From classic to rap: Airborne transmission of different singing styles, with respect to risk assessment of a SARS-CoV-2 infection
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Since the Covid-19 virus spreads through airborne transmission, questions concerning the risk of spreading infectious droplets during singing and music making has arisen.
To contribute to this question and to help clarify the possible risks, we analyzed 15 singing scenarios (1) qualitatively – by making airflows visible, while singing – and (2) quantitatively – by measuring air velocities at three distances (1m, 1.5m and 2m). Air movements were considered positive when lying above 0.1 m/s, which is the usual room air velocity in venue, such as the concert hall of the Bamberg Symphony, where our measurements with three professional singers (female classical style, male classic style, female popular music style) took place.
Our findings highlight that high measurements for respiratory air velocity while singing are comparable to measurements of speaking and – by far – less than coughing. All measurements for singing stayed within a reach of 1.5m, while only direct voiceless blowing achieved measurements at the 2m sensor. Singing styles that use plosive sounds, i.e. using consonants more often as in rap, produced the highest air velocities of 0.17 m/s at the 1m sensor. Also, singing while wearing a facemask produces no air movements over 0.1 m/s.
On the basis of our recent studies on measurements of airflows and air velocities of professional singers and wind instrument players, as well as further studies on CO□ measurements in room settings of music activities, we publish our results – in consideration of further up-to-date research – in our frequently updated risk assessment (first published in April 2020). On this behalf, we suggest 2m radial distances for singers, especially in choirs.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.25.21253694: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: For the study, consent was given by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Freiburg.
IRB: For the study, consent was given by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Freiburg.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 4.1 Sample: A professional classically trained free-lance female singer of the Bamberg area, a professional female singer trained in different popular music styles of the Popakademie Baden-Württemberg, and a professional classically trained male singer of the Freiburg University of Music voluntarily took part in the study. Table 2: Resources
No key …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.25.21253694: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Consent: For the study, consent was given by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Freiburg.
IRB: For the study, consent was given by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Freiburg.Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable 4.1 Sample: A professional classically trained free-lance female singer of the Bamberg area, a professional female singer trained in different popular music styles of the Popakademie Baden-Württemberg, and a professional classically trained male singer of the Freiburg University of Music voluntarily took part in the study. 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Aside from our findings and risk assessments, some limitations of our study have to be taken into account. First, the study was conducted with highly professional singers, and the results can therefore not automatically be transferred to other settings or amateur singers. Second, the test results are rather specific. We took into account different singing styles and three different singers from two different musical backgrounds. Therefore, the findings are very representative for professional classical singers as well as modern rock/pop singers, with restricted transferability to the amateur music sector and large choir groups. Since the test singers have been part of the study and know their voices very well, relevant lung capacity or ways of singing were identified for every test person. This seems to be one of the strengths of our study. Further limitations concern the fact that the measurements were conducted with three singers only, while being sensitive to individual differences of singing, lung volume, etc. They were also performed only once for every singer, whereas more repetitions of the same sequence or analyzing more persons would have given more information on reproducibility of the test setting. Another limitation of the measurements is the fact that air velocity measurements are very sensitive to surrounding movements, with the waving of a hand already influencing the measurements at the sensor.
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.
-
