How effective are face coverings in reducing transmission of COVID-19?

In the COVID–19 pandemic, billions are wearing face masks, in both health care settings and in public. Which type of mask we should wear in what situation, is therefore important. There are three basic types: cotton, surgical, and respirators (e.g., FFP2, N95 and similar). All are essentially air filters worn on the face. Air filtration is relatively well understood, however, we have almost no direct evidence on the relative role played by aerosol particles of differing sizes in disease transmission. But if the virus concentration is assumed independent of aerosol particle size, then most virus will be in particles µm. We develop a model that predicts surgical masks are effective at reducing the risk of airborne transmission because the filtering material most surgical masks use is highly effective at filtering particles with diameters µm. However, surgical masks are significantly less effective than masks of FFP2, N95 and similar standards, mostly due to the poor fit of surgical masks. Earlier work found that of the air bypasses a surgical mask and is not filtered. This highlights the fact that standards for surgical masks do not specify how well the mask should fit, and so are not adequate for protection against COVID-19.Copyright © 2022 American Association for Aerosol Research

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.

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.