COVID-19 Viral Loads, Environment, Ventilation, Masks, Exposure Time, And Severity – A Pragmatic Guide Of Estimates

Methods, Analysis Components, Data Sources, And Limitations

This study estimates the time necessary to cause various viral load exposure levels and resulting infection potential in various indoor and outdoor settings of both Influenza A and COVID-19. It uses models and math to process the results from the reference studies to calculate these estimates.

Key information needed to perform this aerosolized viral load exposure time estimation analysis and clinical severity likelihood interpretation includes measured amounts of SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients and known Influenza A challenge escalation doses; both of which are obtained from peer-reviewed and published studies. Information from ASHRAE Office Ventilation standards and an Outdoor Air Exchange model are also utilized. This section also covers limitations of the various analysis components as an integral part of their detailed explanations.

Outdoor Air Exchange Model

In the following diagram, a 15×15×15 foot cube (3375 cubic feet) of air is moved 15 feet to the right by a 3 MPH wind (264 feet per minute). This constitutes 1 complete air exchange of that 3375 ft³ volume in 0.057 minutes¹⁰ (1 air exchange every 3.4 seconds, 17.6 air exchanges per minute, 1056 air exchanges per hour) which is the equivalent of 59,400 cubic feet per minute (CFM).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

This simplified, laminar, non-turbulent, air flow model is used for estimation purposes in this study. The basic model is establishes the effect of a minimal / low terrestrial wind condition such as 3 MPH as part of a conservative approach to modeling an outdoor environment.

Results

Comparing a 3375 cubic foot office with 6 air exchanges per hour (per ASHRAE Standard 62.1) with an comparable sized open space outdoor setting with a 3 MPH breeze (1056 air exchanges per hour) shows that a similarly sized outdoor space has 176 times more air exchanges over any given time period than a small office or a hospital room similar to the reference cases used in this study. An open outdoor space is further superior due to its virtual “infinite ceiling”. Additionally, indoor spaces tend to have areas of stagnant air flow around the cubicles, furniture, and other semi-enclosed spaces within the room.

Table 2 considers the cases of a non-infected person in an indoor environment within 2 to 4.8 meters of 2 infected persons and estimates the Exposure Period related to Likely Outcomes. The entire table uses shedding equivalency for Influenza A and COVID-19 as stated previously. Rows 1 through 10 consider the case of a non-infected person in the environment performing light activity functions and respirating accordingly, while rows 11 and 12 consider a person engaging in heavy exercise or otherwise respirating at 60 liters per minute.

Rows 1 through 4 of Table 2 provide documentation and analysis of the “reference” environment which has 2 hospitalized Influenza A patients at 4 challenge Influenza A doses from the respective studies. It uses an Influenza A infectivity model. From those 4 rows, it can be seen that the non-infected visitor not wearing any PPE / masks would likely remain Not Ill when present for less than 2 minutes, and perhaps develop a Minor Illness after 20 minutes, and likely having Mild Illness after 3.5 hours, and almost assuredly becoming Ill after 34 hours. Immune response and some level of immunity could begin in as short as 2 minutes, but more likely would occur after more than 3.5 hours. The visitor would be unlikely to shed any virus until around or after a 3.5 hour visit. Again, this considers patients ill with Influenza A using direct Influenza A Challenge Study data.

Rows 5 and 6 use estimations to model the 2 hospitalized patients with visitor result as if the patients were ill with COVID-19. From those 2 rows, it can be seen that the non-infected visitor not wearing any PPE / masks would perhaps develop a Minor Illness after 5 minutes, and likely experiencing Mild Illness after 52 minutes.

Rows 7 through 12 use estimations to model the result as if a pre-symptomatic person was infected with COVID-19 but NOT yet far enough into the infection as to have symptoms and large amounts of aerosolized shedding that would likely be present in a hospitalized patient with symptoms requiring hospital admission. In rows 7 through 9, it can be seen that the non-infected visitor would perhaps develop a Minor Illness after 1 hour, and likely experiencing Mild Illness after 11 hours.

In row 10, the estimation is adjusted to simulate an outdoor environment with a 3 MPH wind as noted above. It can be seen that the non-infected visitor not wearing any PPE / masks within 2 to 4.8 meters of 2 infected persons would likely remain Not Ill when present for less than 20 hours. This 20 hours estimate clearly shows the contrast between indoor environments that have no special ventilation measures and outdoor settings. Indoor settings with strong ventilation improvements could begin to approach those of an outdoor setting.

In rows 11 and 12, the estimation is adjusted to simulate the same outdoor environment, but with the non-infected visitor exercising around 2 resting pre-symptomatics. It can be seen that a non-infected person would likely remain Not Ill when present for less than 4 hours and perhaps develop a Minor Illness after 40 hours. This implies that outdoors is low risk even without masks. While it was considered too complex to estimate the case of 2 pre-symptomatics exercising heavily with an uninfected person outdoors, it may be possible extrapolate this scenario from the table.

In rows 13 through 18, the estimation is adjusted to simulate an indoor environment with 24 air exchanges per hour, which is 4 time more ventilation than the reference office. Similar to the previous rows, individuals ill with COVID-19 and pre-symptomatic individuals are considered. In row 19, an outdoor environment is simulated with a person exercising near individuals ill with COVID-19. Rows 20 through 27 add surgical mask considerations. An N-95 mask would have even better performance.

Discussion

From Results, it can be seen that Likely Outcomes vary widely based on ventilation conditions and the level of shedding of the infected individual. While the estimates predict that most outdoor settings with as low as a mild 3 MPH breeze are likely to result in no or Minor Illness, there are many determinants associated with severe cases including comorbidities such as skilled-nursing-facility resident status, cardiac health issues, obesity, cancer, immune-compromised, etc. The “Results Estimates” assume good general health and no significant co-morbidities as stated earlier.

