Beyond Six Feet: A Guideline to Limit Indoor Airborne Transmission of COVID-19

Indoor Safety Guideline

The reproduction number of an epidemic, ℛ₀, is defined as the mean number of transmissions per infected individual. Provided ℛ₀ < 1, a disease will not spread at the population level (83). Estimates of ℛ₀ for COVID-19 have been used to compare its rate of spread in different regions and its dependence on different control strategies (32, 84–86) and, most recently, viral variants (87, 88). We here define an analogous reproductive number for indoor, airborne transmission, ℛ_in(τ), as the expected number of transmissions in a room of total occupancy N over a time τ from a single infected person entering at t = 0.

Our safety guideline sets a small risk tolerance ϵ (typically 1-10%) for the indoor reproductive number, defined as

The number of susceptibles, N_s = p_s(N 1), may include all others in the room (p_s = 1), or be reduced by the susceptible probability p_s < 1, the fraction of the local population not yet exposed or immunized. The relative transmissibility (or susceptibility), s_r allows for consideration of different transmission rates for different sub-populations or viral strains.

In the limit of ϵ ≪1, one may interpret ℛ_in(τ) as the probability of the first transmission, which is approximately equal to the sum of the N_s independent probabilities of transmission to any particular susceptible individual in a well-mixed room^‡. In the SI Appendix, we show that this guideline follows from standard epidemiological models, including the Wells-Riley model, but note that it has broader generality. The exact transient safety bound, Eq. [3], appropriate for the time-dependent situation arising directly after an infected index case enters a room, is evaluated in Methods.

We here focus on a simpler and more conservative guideline that follows for long times relative to the air residence time, (which may vary from minutes to hours, and is necessarily greater than λ_c(r)⁻¹), when the airborne pathogen has attained its equilibrium concentration C(r, t) → C_s(r). In this equilibrium case, the transmission rate (2) becomes constant: where, for the sake of simplicity, we assume constant mask filtration p_m over the entire range of aerosol drop sizes. We define the microscopic concentration of infection quanta per liquid volume as n_q(r) = n_d(r)V_d(r)c_v(r)c_i(r), and the concentration of infection quanta or “infectiousness” of exhaled air, . The latter is the key disease-specific parameter in our model, which can also be expressed as the rate of quanta emission, λ_q = Q_bC_q, by an infected person. The second equality in Eq. [4] defines the effective infectious drop radius (see Eq. [12] in Methods). The third equality defines the dilution factor, , the ratio of the concentration of infection quanta in the well-mixed room to that in the unfiltered breath of an infected person. As we shall see in what follows, this dilution factor provides a valuable diagnostic in assessing the relative risk of various forms of exposure.

We thus arrive at a simple guideline, appropriate for steady- state situations, that bounds the cumulative exposure time (CET): where and is the effective air exchange rate accounting for air filtration and virus deactivation. The effect of relative humidity on the droplet size distribution can be captured by multiplying by , since the droplet distributions used in our analysis were measured at RH = 60% (9).

By noting that the sedimentation rate of aerosols is usually less than the air exchange rate, λ_s(r) <λ_a, and by neglecting the influence of both air filtration and pathogen deactivation, we deduce from Eq. [5] a more conservative bound on the CET, the interpretation of which is immediately clear. To minimize risk of infection, one should avoid spending extended periods in highly populated areas. One is safer in rooms with large volume and high ventilation rates. One is at greater risk in rooms where people are exerting themselves in such a way as to increase their respiration rate and pathogen output, for example by exercising, singing or shouting. Since the rate of inhalation of contagion depends on the volume flux of both the exhalation of the infected individual and the inhalation of the susceptible person, the risk of infection increases as . Likewise, masks worn by both infected and susceptible persons will reduce the risk of transmission by a factor , a dramatic effect given that p_m ≤ 0.1 for moderately high quality masks (77, 78).

Application to COVID-19

The only poorly constrained quantity in our guideline is the epidemiological parameter, C_qs_r, the product of the concentration of exhaled infection quanta by an infectious individual, C_q, and the relative transmissibility, s_r. We emphasize that C_q and s_r are expected to vary widely between different populations (89–94), among individuals during progression of the disease (95, 96) and between different viral strains (87, 88). Nevertheless, we proceed by making rough estimates for C_q for different respiratory activities on the basis of existing epidemiological data gathered from early super-spreading events of COVID-19. Our inferences provide a baseline value for C_q, relevant for elderly individuals exposed to the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, that we may rescale by the relative transmissibilty s_r in order to consider different populations and viral strains. We make these inferences with the hope that such an attempt will motivate the acquisition of more such data, and so to improved estimates for C_q and s_r for different populations in various settings.

