Quantitative assessment of the risk of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection: prospective and retrospective applications

2.1.1 Evaluation of the quanta emission rate: the forward emission approach

Recently, Buonanno et al.¹⁹ proposed a forward emission approach to estimate the quanta emission rate of an infectious subject on the basis of the viral load in the sputum and the concentration of droplets expired during different activities. A quantum is defined as the dose of airborne droplet nuclei required to infect a susceptible person. The quanta emission rate (ER_q, quanta h⁻¹) was evaluated as: where c_v is the viral load in the sputum (RNA copies mL^-1), c_i is a conversion factor defined as the ratio between one infectious quantum and the infectious dose expressed in viral RNA copies, IR is the inhalation rate (m³ h^-1), N_d is the droplet number concentration (part. cm⁻³), and V_d(D) is the volume of a single droplet (mL) as a function of the droplet diameter (D). The number and volume of the droplets (V_d) is determined on the basis of data obtained experimentally by Morawska et al. (2009)⁶.

With reference to the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the mouth, researchers have recently found c_v, values of up to 10¹¹ copies mL⁻¹, which is also variable in the same patient during the course of the disease²³–²⁶. In particular, Rothe et al.²⁴ reported a case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in which transmission appears to have occurred during the incubation period in the index patient. A high viral load of 10⁸ copies mL⁻¹ was found, confirming that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, Pan et al.²³, in a study on 82 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, found c_v values in the range of 10⁸−10⁹ RNA copies mL⁻¹, also in the previous days and in the first days of onset of the disease. Consequently, the concentrations of the viral load in the mouth can reach values of 10 RNA copies mL⁻¹ and occasionally up to 10 RNA copies mL⁻¹. during the course of the disease.

The conversion factor, c_i, i.e. the ratio between one infectious quantum and the infectious dose expressed in viral RNA copies, barely represents the probability of a pathogen surviving inside the host to initiate the infection; thus c_i=1 implicitly assumes that infection will occur for each pathogen (RNA copy in the case of SARS-CoV-2) received by the exposed people. There are currently no values available in the scientific literature for c_i for SARS-CoV-2. Watanabe et al.²⁷ estimated the infectious doses of several coronaviruses on the basis of data sets challenging humans with virus HCoV-229E (known as an agent of human common cold) and animals with other viruses (e.g. mice with MHV-1, considered as a surrogate of SARS-CoV-1). On the basis of the orders of magnitude of the infectivity conversion factors for the overall data sets, we assumed a c_i range between 0.01 and 0.1.

The quanta emission rate calculation was performed for four different emission profiles (which are adopted in the risk evaluations described later) evaluated as a combination of expiratory activities and activity levels: (i) oral breathing during resting; (ii) oral breathing during heavy activity; (ii) speaking during light activity; and (iv) singing (or loudly speaking) during light activity.

Quanta emission rates were calculated using eq. (1) and applying a Monte Carlo method²² in order to take into account for the possible variation of the input data. To this end, probability density functions characteristics of each parameter were considered. In particular, we considered normal distributions for: (i) the log-transformed c_v data (average and standard deviation of log₁₀(c_v) equal to 8 and 0.7 log₁₀ (RNA copies mL⁻¹), respectively); and (ii) the infectious dose c_i (average and standard deviation equal to 0.025 and 0.125, respectively). A distribution of quanta emission rates (ER_q), was obtained as a result of application of the Monte Carlo method (Figure 1), i.e. the probability density function of ER_q (pdf_q).

2.1.2 Evaluation of the exposure to quanta concentration

The second step in evaluating the probability of infection is evaluation of the quanta concentration to which a susceptible subject is exposed. The quanta concentration at time t, n(t), in an indoor environment is based on the quanta mass balance proposed by Gammaitoni and Nucci²⁰, and can be evaluated as: where IVRR (h^-1) represents the infectious virus removal rate in the space investigated, n₀ represents the initial number of quanta in the space, I is the number of infectious subjects, V is the volume of the indoor environment considered, and ER_q is the quanta emission rate (quanta h⁻¹) for the specific disease/virus under investigation. The quanta concentration calculation adopted here is based on the following hypotheses: the quanta emission rate is considered to be constant, the latent period of the disease is longer than the time scale of the model, and the droplets are instantaneously and evenly distributed in the room²⁰. The infectious virus removal rate is the sum of three contributions²⁸: the air exchange rate (AER) via ventilation, the particle deposition on surfaces (k, e.g. via gravitational settling), and the viral inactivation (λ). The deposition rate was evaluated as the ratio between the settling velocity of super-micrometric particles [roughly 1.0 × 10⁻⁴ m s⁻¹ as measured by Chatoutsidou and Lazaridis²⁹] and the height of the emission source (1.5 m); thus, k was 0.24 h⁻¹. The viral inactivation was evaluated on the basis of the SARS-CoV-2 half-life (1.1 h) detected by van Doremalen et al.³, thus λ was 0.63 h⁻¹.

