Mitigation of Respirable Aerosol Particles from Speech and Language Therapy Exercises.

INTRODUCTION: Phonation and speech are known sources of respirable aerosol in humans. Voice assessment and treatment manipulate all the subsystems of voice production, and previous work (Saccente-Kennedy et al., 2022) has demonstrated such activities can generate >10 times more aerosol than conversational speech and 30 times more aerosol than breathing. Aspects of voice therapy may therefore be considered aerosol generating procedures and pose a greater risk of potential airborne pathogen (eg, SARS-CoV-2) transmission than typical speech. Effective mitigation measures may be required to ensure safe service delivery for therapist and patient. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing detectable respirable aerosol produced by voice assessment/therapy. METHODS: We recruited 15 healthy participants (8 cis-males, 7 cis-females), 9 of whom were voice-specialist speech-language pathologists. Optical Particle Sizers (OPS) (Model 3330, TSI) were used to measure the number concentration of respirable aerosol particles (0.3 µm-10 µm) generated during a selection of voice assessment/therapy tasks, both with and without mitigation measures in place. Measurements were performed in a laminar flow operating theatre, with near-zero background aerosol concentration, allowing us to quantify the number concentration of respiratory aerosol particles produced. Mitigation measures included the wearing of Type IIR fluid resistant surgical masks, wrapping the same masks around the end of straws, and the use of heat and moisture exchange microbiological filters (HMEFs) for a water resistance therapy (WRT) task. RESULTS: All unmitigated therapy tasks produced more aerosol than unmasked breathing or speaking. Mitigation strategies reduced detectable aerosol from all tasks to a level significantly below, or no different to, that of unmasked breathing. Pooled filtration efficiencies determined that Type IIR surgical masks reduced detectable aerosol by 90%. Surgical masks wrapped around straws reduced detectable aerosol by 96%. HMEF filters were 100% effective in mitigating the aerosol from WRT, the exercise that generated more aerosol than any other task in the unmitigated condition. CONCLUSIONS: Voice therapy and assessment causes the release of significant quantities of respirable aerosol. However, simple mitigation strategies can reduce emitted aerosol concentrations to levels comparable to unmasked breathing.

Emission rates, size distributions, and generation mechanism of oral respiratory droplets

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought renewed attention to respiratory aerosol and droplet generation. While many studies have robustly quantified aerosol (<10 µm diameter) number and mass exhalation rates, fewer studies have explored larger droplet generation. This study quantifies respiratory droplets (>20 µm diameter) generated by a cohort of 76 adults and children using a water-sensitive paper droplet deposition approach. Unvoiced and voiced activities spanning different levels of loudness, different lengths of sustained phonation, and a specific manner of articulation in isolation were investigated. We find that oral articulation drives >20 µm droplet generation, with breathing generating virtually no droplets and speaking and singing generating on the order of 250 droplets min−1. Lip trilling, which requires extensive oral articulation, generated the most droplets, whereas shouting "Hey,” which requires minimal oral articulation, generated relatively few droplets. Droplet size distributions were all broadly consistent, and no significant differences between the children and adult cohorts were identified. By comparing the aerosol and droplet emissions for the same participants, the full size distribution of respiratory aerosol (0.5–1000 µm) is reported. Although <10 µm aerosol dominates the number concentration, >20 µm droplets dominate the mass concentration. Accurate quantification of aerosol concentrations in the 10–70 μm size range remains very challenging;more robust aerosol analysis approaches are needed to characterize this size range.

Emission Rates, Size Distributions, and Generation Mechanism of Oral Respiratory Droplets

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought renewed attention to respiratory aerosol and droplet generation. While many studies have robustly quantified aerosol (<10 µm diameter) number and mass exhalation rates, fewer studies have explored larger droplet generation. This study quantifies respiratory droplets (>20 µm diameter) generated by a cohort of 76 adults and children using a water-sensitive paper droplet deposition approach. Unvoiced and voiced activities spanning different levels of loudness, different lengths of sustained phonation, and a specific manner of articulation in isolation were investigated. We find that oral articulation drives >20 µm droplet generation, with breathing generating virtually no droplets and speaking and singing generating on the order of 250 droplets min−1. Lip trilling, which requires extensive oral articulation, generated the most droplets, whereas shouting "Hey”, which requires minimal oral articulation, generated relatively few droplets. Droplet size distributions were all broadly consistent, and no significant differences between the children and adult cohorts were identified. By comparing the aerosol and droplet emissions for the same participants, the full size distribution of respiratory aerosol (0.5-1000 µm) is reported. Although <10 µm aerosol dominates the number concentration, >20 µm droplets dominate the mass concentration. Accurate quantification of aerosol concentrations in the 10-70 μm size range remains very challenging;more robust aerosol analysis approaches are needed to characterize this size range. [ FROM AUTHOR]