An inference of C_q = 970 quanta/m³ was made by Miller et al. (24) in their recent analysis of the Skagit Valley Chorale super-spreading incident (26), on the basis of the assumption that the transmission was described in terms of the Wells-Riley model (12, 13, 17, 44). To be precise, they inferred a quanta emission rate of for a mean breathing rate of apprpriate for singing (24). This inference is roughly consistent with studies of other related viral diseases. For example, Liao et al. (45) estimated C = 28 quanta/m³ from the rate of indoor spreading of SARS-CoV in a hospital and an elementary school. Estimates of C_q for H1N1 influenza fall in the range 15 − 128 quanta/m³ (46). For SARS-CoV-2, Buonanno et al. (17) estimate a C_q range of 10.5-1030 quanta/m³, on the basis of the estimated infectivity c_i = 0.01 0.1 of SARS-CoV (97) and the reported viral loads in sputum (95, 96, 98), and note that the precise value depends strongly on the infected person’s respiratory activity. Notably, their range spans the high value inferred for the Skagit Valley Chorale (24), and all of our inferences to follow.

We proceed by estimating quanta concentrations, C_q, or equivalently, quanta emission rates, λ_q = Q_bC_q, for different forms of respiration. First, we solve Eq. [1] to obtain the steady-state radius-resolved droplet volume fraction ϕ _s(r) for various hypothetical expiratory activities in the room of the Skagit Valley Chorale, using the drop size distributions of Morawska et al. (9). Our results are shown in Fig. 1. Integrating each curve up to the critical radius r_c, we then obtain an activity-dependent volume fraction of infectious airborne droplets in the choir room (see SI Appendix). Finally, we assume that the inferred value, C_q= 970 quanta/m³, for the super-spreading incident (24) that resulted from the expiratory activity most resembling singing (voiced “aahs” with pauses for recovery (9)), and deduce values of C_q for other forms of respiration by rescaling with the appropriate ϕ₁ values. Our predictions for the dependence of C_q on respiratory activity are shown in Fig. 2. For validation, we also show estimates for C_q based on the recent measurements of activity-dependent aerosol concentrations reported by Asadi et al. (37, 38). Specifically, we calculated the aerosol volume fractions from the reported drop-size distributions (from Fig. 5 of Ref.(38)) for a different set of expiratory activities that included various breathing patterns and speaking aloud at different volumes. We then used these volume fractions to rescale the value C_q = 72 quanta/m³ for speaking at intermediate volume (38), which we chose to match the value inferred for the most similar respiratory activity considered by Morawska et al. (9), specifically voiced counting with pauses (9). Notably, the quanta concentrations so inferred, C_q, are consistent across the full range of activities, from nasal breathing at rest (1-10 q/m³) to oral breathing and whispering (5-40 q/m³), to loud speaking and singing (100-1000 q/m³).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 2.

Estimates of the “infectiousness” of exhaled air, C_q, defined as the peak concentration of COVID-19 infection quanta in the breath of an infected person, for various respiratory activities. Values are deduced from the drop-size distributions reported by Morawska et al. (9) (blue bars) and Asadi et al. (38) (orange bars). The only value reported in the epidemiological literature, C_q = 970 quanta/m³, was estimated (24) for the Skagit Valley Chorale super-spreading event (26), which we take as a baseline case (s_r = 1) of elderly individuals exposed to the original strain of SARS-CoV-2. This value is rescaled by the predicted infectious aerosol volume fractions, , obtained by integrating the steady-state size distributions reported in Fig. 1 for different expiratory activities (9). Aerosol volume fractions calculated for various respiratory activities from Fig. 5 of Asadi et al. (38) are rescaled so that the value C_q = 72 quanta/m³ for “intermediate speaking” matches that inferred from Morawska et al.’s (9) for “voiced counting”. Estimates of C_q for the outbreaks during the quarantine period of the Diamond Princess (25) and the Ningbo bus journey (27), as well as the initial outbreak in Wuhan City (2, 84) are also shown (see SI Appendix for details).

