Modelling airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 using CARA: risk assessment for enclosed spaces
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a proper risk assessment of respiratory pathogens in indoor settings. This paper documents the COVID Airborne Risk Assessment methodology, to assess the potential exposure of airborne SARS-CoV-2 viruses, with an emphasis on virological and immunological factors in the quantification of the risk. The model results from a multidisciplinary approach linking physical, mechanical and biological domains, enabling decision makers or facility managers to assess their indoor setting. The model was benchmarked against clinical data, as well as two real-life outbreaks, showing good agreement. A probability of infection is computed in several everyday-life settings and with various mitigation measures. The importance of super-emitters in airborne transmission is confirmed: 20% of infected hosts can emit approximately two orders of magnitude more viral-containing particles. The use of masks provides a fivefold reduction in viral emissions. Natural ventilation strategies are very effective to decrease the concentration of virions, although periodic venting strategies are not ideal in certain settings. Although vaccination is an effective measure against hospitalization, their effectiveness against transmission is not optimal, hence non-pharmaceutical interventions (ventilation, masks) should be actively supported. We also propose a critical threshold to define an acceptable risk level.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264988: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21264988: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.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.
-