Computational and Experimental Study of Aerosol Dispersion in a Ventilated Room

For many respiratory diseases, a primary mode of transmission is inhalation via aerosols and droplets. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated studies of aerosol dispersion in indoor environments. Most studies of aerosol dispersion present computational fluid dynamics results, which rarely include detailed experimental verification, and many of the computations are complex, making them hard to scale to larger spaces. This study presents a comparison of computational simulations and measurements of aerosol dispersion within a typical ventilated classroom. Measurements were accomplished using a custom-built low-cost sensor network composed of 15 commercially available optical particle sizers, which provided size-resolved information about the number concentrations and temporal dynamics of 0.3-40 µm diameter particles. Measurement results are compared to the computed dispersal and loss rates from a steady-state Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes k-epsilon model. The results show that a newly developed aerosol-transport-model can accurately simulate the dispersion of aerosols and faithfully predict measured aerosol concentrations at different locations and times. The computational model was developed with scalability in mind such that it may be adapted for larger spaces. The experiments highlight that the fraction of aerosol recycled in the ventilation system depends on the aerosol droplet size and cannot be predicted by the recycled-to-outside air ratio. Moreover, aerosol recirculation is not negligible, as some computational approaches assume. Both modelling and measurements show that, depending on the location within the room, the maximum aerosol concentration can be many times higher than the average concentration, increasing the risk of infection. [ FROM AUTHOR]

Quantification of Respirable Aerosol Particles from Speech and Language Therapy Exercises.

INTRODUCTION: Voice assessment and treatment involve the manipulation of all the subsystems of voice production, and may lead to production of respirable aerosol particles that pose a greater risk of potential viral transmission via inhalation of respirable pathogens (eg, SARS-CoV-2) than quiet breathing or conversational speech. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the production of respirable aerosol particles during a selection of voice assessment therapy tasks. METHODS: We recruited 23 healthy adult participants (12 males, 11 females), 11 of whom were speech-language pathologists specialising in voice disorders. We used an aerodynamic and an optical particle sizer to measure the number concentration and particle size distributions of respirable aerosols generated during a variety of voice assessment and therapy tasks. The measurements were carried out in a laminar flow operating theatre, with a near-zero background aerosol concentration, allowing us to quantify the number concentration and size distributions of respirable aerosol particles produced from assessment/therapy tasks studied. RESULTS: Aerosol number concentrations generated while performing assessment/therapy tasks were log-normally distributed among individuals with no significant differences between professionals (speech-language pathologists) and non-professionals or between males and females. Activities produced up to 32 times the aerosol number concentration of breathing and 24 times that of speech at 70-80 dBA. In terms of aerosol mass, activities produced up to 163 times the mass concentration of breathing and up to 36 times the mass concentration of speech. Voicing was a significant factor in aerosol production; aerosol number/mass concentrations generated during the voiced activities were 1.1-5 times higher than their unvoiced counterpart activities. Additionally, voiced activities produced bigger respirable aerosol particles than their unvoiced variants except the trills. Humming generated higher aerosol concentrations than sustained /a/, fricatives, speaking (70-80 dBA), and breathing. Oscillatory semi-occluded vocal tract exercises (SOVTEs) generated higher aerosol number/mass concentrations than the activities without oscillation. Water resistance therapy (WRT) generated the most aerosol of all activities, ∼10 times higher than speaking at 70-80 dBA and >30 times higher than breathing. CONCLUSIONS: All activities generated more aerosol than breathing, although a sizeable minority were no different to speaking. Larger number concentrations and larger particle sizes appear to be generated by activities with higher suspected airflows, with the greatest involving intraoral pressure oscillation and/or an oscillating oral articulation (WRT or trilling).

A comparison of respiratory particle emission rates at rest and while speaking or exercising.

Background: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the prohibition of group-based exercise and the cancellation of sporting events. Evaluation of respiratory aerosol emissions is necessary to quantify exercise-related transmission risk and inform mitigation strategies. Methods: Aerosol mass emission rates are calculated from concurrent aerosol and ventilation data, enabling absolute comparison. An aerodynamic particle sizer (0.54-20 µm diameter) samples exhalate from within a cardiopulmonary exercise testing mask, at rest, while speaking and during cycle ergometer-based exercise. Exercise challenge testing is performed to replicate typical gym-based exercise and very vigorous exercise, as determined by a preceding maximally exhaustive exercise test. Results: We present data from 25 healthy participants (13 males, 12 females; 36.4 years). The size of aerosol particles generated at rest and during exercise is similar (unimodal ~0.57-0.71 µm), whereas vocalization also generated aerosol particles of larger size (i.e. was bimodal ~0.69 and ~1.74 µm). The aerosol mass emission rate during speaking (0.092 ng s-1; minute ventilation (VE) 15.1 L min-1) and vigorous exercise (0.207 ng s-1, p = 0.726; VE 62.6 L min-1) is similar, but lower than during very vigorous exercise (0.682 ng s-1, p < 0.001; VE 113.6 L min-1). Conclusions: Vocalisation drives greater aerosol mass emission rates, compared to breathing at rest. Aerosol mass emission rates in exercise rise with intensity. Aerosol mass emission rates during vigorous exercise are no different from speaking at a conversational level. Mitigation strategies for airborne pathogens for non-exercise-based social interactions incorporating vocalisation, may be suitable for the majority of exercise settings. However, the use of facemasks when exercising may be less effective, given the smaller size of particles produced.

