cohort study (N = 56) presents results from 258 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home-treated COVID-19 index patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compares the results between the measured environments and patient factors. Additionally, epidemiological and experimental investigations were performed. The proportions of qRT-PCR-positive air (10.7% hospital/17.6% homes) and surface samples (8.8%/12.9%) showed statistical similarity in hospital and homes. Significant SARS-CoV-2 air contamination was observed in a large (655.25 m3 ) mechanically ventilated (1.67 air changes per hour, 32.4-421 L/s/patient) patient hall even with only two patients present. All positive air samples were obtained in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the following particle sizes: 0.65-4.7 µm, 7.0-12.0 µm, >10 µm, and <100 µm. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun.

Aerosol concentrations and size distributions during clinical dental procedures.

Background: Suspected aerosol-generating dental instruments may cause risks for operators by transmitting pathogens, such as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The aim of our study was to measure aerosol generation in various dental procedures in clinical settings. Methods: The study population comprised of 84 patients who underwent 253 different dental procedures measured with Optical Particle Sizer in a dental office setting. Aerosol particles from 0.3 to 10 µm in diameter were measured. Dental procedures included oral examinations (N = 52), restorative procedures with air turbine handpiece (N = 8), high-speed (N = 6) and low-speed (N = 30) handpieces, ultrasonic scaling (N = 31), periodontal treatment using hand instruments (N = 60), endodontic treatment (N = 12), intraoral radiographs (N = 24), and dental local anesthesia (N = 31). Results: Air turbine handpieces significantly elevated <1 µm particle median (p = 0.013) and maximum (p = 0.016) aerosol number concentrations as well as aerosol particle mass concentrations (p = 0.046 and p = 0.006) compared to the background aerosol levels preceding the operation. Low-speed dental handpieces elevated >5 µm median (p = 0.023), maximum (p = 0.013) particle number concentrations,> 5 µm particle mass concentrations (p = 0.021) and maximum total particle mass concentrations (p = 0.022). High-speed dental handpieces elevated aerosol concentration levels compared to the levels produced during oral examination. Conclusions: Air turbine handpieces produced the highest levels of <1 µm aerosols and total particle number concentrations when compared to the other commonly used instruments. In addition, high- and low-speed dental handpieces and ultrasonic scalers elevated the aerosol concentration levels compared to the aerosol levels measured during oral examination. These aerosol-generating procedures, involving air turbine, high- and low-speed handpiece, and ultrasonic scaler, should be performed with caution. Clinical significance: Aerosol generating dental instruments, especially air turbine, should be used with adequate precautions (rubber dam, high-volume evacuation, FFP-respirators), because aerosols can cause a potential risk for operators and substitution of air turbine for high-speed dental handpiece in poor epidemic situations should be considered to reduce the risk of aerosol transmission.

Experimental Infection of Mink with SARS-COV-2 Omicron Variant and Subsequent Clinical Disease.

We report an experimental infection of American mink with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and show that mink remain positive for viral RNA for days, experience clinical signs and histopathologic changes, and transmit the virus to uninfected recipients. Preparedness is crucial to avoid spread among mink and spillover to human populations.

Microdebrider is less aerosol-generating than CO2 laser and cold instruments in microlaryngoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 spreads through aerosols produced in coughing, talking, exhalation, and also in some surgical procedures. Use of CO2 laser in laryngeal surgery has been observed to generate aerosols, however, other techniques, such cold dissection and microdebrider, have not been sufficiently investigated. We aimed to assess whether aerosol generation occurs during laryngeal operations and the effect of different instruments on aerosol production. METHODS: We measured particle concentration generated during surgeries with an Optical Particle Sizer. Cough data collected from volunteers and aerosol concentration of an empty operating room served as references. Aerosol concentrations when using different techniques and equipment were compared with references as well as with each other. RESULTS: Thirteen laryngological surgeries were evaluated. The highest total aerosol concentrations were observed when using CO2 laser and these were significantly higher than the concentrations when using microdebrider or cold dissection (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001) or in the background or during coughing (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). In contrast, neither microdebrider nor cold dissection produced significant concentrations of aerosol compared with coughing (p = 0.146, p = 0.753). In comparing all three techniques, microdebrider produced the least aerosol particles. CONCLUSIONS: Microdebrider and cold dissection can be regarded as aerosol-generating relative to background reference concentrations, but they should not be considered as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures, as the concentrations are low and do not exceed those of coughing. A step-down algorithm from CO2 laser to cold instruments and microdebrider is recommended to lower the risk of airborne infections among medical staff.