Our inferences for C_q from a number of super-spreading events are also roughly consistent with physiological measurements of viral RNA in the bodily fluids of COVID-19 patients at peak viral load. Specifically, our estimate of C_q = 72 quanta/m³ for voiced counting (9) and intermediate-volume speech (38) with integrated aerosol volume fractions ϕ₁ = 0.36 and 0.11 (µm/cm)³ corresponds, respectively, to microscopic concentrations of c_q = c_ic_v =2 × 10⁸ and 7 × 10⁸ quanta/mL (see SI Appendix). Respiratory aerosols mainly consist of sputum produced by the fragmentation (99, 100) of mucous plugs and films in the bronchioles and larynx (33–35, 101). Larger droplets are thought to form by fragmentation of saliva in the mouth (35, 36). Airborne viral loads are usually estimated from that of saliva or sputum (95, 96, 98, 102, 103). After incubation, viral loads, c_v, in sputum tend to peak in the range 10⁸ − 10¹¹ RNA copies/mL (95, 96, 98), while much lower values have been reported for other bodily fluids (95, 96, 104). Virus shedding in the pharynx remains high during the first week of symptoms and reaches 7 × 10⁸ RNA copies per throat swab (95) (typically 1-3 mL). Since viral loads are 20-50% greater in sputum than in throat swabs (96), the most infectious aerosols are likely to contain c_{v ≈}10⁹ RNA copies/mL. Using this viral load and assuming c_i = 2% based on previous inferences for SARS-CoV (97), Buonanno et al. (17) estimated c_q = 2 × 10⁷ q/mL for SARS-CoV-2, an order of magnitude below our inferences obtained directly from spreading data for COVID-19 (9, 38). The inference that SARS-CoV-2 is ten times more infectious than SARS- CoV, with c_i ∼ 10% (an infectious dose on the order of ten aerosol-borne virions), is consistent with the fact that only the former caused a pandemic.

Our findings are consistent with emerging virological (3, 30, 69, 70) and epidemiological (5, 19, 23, 27, 28) evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is present and extremely infectious in respiratory aerosols and that indoor airborne transmission is the dominant driver of the COVID-19 pandemic (4, 22). Further support for this hypothesis is provided by crudely applying our indoor transmission model to a number of slightly less well characterized spreading events, as detailed in the SI Appendix, all of which yield roughly consistent values of C_q (shown in Fig. 2). For the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan City (2, 84), we assume that spreading occurred predominantly in family apartments, as is consistent with the inference that 80% of transmission clusters arose in people’s homes (31). We may then tentatively equate the average reproduction number estimated for the Wuhan outbreak (84), ℛ₀ = 3.3, with the indoor reproduction number, ℛ_in(τ). We use τ= 5.5 days as the exposure time, assuming that it corresponds to mean time before the onset of symptoms and patient isolation. We consider the mean household size of 3.03 persons in a typical apartment with area 30 m²/person and a winter bedroom ventilation rate of 0.34 ACH (58), and assume that λ_v = 0.3/h and . We thus infer C_q = 30 quanta/m³, a value expected for normal breathing (see Fig. 2).

For the Ningbo bus incident all model parameters are known except for the air exchange rate. We estimate λ_a = 1.25/h for a moving bus with closed windows, based on studies of pollutants in British transit buses (105). We thus infer C_q = 90 q/m³, a value that lies in the range of intermediate speaking, as might be expected on board a bus filled to capacity. Considering the uncertainty in λ_a, one might also infer a value consistent with resting on a quiet bus; in particular, choosing λ_a = 0.34/h yields C_q = 57 q/m³. Finally, we infer a value of C_q = 30 q/m³ from the spreading event on board the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship (25), a value consistent with the passengers being primarily at rest. However, we note that the extent to which the Diamond Princess can be adequately described in terms of a well-mixed space remains the subject of some debate (106, 107).

