Risk assessment for long- and short-range airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, indoors and outdoors

  1. Florian Poydenot
  2. Ismael Abdourahamane
  3. Elsa Caplain
  4. Samuel Der
  5. Jacques Haiech
  6. Antoine Jallon
  7. Inés Khoutami
  8. Amir Loucif
  9. Emil Marinov
  10. Bruno Andreotti

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Preventive measures to reduce infection are needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for a possible endemic phase. Current prophylactic vaccines are highly effective to prevent disease but lose their ability to reduce viral transmission as viral evolution leads to increasing immune escape. Long-term proactive public health policies must therefore complement vaccination with available nonpharmaceutical interventions aiming to reduce the viral transmission risk in public spaces. Here, we revisit the quantitative assessment of airborne transmission risk, considering asymptotic limits that considerably simplify its expression. We show that the aerosol transmission risk is the product of three factors: a biological factor that depends on the viral strain, a hydrodynamical factor defined as the ratio of concentration in viral particles between inhaled and exhaled air, and a face mask filtering factor. The short-range contribution to the risk, present both indoors and outdoors, is related to the turbulent dispersion of exhaled aerosols by air drafts and by convection (indoors), or by the wind (outdoors). We show experimentally that airborne droplets and CO2 molecules present the same dispersion. As a consequence, the dilution factor, and therefore the risk, can be measured quantitatively using the CO2 concentration, regardless of the room volume, the flow rate of fresh air, and the occupancy. We show that the dispersion cone leads to a concentration in viral particles, and therefore a short-range transmission risk, inversely proportional to the squared distance to an infected person and to the flow velocity. The aerosolization criterion derived as an intermediate result, which compares the Stokes relaxation time to the Lagrangian time-scale, may find application for a broad class of aerosol-borne pathogens and pollutants.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac223
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256352: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.04.21256352v1 on medRxiv