A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures.

Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are defined as any procedure releasing airborne particles <5 µm in size from the respiratory tract. There remains uncertainty about which dental procedures constitute AGPs. We quantified the aerosol number concentration generated during a range of periodontal, oral surgery and orthodontic procedures using an aerodynamic particle sizer, which measures aerosol number concentrations and size distribution across the 0.5-20 µm diameter size range. Measurements were conducted in an environment with a sufficiently low background to detect a patient's cough, enabling confident identification of aerosol. Phantom head control experiments for each procedure were performed under the same conditions as a comparison. Where aerosol was detected during a patient procedure, we assessed whether the size distribution could be explained by the non-salivary contaminated instrument source in the respective phantom head control procedure using a two-sided unpaired t-test (comparing the mode widths (log(σ)) and peak positions (DP,C)). The aerosol size distribution provided a robust fingerprint of aerosol emission from a source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected above background. Where aerosol was detected, the percentage of procedure time that aerosol was observed above background ranged from 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling, to 42.9% for 3-in-1 air + water syringe. For ultrasonic scaling, 3-in-1 syringe use and surgical drilling, the aerosol size distribution matched the non-salivary contaminated instrument source, with no unexplained aerosol. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures with different size distributions to those measured from the phantom head controls (mode widths log(σ)) and peaks (DP,C, p< 0.002) and, therefore, may pose a greater risk of salivary contamination. This study provides evidence for sources of aerosol generation during common dental procedures, enabling more informed evaluation of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.

Comparing aerosol number and mass exhalation rates from children and adults during breathing, speaking and singing.

Aerosol particles of respirable size are exhaled when individuals breathe, speak and sing and can transmit respiratory pathogens between infected and susceptible individuals. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into focus the need to improve the quantification of the particle number and mass exhalation rates as one route to provide estimates of viral shedding and the potential risk of transmission of viruses. Most previous studies have reported the number and mass concentrations of aerosol particles in an exhaled plume. We provide a robust assessment of the absolute particle number and mass exhalation rates from measurements of minute ventilation using a non-invasive Vyntus Hans Rudolf mask kit with straps housing a rotating vane spirometer along with measurements of the exhaled particle number concentrations and size distributions. Specifically, we report comparisons of the number and mass exhalation rates for children (12-14 years old) and adults (19-72 years old) when breathing, speaking and singing, which indicate that child and adult cohorts generate similar amounts of aerosol when performing the same activity. Mass exhalation rates are typically 0.002-0.02 ng s-1 from breathing, 0.07-0.2 ng s-1 from speaking (at 70-80 dBA) and 0.1-0.7 ng s-1 from singing (at 70-80 dBA). The aerosol exhalation rate increases with increasing sound volume for both children and adults when both speaking and singing.

Are aerosols generated during lung function testing in patients and healthy volunteers? Results from the AERATOR study.

Pulmonary function tests are fundamental to the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases. There is uncertainty around whether potentially infectious aerosols are produced during testing and there are limited data on mitigation strategies to reduce risk to staff. Healthy volunteers and patients with lung disease underwent standardised spirometry, peak flow and FENO assessments. Aerosol number concentration was sampled using an aerodynamic particle sizer and an optical particle sizer. Measured aerosol concentrations were compared with breathing, speaking and voluntary coughing. Mitigation strategies included a standard viral filter and a full-face mask normally used for exercise testing (to mitigate induced coughing). 147 measures were collected from 33 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with lung disease. The aerosol number concentration was highest in coughs (1.45-1.61 particles/cm3), followed by unfiltered peak flow (0.37-0.76 particles/cm3). Addition of a viral filter to peak flow reduced aerosol emission by a factor of 10 without affecting the results. On average, coughs produced 22 times more aerosols than standard spirometry (with filter) in patients and 56 times more aerosols in healthy volunteers. FENO measurement produced negligible aerosols. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) masks reduced aerosol emission when breathing, speaking and coughing significantly. Lung function testing produces less aerosols than voluntary coughing. CPET masks may be used to reduce aerosol emission from induced coughing. Standard viral filters are sufficiently effective to allow guidelines to remove lung function testing from the list of aerosol-generating procedures.

Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract: an analysis of aerosol generation from oxygen delivery systems.

