Graphical abstract

Aerosol transmission reflects a modern understanding of aerosol science and allows physically appropriate explanation and intervention selection for infectious diseases.

The relative contribution of four influenza virus exposure pathways-(1) virus-contaminated hand contact with facial membranes, (2) inhalation of respirable cough particles, (3) inhalation of inspirable cough particles, and (4) spray of cough droplets onto facial membranes-must be quantified to determine the potential efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions of transmission. We used a mathematical model to estimate the relative contributions of the four pathways to infection risk in the context of a person attending a bed-ridden family member ill with influenza. Considering the uncertainties in the sparse human subject influenza dose-response data, we assumed alternative ratios of 3,200:1 and 1:1 for the infectivity of inhaled respirable virus to intranasally instilled virus. For the 3,200:1 ratio, pathways (1), (2), and (4) contribute substantially to influenza risk: at a virus saliva concentration of 10(6) mL(-1), pathways (1), (2), (3), and (4) contribute, respectively, 31%, 17%, 0.52%, and 52% of the infection risk. With increasing virus concentrations, pathway (2) increases in importance, while pathway (4) decreases in importance. In contrast, for the 1:1 infectivity ratio, pathway (1) is the most important overall: at a virus saliva concentration of 10(6) mL(-1), pathways (1), (2), (3), and (4) contribute, respectively, 93%, 0.037%, 3.3%, and 3.7% of the infection risk. With increasing virus concentrations, pathway (3) increases in importance, while pathway (4) decreases in importance. Given the sparse knowledge concerning influenza dose and infectivity via different exposure pathways, nonpharmaceutical interventions for influenza should simultaneously address potential exposure via hand contact to the face, inhalation, and droplet spray.

No abstract

The routes of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare personnel from infected patients is the subject of debate, but is critical to the selection of personal protective equipment. The objective of this paper was to explore the contributions of three transmission routes-contact, droplet, and inhalation-to the risk of occupationally acquired COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel (HCP). The method was quantitative microbial risk assessment, and an exposure model, where possible model parameters were based on data specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus when available. The key finding was that droplet and inhalation transmission routes predominate over the contact route, contributing 35%, 57%, and 8.2% of the probability of infection, on average, without use of personal protective equipment. On average, 80% of inhalation exposure occurs when HCP are near patients. The relative contribution of droplet and inhalation depends upon the emission of SARS-CoV-2 in respirable particles (<10 mm) through exhaled breath, and inhalation becomes predominant, on average, when emission exceeds five gene copies per min. The predicted concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in the air of the patient room is low (< 1 gene copy per m 3 on average), and likely below the limit of quantification for many air sampling methods. The findings demonstrate the value of respiratory protection for HCP, and that field sampling may not be sensitive enough to verify the contribution of SARS-CoV-2 inhalation to the risk of occupationally acquired COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel. The emission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory droplets of different sizes is a critical knowledge gap for understanding and controlling COVID-19 transmission.