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]

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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 viability on sports equipment is limited, and dependent on material composition.

The control of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK has necessitated restrictions on amateur and professional sports due to the perceived infection risk to competitors, via direct person to person transmission, or possibly via the surfaces of sports equipment. The sharing of sports equipment such as tennis balls was therefore banned by some sport's governing bodies. We sought to investigate the potential of sporting equipment as transmission vectors of SARS-CoV-2. Ten different types of sporting equipment, including balls from common sports, were inoculated with 40 µl droplets containing clinically relevant concentrations of live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Materials were then swabbed at time points relevant to sports (1, 5, 15, 30, 90 min). The amount of live SARS-CoV-2 recovered at each time point was enumerated using viral plaque assays, and viral decay and half-life was estimated through fitting linear models to log transformed data from each material. At one minute, SARS-CoV-2 virus was recovered in only seven of the ten types of equipment with the low dose inoculum, one at five minutes and none at 15 min. Retrievable virus dropped significantly for all materials tested using the high dose inoculum with mean recovery of virus falling to 0.74% at 1 min, 0.39% at 15 min and 0.003% at 90 min. Viral recovery, predicted decay, and half-life varied between materials with porous surfaces limiting virus transmission. This study shows that there is an exponential reduction in SARS-CoV-2 recoverable from a range of sports equipment after a short time period, and virus is less transferrable from materials such as a tennis ball, red cricket ball and cricket glove. Given this rapid loss of viral load and the fact that transmission requires a significant inoculum to be transferred from equipment to the mucous membranes of another individual it seems unlikely that sports equipment is a major cause for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. These findings have important policy implications in the context of the pandemic and may promote other infection control measures in sports to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and urge sports equipment manufacturers to identify surfaces that may or may not be likely to retain transferable virus.

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.)