We proceed by making the simplifying assumption that the dependence of C_q on expiratory activity illustrated in Fig. 2 is universal, but retain the freedom to rescale these values by the relative transmissibility s_r for different age groups and viral strains. It is well established that children have considerably lower hospitalization and death rates (89–91), but there is growing evidence that they also have lower transmissibility (92–94, 108, 109). In the United States today, the case rate of children in schools is half that of the adult school staff (110), a ratio consistent with that in the general population (111) and with inferences from global epidemiological models (90). A recent study of similar households sharing in- door air without masks suggests that children are rarely index cases or involved in secondary transmissions (92). The best controlled comparison comes from quarantined households in China, where social contacts were reduced 7-8 fold during lockdowns (109). Compared to the elderly (over 65 years old) for which we have assigned s_r = 1, the relative susceptibility of adults (aged 15-64) was found to be s_r = 68%, while that of children (aged 0-14) was s_r = 23%. We proceed by using these values of s_r for these three different age groups and the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 in our case studies. However, we anticipate the need to revise these s_r values for new viral variants, such as the lineage B.1.1.7 (VOC 202012/01) (87, 88), which recently emerged in the United Kingdom with 60% greater transmissibility and elevated risk of infection among children.

In summary, our inferences of C_q and s_r from a diverse set of indoor spreading events and from independent physiological data are sufficiently self-consistent to indicate that the values reported in Fig. 2 may prove to be sufficient to apply the safety guideline in a quantitative fashion. Our hope is that our attempts to infer C_q will motivate the collection of more such data from spreading events, which might then be used to refine our necessarily crude initial estimates.

Case studies

We proceed by illustrating the value of our guideline in estimating the maximum occupancy or exposure time in two settings of particular interest, the classroom and an elder care facility. Considering our inferences from the data and the existing literature, it would appear reasonable to illustrate our guideline for COVID-19 with the conservative choice of C_q = 30 quanta/m³. However, we emphasize that this value is expected to vary strongly with different demographics and respiratory activity levels (17). In taking the value of C_q = 30 quanta/m³, we are assuming that in both settings considered, occupants are engaged in relatively mild respiratory activities consistent with quiet speech or rest. In assessing critical cumulative exposure times for given populations, we stress that the tolerance ϵ is a parameter that should be chosen judiciously according to the vulnerability of the population, which varies dramatically with age and preexisting conditions (89–92).

We first apply our guideline to a typical classroom in the United States, designed for the standard occupancy of 19 students and their teacher (see Fig. 3(a)). The importance of adequate ventilation and mask use is made clear by our guideline. For normal occupancy and without masks, the safe time after an infected individual enters the classroom is 1.2 hours for natural ventilation and 7.2 hours with mechanical ventilation, according to the transient bound (13) with ϵ = 10%. Even with imperfect mask use (p_m = 0.3), these bounds are increased dramatically to 7.6 and 80 hours, respectively. Assuming six hours of indoor time per day, a school group wearing masks with adequate ventilation would thus be safe for longer than the recovery time for COVID-19 (7-14 days), and school transmissions would be rare (110). We stress, however, that our predictions are based on the assumption of a “quiet classroom”, where resting respiration (C_q = 30) is the norm. Extended periods of physical activity, collective speech, or singing would lower the time limit by an order of magnitude (Fig. 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 3.

The COVID-19 indoor safety guideline would limit the cumulative exposure time in a room with an infected individual to lie beneath the curves shown. Solid curves are deduced from the pseudo-steady formula, Eq. [5], for both natural ventilation (λ_a = 0.34/h; blue curve) and mechanical ventilation (λ_a = 8.0/h; red curve). Horizontal axes denote occupancy times with and without masks. Evidently, the Six-Foot Rule (which limits occupancy to becomes inadequate after a critical time, and the 15-Minute Rule above a critical occupancy. (a) A typical school classroom: 20 persons share a room with an area of 900 square feet and a ceiling height of 12 feet (A = 83.6 m², V = 301 m³). We assume low relative transmissibility (s_r = 25%), imperfect mask use (p_m = 0.3) and moderate risk tolerance (ϵ= 10%) suitable for children. (b) A nursing home shared room (A = 22.3 m², V = 53.5 m³) with a maximum occupancy of three elderly persons (s_r = 100%), effective mask use (p_m = 0.1) and a low risk tolerance (ϵ = 1%) to reflect the vulnerability of the community. The transient formula (Eq.[13] in Methods) is shown with dotted curves. Other parameters are C_q = 30 quanta/m³, λ_v = 0.3/h, Q_b = 0.5 m³/h,