Aerosol generation during general anesthesia is comparable to coughing: An observational clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Intubation, laryngoscopy, and extubation are considered highly aerosol-generating procedures, and additional safety protocols are used during COVID-19 pandemic in these procedures. However, previous studies are mainly experimental and have neither analyzed staff exposure to aerosol generation in the real-life operating room environment nor compared the exposure to aerosol concentrations generated during normal patient care. To assess operational staff exposure to potentially infectious particle generation during general anesthesia, we measured particle concentration and size distribution with patients undergoing surgery with Optical Particle Sizer. METHODS: A single-center observative multidisciplinary clinical study in Helsinki University Hospital with 39 adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Mean particle concentrations during different anesthesia procedures were statistically compared with cough control data collected from 37 volunteers to assess the differences in particle generation. RESULTS: This study measured 25 preoxygenations, 30 mask ventilations, 28 intubations, and 24 extubations. The highest total aerosol concentration of 1153 particles (p)/cm³ was observed during mask ventilation. Preoxygenations, mask ventilations, and extubations as well as uncomplicated intubations generated mean aerosol concentrations statistically comparable to coughing. It is noteworthy that difficult intubation generated significantly fewer aerosols than either uncomplicated intubation (p = .007) or coughing (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia induction generates mainly small (<1 µm) aerosol particles. Based on our results, general anesthesia procedures are not highly aerosol-generating compared with coughing. Thus, their definition as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures should be re-evaluated due to comparable exposures during normal patient care. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: The list of aerosol-generating procedures guides the use of protective equipments in hospitals. Intubation is listed as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure, however, aerosol generation has not been measured thoroughly. We measured aerosol generation during general anesthesia. None of the general anesthesia procedures generated statistically more aerosols than coughing and thus should not be considered as higher risk compared to normal respiratory activities.

Modelling aerosol transport and virus exposure with numerical simulations in relation to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by inhalation indoors.

We provide research findings on the physics of aerosol and droplet dispersion relevant to the hypothesized aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the current pandemic. We utilize physics-based modeling at different levels of complexity, along with previous literature on coronaviruses, to investigate the possibility of airborne transmission. The previous literature, our 0D-3D simulations by various physics-based models, and theoretical calculations, indicate that the typical size range of speech and cough originated droplets ( d ⩽ 20 µ m ) allows lingering in the air for O ( 1 h ) so that they could be inhaled. Consistent with the previous literature, numerical evidence on the rapid drying process of even large droplets, up to sizes O ( 100 µ m ) , into droplet nuclei/aerosols is provided. Based on the literature and the public media sources, we provide evidence that the individuals, who have been tested positive on COVID-19, could have been exposed to aerosols/droplet nuclei by inhaling them in significant numbers e.g. O ( 100 ) . By 3D scale-resolving computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, we give various examples on the transport and dilution of aerosols ( d ⩽ 20 µ m ) over distances O ( 10 m ) in generic environments. We study susceptible and infected individuals in generic public places by Monte-Carlo modelling. The developed model takes into account the locally varying aerosol concentration levels which the susceptible accumulate via inhalation. The introduced concept, 'exposure time' to virus containing aerosols is proposed to complement the traditional 'safety distance' thinking. We show that the exposure time to inhale O ( 100 ) aerosols could range from O ( 1 s ) to O ( 1 min ) or even to O ( 1 h ) depending on the situation. The Monte-Carlo simulations, along with the theory, provide clear quantitative insight to the exposure time in different public indoor environments.