In the exposure scenarios tested with the prospective and retrospective approaches, to take the variability of the input parameters into account, the indoor quanta concentration n(t) was determined through eq. (2), applying a Monte Carlo method that adopted the probability density functions (pdf_q) characteristic of quanta emission rates (ER_q). Since the probability density functions of the log-transformed log₁₀(ER_q) for the different expiratory activities resulted in a normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, p < 0.01), the quanta concentration n(t) was evaluated by providing a Gaussian distribution of log₁₀(ER_q) (average and standard deviation values are is summarized in the results section; see Table 2) and then applying a back-transformation from log₁₀(ER_q) to ER_q. The relative frequency at which a certain quanta concentration occurred for each time step of simulation, i.e. the probability density function of the quanta concentration (pdf_n), was also obtained as result of the Monte Carlo simulations.

2.1.3 Evaluation of the dose of quanta received by an exposed susceptible subject

The dose of quanta received by a susceptible subject exposed to a certain quanta concentration, n(t), for a certain time interval, T, can be evaluated by integrating the quanta concentration over time as:

It can be concluded from Eq. (3) that the dose of quanta received by a susceptible subject is affected by the inhalation rate (IR) and subsequently by their activity level. As an example, for the same exposure scenario [i.e. identical n(t) and T], the dose of quanta received by subjects performing at a light activity level (IR = 1.38 m³ h⁻¹; e.g. slowly walking) is more than double that received by people just sitting or standing (IR = 0.54 m³ h⁻¹). For the dose, in the exposure scenarios described in this paper, the Monte Carlo method was applied to eq. (3) considering the probability density function of the quanta concentration (pdf_n), whereas the IR was considered as a constant value; thus, the probability density function of the dose (pdf_D) was obtained for each time step of the simulation.

2.1.4 Evaluation of the probability of infection through a dose-response model

The fourth and final step in evaluating the probability of infection is the adoption of a dose-response model. Several dose-response models are available in the scientific literature for assessing the probability of infection of airborne-transmissible pathogens^16,17, including deterministic and stochastic models, and threshold and non-threshold models.

The best-suited dose-response models for airborne transmission of pathogens are the stochastic models. In particular, exponential models have been mostly adopted in previous studies because of their suitability and simplicity²⁷. Such models consider the pathogens as discrete bundles (i.e. quanta) distributed in a medium (e.g. saliva/sputum) in a random manner described by the Poisson probability distribution. When the medium is aerosolized, the pathogen distribution in the aerosols, and hence their distribution in the air, also follows the Poisson probability distribution. The complex Poisson summation equations can be simplified in an exponential equation^17,27,30, i.e. the exponential dose-response model, which evaluates the probability of infection, P_I (%), of susceptible people as:

For a unit dose of quanta (D_q = 1), the probability of infection P_I is equal to 63%, from which derives the definition of “quantum” as the “amount of infectious material to infect 1-e¹ (i.e. 63%) of the people in an enclosed space”^13,20.

In the exponential dose-response model, the variation of host sensitivity to the pathogen is not considered. More complex models, such as the Beta-Poisson probability distribution, could take this factor into account^17,27,30; nonetheless, in the present paper the differences in the exposed population in terms of susceptibility to the virus will not be considered.

The probability of infection P_I evaluated in the following exposure scenarios was determined through eq. (4), also applying a Monte Carlo method. To this end, the probability density functions of the dose of quanta (pdf_D) obtained as a result of the Monte Carlo simulation on D_q were considered; thus, a probability density function of P_I was also obtained (pdf_P).

The probability of infection represents the ratio between the number of infection cases (C) and the number of exposed susceptibles (S). In retrospective analyses of documented outbreaks, the known C/S ratio is typically defined as the “attack rate”.