Our analysis sounds the alarm for elderly homes and long- term care facilities, which account for a large fraction of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths (89–91). In nursing homes in New York City, law requires a maximum occupancy of three and recommends a mininum area of 80 square feet per person. In Fig. 3(b), we plot the guideline for a tolerance of ϵ = 0.01 transmission probability, chosen to reflect the vulnerability of the community. Once again, the effect of ventilation is striking. For natural ventilation (0.34 ACH), the Six Foot Rule fails after only 3 minutes under quasi-steady conditions, or after 17 minutes for the transient response to the arrival of an infected person, in which case the 15-Minute Rule is only marginally safe. With mechanical ventilation (at 8 ACH) in steady state, three occupants could safely remain in the room for no more than 18 minutes. This example provides insight into the devastating toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on the elderly (89, 91). Furthermore, it underscores the need to minimize the sharing of indoor space, maintain adequate, once-through ventilation, and encourage the use of face masks.

In both examples, the benefit of face masks is immediately apparent, since the CET limit is enhanced by a factor , the inverse square of the mask penetration factor. Standard disposable surgical masks are characterized by p_m =1 5% (77), and so allow the cumulative exposure time to be extended by 400-10000 times. Even cloth face coverings with p_m = 10 − 20% (78) would extend recommended exposure times by a factor of 25-100. Our inference of the efficacy of face masks in mitigating airborne transmission is roughly consistent with studies showing the benefits of mask use on COVID-19 transmission at the scales of both cities and countries (22, 32, 86).

Air filtration has a less dramatic effect than face-mask use in increasing the CET bound. Nevertheless, it does offer a means of mitigating indoor transmission with greater comfort, albeit at greater cost (22, 75). Eq. [5] indicates that even perfect air filtration, p_f = 1, will only have a significant effect in the limit of highly recirculated air, Z_p 1. The corresponding minimum outdoor airflow per person, Q/N_max, should be compared with local standards, such as 3.8 L/s/person for retail spaces and classrooms and 10 L/s/person for gyms and sports facilities (75). In the above classroom example with a typical primary outdoor air fraction of Z_p = 20% (22), the air change rate λ_a could effectively be increased by a factor of 4.6 by installing a MERV-13 filter, p_m = 90%, or by 5.0 with a HEPA filter, p_m = 99.97%. At high air exchange rates, the same factors would multiply the CET bound.

Next, we illustrate the value of our guideline in contact tracing (85), specifically, in prescribing the scope of the testing of people with whom an infected index case has had close contact. The CDC presently defines a COVID-19 “close contact” as any encounter in which an individual is within 6 feet of an infected person for more than 15 minutes. Figure 3 makes clear that this definition may grossly underestimate the number of individuals exposed to a substantial risk of airborne infection in indoor spaces. Our study suggests that whenever our CET bound (5) is violated during an indoor event involving the index case, at least one transmission is likely, with probability ϵ. When the tolerance ϵ exceeds a critical value, all occupants of the room should be considered close contacts and so warrant testing. For relatively short exposures (λ_aτ ≪1) initiated when the index case enters the room, the transient bound (13) should be considered.

We proceed by considering the implications of our guideline for the implementation of quarantining and testing. While official quarantine guidelines emphasize the importance of isolating infected persons, our study makes clear the importance of isolating and clearing infected indoor air. In cases of home quarantine of an infected individual with healthy family members, our guideline provides specific recommendations for mitigating indoor airborne transmission. For a group sharing an indoor space intermittently, for example office coworkers or classmates, regular testing should be done with a frequency that ensures that the cumulative exposure time is less than the limit set by the guideline. Such testing would only be unnecessary if the time limit set by the CET bound greatly exceeds the time taken for an infected person to be removed from the population. For the case of a symptomatic infected person, this removal time should correspond to the time taken for the onset of symptoms (≈ 5.5 days). To safeguard against asymptomatic individuals, one should use the recovery time (≈14 days) in place of the removal time.

Finally, we briefly discuss the influence of the prevalence of infection in the population on the application of our safety guideline. Our guideline sets a limit on the indoor reproductive number, the risk of transmission from a single infected person in the room. It thus implicitly assumes that the prevalence of infection in the population, p_i, is relatively low. In this low- p_i limit, the risk of transmission increases with the expected number of infected persons in the room, Np_i, and the tolerance should be lowered in proportion to Np_i if it exceeds one. Conversely, when Np_i → 0, the tolerance might be increased proportionally until the recommended restrictions are deemed unnecessary.

