Comparison of the COVID-19 infection risks by close contact and aerosol transmission

  1. Xiaole Zhang
  2. Jing Wang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

A comprehensive understanding of the transmission routes of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is of great importance for the effective control of the spread of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Human-to-human transmission by close contact where large respiratory droplets play a significant role has been established as the main transmission route. At the same time the transmission by small aerosol is getting increasing attention. There is no distinct boundary between droplets and aerosol in nature so it is natural to investigate the infection risk due to aerosol. Here, we utilized a newly developed dose-response relation, combined with a box model for the exposure estimation, to quantitatively evaluate the infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 through aerosol transmission and compared with the risk due to close contact. The results indicated that the median infection risk via aerosol transmission was about 3.7×10 −5 (95% confidence interval: 3.5×10 −6 to 4.4×10 −4 ) for one hour of exposure in a room with the size of 10 m (width)×10 m (length)×3 m (height) with one infected individual in it. The risk was more than three orders of magnitude lower than the risk at short distance, about 12.8% within 1 m, based on a meta-analysis. A simple exponential regression model Risk =10 −0.90× D +0.10 ( D <=5 m) could be utilized to characterize the magnitude of infection risk in the considered scenario based on the distance D from the infected individual. With prolonged exposure duration and large exposed population, the infection caused by aerosol transmission could be considerable, thus it is necessary to be cautious for the potential aerosol transmission risk in such situations.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.13.20152900: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.13.20152900v1 on medRxiv