2.4.1 The outbreak in a restaurant in Guangzhou, China

A possible case of airborne transmission was recently documented by Lu et al.³⁴. Here, an index case patient traveled from the Chinese epidemic epicenter, Wuhan, on 23 January 2020 and ate lunch in a restaurant in Guangzhou, China, with his family on 24 January 2020 (family A, 10 people sitting at the same table). Later that day, the index patient experienced onset of fever and cough and SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed. On the following days, nine other people were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection: four members from family A’s table and five other people at two different tables (families B and C). No other customers seated at other tables or waiters were infected.

The restaurant is a 5-floor building without windows; each floor has its own air ventilation system. The third floor dining area, at which the index patient ate lunch, has a floor area of 145 m², with 15 tables arranged with a distance between each table of about 1 m. A total of 91 people (83 customers, 8 staff members) were in the room during that lunch. The exposure time was variable for the customers: those seated at tables close to the index patient had exposure times of 53 minutes (family B) and 73 minutes (family C). The ventilation and air conditioning situation is reported in Lu et al.³⁴. Five fan coil air-conditioning units are installed in the room and there is no outdoor air supply; thus, the ventilation relies only upon infiltration and natural ventilation. The authors performed computational fluid dynamics analyses and tracer gas decay tests to obtain more information about the possible air-flow pathway in the room, and to determine the air exchange rate expected during that lunch. The analyses performed showed that, due to the particular installation and use of the fan coils, the room can be divided into different air-flow zones, with well-mixed conditions. The air-flow zone involving the table at which the index patient sat also included the two tables at which the other five infected people sat; and covered an area of roughly 45 m³. The tracer gas decay tests revealed a low air exchange rate (mostly due to the absence of an outdoor air supply) in the range of 0.56-0.77 h⁻¹.

Therefore, on the basis of the available information, the retrospective assessment was applied to this outbreak case, through eqs. (2) and (3), using the following input data: i) room volume of 45 m³; ii) documented probability of infection, i.e. attack rate, of 45% (i.e. 5 out of 11 people of families B and C (family A members were excluded as they could easily have been infected through other infection routes); iii) average exposure time of 1 h; iv) speaking at a light activity level for all people (both emitting and exposed subjects), and v) average AER = 0.67 h⁻¹.

2.4.2 The outbreak at a choir rehearsal in Skagit (USA)

A further possible case of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was documented by the USA media (http://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak). This case was recorded on 10 March, in Mount Vernon (Skagit County, Washington State, USA). In a 810 m³ hall, 61 choir members (out of a total of 121 regular members) gathered to rehearse, aware of the practices for the containment of contagion (frequent hand washing and social distancing). None of the members that attended had evident symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was hand sanitizer at the front door and members refrained from the usual hugs and handshakes; each person brought their own sheet music. The event lasted from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm (about 2.5 hours). Within few days, 33 of the 61 participants (53%) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, at least three were hospitalized, and two died³⁵.

As pointed out by Hamner et al.³⁵, the 2.5-hour singing practice could have provided several opportunities for droplet and fomite transmission (e.g. members sitting close to one another, sharing snacks, and stacking chairs at the end of the practice). Nonetheless, the abovementioned voluntary measures put in place would not support the documented spread of the contagion. On the contrary, the act of singing, itself, might have contributed to transmission through emission of aerosols, which is affected by loudness of vocalization¹⁹. This is even more relevant considering that attack rate of 53.3% (based on 33 confirmed cases) could represent a conservative estimate, since other 20 probable cases were mentioned by Hamner et al.³⁵.

As regard the heating and ventilating system, limited information is available: the Fellowship Hall is heated by a relatively new commercial forced-air furnace with supply and return air grills situated high on a single wall. The furnace is installed to have both make-up and combustion air, but it is not known how much fresh air was provided on that evening. During the entire rehearsal no exterior doors were open. We applied a retrospective assessment to the case of the Skagit Valley choir through eqs. (2) and (3), using the following input data: i) room volume of 810 m³; ii) documented probability of infection, i.e. attack rate, equal to 53%; iii) exposure time of 2.5 h; iv) singing at a light activity level for all people; and v) natural ventilation with an AER = 0.5 h⁻¹.