For instructions on how to apply our guideline to other situations, we refer the interested reader to the spreadsheet provided in the SI Appendix. There, by specifying a given room geometry, ventilation rate and respiratory activity, one may deduce the maximum cumulative exposure time in a particular indoor setting, and so define precisely what constitutes an exposure in that setting. An online app based on our guideline has also been developed (112).

Beyond the Well-Mixed Room

The model developed herein describes the risk of small respiratory drops (r < r_c) in the case where the entirety of the room is well mixed. There are undoubtedly circumstances where there are substantial spatial and temporal variations of the pathogen concentration from the mean (7, 41). For example, it is presumably the spatial variations from well-mixedness that result in the inhomogeneous infection patterns reported for a number of well-documented transmission events in closed spaces, including a COVID outbreak in a Chinese restaurant (4), and SARS outbreaks on airliners (113). Circumstances have also been reported where air-conditioner-induced flows appear to have enhanced direct pathogen transport between infected and susceptible individuals (114). In the vicinity of an infected person, the turbulent respiratory jet or puff will have a pathogen concentration that is substantially higher than the ambient (20, 42). Chen et al. (41) referred to infection via respiratory plumes as ‘short-range airborne transmission’, and demonstrated that it poses a substantially greater risk than large-drop transmission. In order to distinguish short- range airborne transmission from that considered in our study, we proceed by referring to the latter as ‘long-range airborne’ transmission.

On the basis of the relatively simple geometric form of turbulent jet and puff flows, one may make estimates of the form of the mixing that respiratory outflows induce, the spatial distribution of their pathogen concentration and so the resulting risk they pose to the room’s occupants. For the case of the turbulent jet associated with relatively continuous speaking or breathing, turbulent entrainment of the ambient air leads to the jet radius r = α_tx increasing linearly with distance x from the source, where α_t ∼ 0.1 − 0.15 is the typical jet entrainment coefficient (20, 41, 42). The conservation of momentum flux M = πρ_ar²v² then indicates that the jet speed decreases with distance from the source according to . Concurrently, turbulent entrainment results in the pathogen concentration within the jet decreasing according to , where A_{m ∼}2cm² denotes the cross-sectional area of the mouth and C₀ = C_q /c_v is the exhaled pathogen concentration.^§ Abkarian et al. (42) thus deduce that for the respiratory jet generated by typical speaking, the concentration of pathogen is diminished to approximately 3% of its initial value at a distance of 2 meters.

In a well-mixed room, the mean concentration of pathogen produced by a single infected person is f_dC₀. For example, in the large, poorly ventilated room of the Skagit Valley Chorale, we compute a dilution factor, of approximately 0.001. We note that since λ_c(r) > λ_a = Q/V, the dilution factor satisfies the bound, f_d ≤ Q_b/Q. For typical rooms and air exchange rates, f_d lies in the range of 0.0001 0.01. With the dilution factor of the well-mixed room and the dilution rate of respiratory jets, we may now assess the relative risk to a susceptible person of a close encounter (either episodic or prolonged) with an infected individual’s respiratory jet, and an exposure associated with sharing a room with an infected person for an extended period of time. Since the infected jet concentration C_j (x) decreases with distance from its source, one may assess its pathogen concentration relative to that of the well-mixed room, . There is thus a critical distance, beyond which the pathogen concentration in the jet is reduced to that of the ambient. This distance exceeds 10m for f_d in the aforementioned range and so is typically much greater than the characteristic room dimension. Thus, in the absence of masks, respiratory jets may pose a substantially greater risk than the well-mixed ambient.