INTRODUCTION: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) provide enhanced oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19. CPAP and HFNO are currently designated as aerosol-generating procedures despite limited high-quality experimental data. We aimed to characterise aerosol emission from HFNO and CPAP and compare with breathing, speaking and coughing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded using the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers (n=25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosol than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50 L/min face mask leaks). Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity. HFNO was associated with aerosol emission, however, this was from the machine. Generated particles were small (<1 µm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, thereby unlikely to carry viral particles. More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n=8) than volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, standard non-humidified CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to be the main aerosol-generating risk out of all measured activities.

Accurate Representations of the Microphysical Processes Occurring during the Transport of Exhaled Aerosols and Droplets.

Aerosols and droplets from expiratory events play an integral role in transmitting pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 from an infected individual to a susceptible host. However, there remain significant uncertainties in our understanding of the aerosol droplet microphysics occurring during drying and sedimentation and the effect on the sedimentation outcomes. Here, we apply a new treatment for the microphysical behavior of respiratory fluid droplets to a droplet evaporation/sedimentation model and assess the impact on sedimentation distance, time scale, and particle phase. Above a 100 µm initial diameter, the sedimentation outcome for a respiratory droplet is insensitive to composition and ambient conditions. Below 100 µm, and particularly below 80 µm, the increased settling time allows the exact nature of the evaporation process to play a significant role in influencing the sedimentation outcome. For this size range, an incorrect treatment of the droplet composition, or imprecise use of RH or temperature, can lead to large discrepancies in sedimentation distance (with representative values >1 m, >2 m, and >2 m, respectively). Additionally, a respiratory droplet is likely to undergo a phase change prior to sedimenting if initially <100 µm in diameter, provided that the RH is below the measured phase change RH. Calculations of the potential exposure versus distance from the infected source show that the volume fraction of the initial respiratory droplet distribution, in this size range, which remains elevated above 1 m decreases from 1 at 1 m to 0.125 at 2 m.

Aerosol and Droplet Generation from Performing with Woodwind and Brass Instruments

The performing arts have been significantly restricted due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We report measurements of aerosol and droplet concentrations generated when playing woodwind and brass instruments and comparisons with breathing, speaking, and singing. These measurements were conducted in a room with zero number concentration aerosol background in the 0.5-20 μm diameter size range, allowing clear attribution of detected particles to specific activities. A total of 13 instruments were examined across 9 participants. Respirable particle number concentrations and size distributions for playing instruments are consistent with those from the participant when breathing, based on measurements with multiple participants playing the flute and piccolo as well as measurements across the entire cohort. Due to substantial interparticipant variability, we do not provide a comparative assessment of the aerosol generated by playing different instruments, instead considering only the variation in aerosol yield across all instruments studied. Both particle number and mass concentrations from playing instruments are lower than those from speaking and singing at high volume, and no large droplets >20 μm diameter are detected. Combined, these observations suggest that playing instruments generates less aerosol than speaking or singing at high volumes. Moreover, there is no difference between the aerosol concentrations generated by professional and amateur performers while breathing, speaking, or singing, suggesting conclusions for professional singers may also apply to amateurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Aerosol Science & Technology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Identification of the source events for aerosol generation during oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (OGD) generates increased levels of aerosol in conscious patients and identify the source events. DESIGN: A prospective, environmental aerosol monitoring study, undertaken in an ultraclean environment, on patients undergoing OGD. Sampling was performed 20 cm away from the patient's mouth using an optical particle sizer. Aerosol levels during OGD were compared with tidal breathing and voluntary coughs within subject. RESULTS: Patients undergoing bariatric surgical assessment were recruited (mean body mass index 44 and mean age 40 years, n=15). A low background particle concentration in theatres (3 L-1) enabled detection of aerosol generation by tidal breathing (mean particle concentration 118 L-1). Aerosol recording during OGD showed an average particle number concentration of 595 L-1 with a wide range (3-4320 L-1). Bioaerosol-generating events, namely, coughing or burping, were common. Coughing was evoked in 60% of the endoscopies, with a greater peak concentration and a greater total number of sampled particles than the patient's reference voluntary coughs (11 710 vs 2320 L-1 and 780 vs 191 particles, n=9 and p=0.008). Endoscopies with coughs generated a higher level of aerosol than tidal breathing, whereas those without coughs were not different to the background. Burps also generated increased aerosol concentration, similar to those recorded during voluntary coughs. The insertion and removal of the endoscope were not aerosol generating unless a cough was triggered. CONCLUSION: Coughing evoked during OGD is the main source of the increased aerosol levels, and therefore, OGD should be regarded as a procedure with high risk of producing respiratory aerosols. OGD should be conducted with airborne personal protective equipment and appropriate precautions in those patients who are at risk of having COVID-19 or other respiratory pathogens.