3.2.1 Illustrative example of probability of infection and individual risk evaluation

In Figure 2 an illustrative example of quanta concentration n(t), dose of quanta (D_q), and probability of infection (P_I) trends as a function of time (here shown for 2 h) resulting from the Monte Carlo simulation for exposure scenario D (singing exhibition, conference speaker) with an AER = 0.5 h⁻¹ is shown. In particular, the trends of different percentiles are reported. The example shows that a person singing/speaking loudly in such a microenvironment can lead to a median n(t) value after 2 hours equal to 0.027 quanta h⁻¹ (with a 5^th-95^th percentile range of < 0.0020.38 quanta h⁻¹). Such concentrations lead to a median dose of quanta received by the subject exposed for 2 h in a sedentary activity equal to 0.029 quanta (with a 5^th-95^th percentile range of < 0.002-0.42 quanta), then resulting in a median probability of infection, P_I, of 2.8% (with a 5^th-95^th percentile range of 0.2%-33.0%). Thus, if higher quanta emission rates are considered, the indoor quanta concentrations and the consequent probability of infection can be more than 10 fold the median values.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

Trends of quanta concentration (a), dose of quanta (b), and probability of infection (c) as a function of time (here shown for 2 h of exposure) resulting from the Monte Carlo simulation for exposure scenario D with an AER = 0.5 h⁻¹. Different percentiles are reported.

In view of the application of a conservative approach that could be essential to reduce the risk of contagion in indoor environments, using the highest quanta concentration and probability of infection values can be misguiding. Indeed, the probability of occurrence of such high values is extremely low. Thus, as described in section 2.2, a proper evaluation of the individual infection risk (R) can be obtained by applying eq. (4), i.e. multiplying the probability of infection (P_I) by the corresponding probability of occurrence (P_P). In Figure 3 the probability density functions of individual infection risk (pdf_R), probability of infection (pdf_P), quanta concentration (pdf_n), and dose of quanta (pdf_D) after 2 hours of exposure are reported (in terms of R, P_I, n and D_q values for each percentile) for the illustrative example discussed above (i.e. scenario D, AER = 0.5 h⁻¹). The individual infection risk (R) presents a maximum value (R_max) at the 85^th percentile (2.2%) due to a probability of infection P_I = 14.5% and a probability of occurrence P_P = 15%. In other words, the R value at the 85^th percentile is the most probable individual infection risk for a healthy susceptible subject (i.e., the one with the highest chance of occurring). Due to the similarity of the probability density functions of the four expiration activities resulting from the calculation of the quanta emission rates (log₁₀(ER_q) reported in Table 2), the pdf_R for all the exposure scenarios tested here was similar to that of the exposure scenario shown in Figure 3 (i.e. the R_max value occurs in the narrow range of 84^th-90^th percentile).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3

Probability density functions of individual infection risk, probability of infection, quanta concentration, and dose of quanta at t = 120 min for the illustrative example reported in Figure 2 (exposure scenario A with an air exchange rate of 0.5 h⁻¹). The probability density functions are reported as quanta concentration (n), dose of quanta (D_q), probability of infection (P_I), and individual infection risk (R) for each percentile. The maximum individual infection risk (R_max) is 1.9% and occurs at the 85^th percentile (P_I = 14.5%, P_q = 15%).

Furthermore, as discussed in section 2.2, the probability density function of the probability of infection (pdf_P) is mostly influenced by the probability density function of the quanta emission rate (pdf_q) when moving backwards in the four-step approach; indeed, once the exposure scenario is defined, all the parameters contributing to the calculation of P_I (ventilation, room volume, subject activity, etc.) can be considered as constant values. Thus, for a simplified estimate of R_max, the simplest calculation can be applied (instead of the Monte Carlo method) by just adopting the 85^th percentile of the quanta emission rate in the four-step calculation using eqs. (2–4).