We first consider a worst-case, close-contact scenario in which a person directly ingests a lung full of air exhaled by an infected person. An equivalent amount of pathogen would be inhaled from the ambient by anyone within the room after a time τ= V_b/(Q_bf_d), where V_b ≈ 500 mL is the volume per breath. For the geometry of the Skagit choir room, for which f_d = 0.001, the critical time beyond which airborne transmission is a greater risk than this worst-case close encounter with a respiratory plume is τ= 1.0 hour. We next consider the worst-case scenario governed by the 6-foot rule, in which a susceptible person is directly in the path of an infected turbulent jet at a distance of 6 feet, over which the jet is diluted by factor of 3% (42). The associated concentration in the jet is still roughly 30 times higher than the steady- state concentration in the well-mixed ambient (when f_d = 0.001), and so would result in a commensurate amplification of the transmission probability. Our guideline could thus be adopted to safeguard against the risk of respiratory jets in a socially-distanced environment by reducing ϵ by a factor of C(6ft)/(f_dC₀), which is 3 - 300 for f_d in the range of 0.0001 - 0.01. We note that the latter worst-case scenario describes a static situation where a susceptible individual is seated directly in the respiratory plume of an infected individual, as may arise in a classroom or airplane (113). More generally, with a circulating population in an indoor setting, one would expect to encounter an infected respiratory plume only for some small fraction of the time, consideration of which would allow for a less conservative choice of ϵ.

We may thus make a relatively crude estimate for the additional risk of short-range plume transmission, appropriate when masks are not being worn (p_m = 1), by adding a correction to our safety guideline [5]. We denote by p_j the probability that a susceptible neighbor lies in the respiratory plume of the infected person, and by x > 0 the distance between nearest neighbours, between which the risk of infection is necessarily greatest. We thus deduce

In certain instances, meaningful estimates may be made for both p_j and x. For example, if a couple dines at a restaurant, x would correspond roughly to the distance across a table, and p_j would correspond to the fraction of the time they face each another. If N occupants are arranged randomly in an indoor space, then one expects p_j = tan⁻¹ α_t/π and . When strict social distancing is imposed, one may further set x to the minimum allowed inter-person distance, such as six feet. Substitution from Eq. [5] reveals that the second term in Eq. [7] corresponds to the risk of transmission from respiratory jets deduced by Yang et al. (116), aside from the factor p_j. We note that any such guideline intended to mitigate against short-range airborne transmission by respiratory plumes will be, as is [7], dependent on geometry, flow and human behavior, while our guideline for the mitigation of long-range airborne transmission [5] is universal.

We note that the use of face masks will have a marked effect on respiratory jets, with the fluxes of both exhaled pathogen and momentum being reduced substantially at their source. Indeed, Chen et al. (41) note that when masks are worn, the primary respiratory flow may be described in terms of a rising thermal plume, which is of significantly less risk to neighbours. With a population of individuals wearing face masks, the risk posed by respiratory jets will thus be largely eliminated, while that of the well-mixed ambient will remain.

Finally, we stress that our guideline is based on the average concentration of aerosols within the room. For every region of enhanced airborne pathogen concentration, there is necessarily a region of reduced concentration and lower transmission risk elsewhere in the room. The ensemble average of the transmission risk over a number of similar events, and the time-averaged transmission risk in a single event are both expected to approach that in the well-mixed steady state, as in ergodic processes in statistical mechanics. This feature of the system provides rationale for the self-consistency of our inferences of C_q, based on the hypothesis of the well-mixed room, from the diverse set of spreading events considered herein.

Exact solution for the transient guideline

The general safety guideline (3) can be written as, ℛ_in(τ) = N_ss_r ⟨β_a ⟩ τ, in terms of the time-averaged airborne transmission rate, which can be broken into steady-state and transient terms: where n_q(r) = n_d(r)V_d(r)c_v(r)c_i(r) and λ_c(r) = λ_a(1 + (r/r_c)²)+ λ_v (r)+ λ_f (r). The steady-state term can be expressed as Eq. [4], where the mean sedimentation speed and mean suspended droplet size, r, are defined by with v = Q/A and , which gives most weight in the average to the suspended aerosol droplets with r < r_c.

For short exposures or poor ventilation, the transient correction can reduce the indoor reproductive number, resulting in a more permissive guideline. In the case of monodisperse droplets of size , the transient term can be approximated as, . We may thus recast the general safety guideline in the form, which reduces to the pseudo-steady criterion, for exposure times long relative to the concentration relaxation time, λ_c(r)τ ≫ 1. In the limit of short exposures, λ_c(r)τ ≫ 1, we obtain a refined safety guideline, , which is less strict because it reflects the leeway associated with the time taken for the build-up of the airborne pathogen following the arrival of an infected person. During this period, the safe exposure time scales as , and the CET bound diverges as N_sτ_max ∼ τ⁻¹ in the τ → 0 limit. This divergence simply reflects the fact that transmission will not occur if people do not spend sufficient time together.