Comparing aerosol concentrations and particle size distributions generated by singing, speaking and breathing

Abstract

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented shutdown in social and economic activity, with the cultural sector particularly severely affected. Restrictions on musical performances have arisen from a perception that there is a significantly higher risk of aerosol production from singing than speaking, based upon high-profile A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p texamples of clusters of COVID-19 following choral rehearsals. However, comparing aerosol generation from different types of vocalization, including singing, across a range of volumes is a rapidly evolving area of research. Here, we measured aerosols from singing, speaking and breathing from a large cohort of 25 professional singers in a range of musical genres in a zero-background environment, allowing unequivocal attribution of aerosol production to specific vocalizations. We do not assess the relative volumes at which people speak and sing. However, both showed steep increases in mass concentration with increase in loudness (spanning a factor of 20-30 across the dynamic range measured, p<0.001). At the quietest volume (50 to 60 dBA), neither singing (p=0.19) nor speaking (p=0.20) were significantly different to breathing. At the loudest volume (90 to 100 dBA), a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) was observed between singing and speaking, but with singing only generating a factor of between 1.5 and 3.4 more aerosol mass. Guidelines for musical performances should be based on the loudness and duration of the vocalization, the number of participants and the environment in which the activity occurs, rather than the type of vocalization.Mitigations such as the use of amplification and increased attention to ventilation should be employed where practicable.

Expiratory aerosol particle escape from surgical masks due to imperfect sealing

“…The clean airflow could affect the sampling by the APS by opposing or disrupting the expiratory airflows, more likely for talking as the air velocities are similar and with a potentially even larger influence with mask wearing when the flow is split in multiple directions. The measured particle concentrations from talking measured here agree well with both historical 34 and recent 35,36 measurements, indicating minimal impact of the clean airflow. Further, we have observed that measured particle concentrations from speaking remain constant so long as participants remain within ~ 3 cm of the sampling funnel, which was the case for all experiments here.…”

Identification of the source events for aerosol generation during oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy

“…In previous work, we have established that the transmission sampling loss of particles <5 µm diameter with this set up is <10%. 31 It should be noted that we cannot report the absolute number of particles generated, only the number sampled and detected, recognising that we do not sample all of the air from the activity into the OPS instrument.…”

Exploring Integrated Environmental Viral Surveillance of Indoor Environments: A comparison of surface and bioaerosol environmental sampling in hospital rooms with COVID-19 patients

“…The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the active air samples and upon surfaces that are commingled with active room airflow (supply, return, and exhaust air grilles), combined with the growing evidence of the potential for aerosol-based disease transmission 16,20,53,66,[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] , presents a compelling argument for the merit of indoor air microbial surveillance. Moreover, due to the spatially integrated nature of indoor aerosols, continuous air sampling techniques with sufficient sensitivity can be incredibly useful to increase situational awareness and guide building operational improvements to reduce indoor disease transmission risk 82 .…”