3.2.2 Estimate of the maximum individual risk versus exposure time in indoor environments

Figure 4 and Table 3 show the results of the Monte Carlo simulations for the four exposure scenarios analyzed. The exposure time-risk relationships reported in Figure 4 are essential as they can be used by choosing either the exposure time or the maximum risk R_max as the independent variable. In the first case, knowing the exposure time of the healthy subject in the environment in question, the corresponding individual infection risk can be evaluated and then compared to an acceptable infection risk. In the second case, once an acceptable infection risk has been imposed, the corresponding maximum exposure time value can be easily assessed. The four scenarios are examined assuming an acceptable risk value of 10⁻³ as discussed in section 2.3. Since the maximum value of individual risk occurs roughly at the 90^th percentile, the corresponding probability of occurrence of the risk (P_P) is 10%; thus, an acceptable individual infection risk of 10⁻³ will roughly correspond to a probability of infection of P_I = 1%. For indoor environments characterized by high crowding indexes a P_I < 1% is essential as it can assure a R₀ < 1 when crowded with up to 100 people. Therefore, assuring an individual infection risk of 10⁻³ also guarantees the control of the epidemic with an R₀ < 1 for a maximum number of exposed healthy people S < 100.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4

Relationship between time of exposure and individual risk (R) as a function of the air exchange rate (0.5 h’¹, 3 h’¹, and 10 h⁻¹) for the exposure scenarios investigated in the prospective approach and summarized in Table 1.

For the exposure scenario discussed above (scenario D, AER = 0.5 h⁻¹) the maximum exposure time to reach an accepted risk of R = 10⁻³ is very short (16 min); this is due to the high viral load emitted during singing or speaking loudly leading to high quanta concentrations despite the large volume available. Obviously, the exposure time can increase with higher ventilation rates, e.g. reaching 38 min in the case of mechanical ventilation at 10 h⁻¹. The crowding index of such an indoor environment (800 m³) ranges from 0.75 m² (auditorium) to 2 m² (conference room) per person³⁷; thus, for a room height of 4 m a corresponding floor area of 200 m² will be available, then resulting in a total number of people simultaneously present in the room (S) ranging from 100 (conference room) to 267 (auditorium). Therefore, after 16 min of exposure in the case of natural ventilation (or 38 min in the case of mechanical ventilation with AER = 10 h⁻¹), the value of R₀ will be higher (auditorium) or equal (conference room) to 1. Thus, in the management of the epidemic, reducing the crowding index could be essential. Accepting higher R_max values would clearly increase the maximum exposure time; indeed, in the case of R_max = 10⁻², the exposure time values would be 62 min and 392 min, for an AER equal to 0.5 h⁻¹ and 10 h⁻¹, respectively. However, in this case, the corresponding value of R₀ would be lower than 1 only for a number of exposed subjects lower than 10.

In scenario C, the infected subject in light activity speaks in a 300 m³ environment, along with the healthy subject. The simultaneous reduction of both the quanta emission rate and the volume compared to scenario D makes the maximum exposure times for an acceptable infection risk of 10⁻³ comparable to the previous case (15 min and 36 min for ventilation of 0.5 h⁻¹ and 10 h⁻¹, respectively). Additionally, in this case, the estimated exposure times would guarantee an R₀ < 1 with S < 100 subjects.

In scenario A (patient emitting at rest in oral breathing), the maximum exposure time in a hospital room of 100 m³ for both a medical staff member (scenario A-1) and a patient at rest without infection (scenario A-2) is evaluated. In both cases the exposure times increase significantly with the ventilation rate, reaching 36 min and 157 min (scenario A-1), and 72 min and 455 min (scenario A-2) with AER values of 0.5 h⁻¹ and 10 h⁻¹, respectively. However, despite the small size of the room, the ER_q was extremely small (Table 2); thus, unless a large number of infected subjects is simultaneously present in the room, the concentration of viral load in a hospital room can be considered low; nonetheless, the overall risk may become relevant due to the long exposure times (of 36 and 157 min). Finally, in exposure scenario B (the gym with infected and healthy subjects during heavy activity with oral breathing), although there is no vocalization in the subject’s activity, the high inhalation rate produces considerable ER_q values, then increasing the individual risk; thus, in order to guarantee an acceptable infection risk of 10⁻³ the maximum exposure times resulted quite short, i.e. 14 min and 29 min for 0.5 h⁻¹ and 10 h⁻¹, respectively.

Thus, for all the scenarios investigated, the ventilation conditions strongly influence the risk (or the exposure time) of the exposed subject: this difference increases as the accepted risk increases as shown in the trends presented in Figure 4. In contrast, if a lower risk was accepted (i.e. 10⁻⁴ or 10⁻⁵), increasing the air exchange rate is not leading to the significant reduction of the risk, and local exhaust ventilation would be more effective.