In Table 2, the “Likely Outcome” column study calculates for the scenario where there are known to be a few infected within any given social setting. In a real population that has, for example only a 100 per 100,000 population infectionrate, that “Likely Outcome” would have a 1 in 1000 chance of occurring. In the other 999 of 1000 cases, since no-one is infected, no-one can become infected, so the result is Not Ill. This study does NOT consider that 1 in 1000 probability that lowers the probability of becoming ill in a “real life scenario”. The estimates in this study consider the case of any number of healthy individuals being within 2 to 4.8 meters of 2 definitely infected individuals (the hospital reference case used as the baseline for all estimates) so that a “worst case probability” scenario can be estimated. The probability of infection could be computed separately based on “local infection rates” and then further adjusted based on the Illness “Likely Outcome” for any given exposure period.

All estimates are subject to prior mentioned limitations. All times are specified as Days:Hours:Minutes. The term “Office” implies a room with 6 air exchanges per hour (ACPH) as Table 2 defines unless otherwise noted. All other aspects can be also observed in Table 2 and prior commentary. As mentioned in the “Mask Usage” section, the term “mask” refers to a surgical mask.

From Table 2, many personal and business scenarios can be considered. The border between “Not Ill” and “Minor Illness” can help determine risk profile for virtually any scenario. The term “Mild Illness” is a clinical definition, and for COVID-19 can mean quite unpleasant flu-like symptoms including fatigue, fever, chills, muscle aches, headache, sorethroat, etc. that would not require hospitalization. The COVID-19 definitions of Moderate and Severe mean they most often require clinical attention and/or hospitalization. “Minor Illness” can mean “common-cold” like symptoms or slightly worse but not full “Flu Like” symptoms which is defined by “Mild Illness”. The COVID-19 Moderate and Severe cases are referred to in Table 2 as “Possible Severe Illness”. See the “Known Challenge Dose” section for more detail. To help clarify Table 2, here are a few observations that might be made:

A person wearing a mask doing light work (Light Active) near a COVID-19 hospital patient (SickHospPt, COVID) wearing a surgical mask in a 6 ACPH patient room may encounter enough exposure to develop a Minor Illness in a 49 minute period (0:00:49); but would likely not develop Mild Illness “flu like” symptoms unless in that environment for over 8 hours (0:08:14). Using N-95 and other improved PPE would have the effect of increasing those estimates. It is possible that immunity may begin developing at even shorter intervals. It is possible that by rotating medical staff work through COVID-19 patient areas at exposure intervals below the low end of this range several days apart and monitoring antibody test levels could help provide a path to immunity and increased ability to work with increasing exposure level environments without illness. Encountering short to increasing length exposures that result in graduated inoculation and avoiding lengthy exposures until antibody test titers become strongly positive may be a path to avoiding healthcare staff illness. It is likely several short-term exposures separated by several days will increase antibody test titers, and as they reach protective thresholds, longer exposures would likely increase those antibody test titers to a level of sterilizing immunity. Repeat exposure would likely maintain that sterilizing immunity indefinitely. Having non-immune medical staff avoid lengthy exposure to patients that have high shedding potential based on Ct counts could also help avoid medical staff illness. It is possible that some anecdotal observations of lower rates of medical staff infection over time correlates to unplanned graduated inoculation. Better planning as elucidated herein could provide better results.

People wearing masks doing light work in a typical 6 ACPH office with a pre-symptomatic individual nearby may encounter enough exposure to develop a Minor Illness that is “cold like” in around 11 hours (0:10:59).

People wearing masks doing light work in a typical 6 ACPH office with a sick individual nearby may encounter enough exposure to develop a Mild Illness “flu like” in 0:08:14, meaning that with masks, a full 8 hour shift near a sick person, both wearing masks, would likely result in those within a few meters becoming infected. With better ventilation at 24 ACPH, this would likely extend to more than 32 hours (1:08:59).

People not wearing masks doing light work in a 3 MPH open area outdoor breeze with a pre-symptomatic individual nearby would likely not encounter enough exposure to become ill until after over 20 straight hours (0:20:22). People not wearing masks doing heavy exercise in a 3 MPH open area outdoor wind with a sick individual nearby may encounter enough exposure to develop a Minor Illness “cold like” in around 3 hours (0:03:03). People not wearing masks in a typical 6 ACPH office with a pre-symptomatic individual nearby would remain Not Ill in an encounter that is less than 6 minutes.

In the scenario of a hair-styling appointment, if done within a common 6 ACPH indoor environment with no-one wearing masks and a pre-symptomatic person, Minor Illness might occur in around 1 hour (0:01:09), whereas that would extend to (0:04:37) in a 24 ACPH environment, which would significantly reduce the chance of illness in a 1 hour appointment. Wearing masks would further improve the likelihood of being Not Ill. In the 24 ACPH environment with masks even with a sick person, the other person would likely remain Not Ill after 19 minutes (0:0:19).

In the scenario of a 2 hour movie at a theatre in a 24 ACPH environment without masks and with pre-symptomatic persons, Minor Illness might occur in around 4 hours (0:04:37). If masks were used, even if a sick person were present, Minor Illness might occur in 0:03:17.

Not wearing a mask and being in proximity to a sick person indoors for 5 minutes could result in Minor Illness. Extending that to 52 minutes could result in Mild Illness. Passing them briefly for less than a minute would likely leave one Not Ill. This scales to hours and days when outdoors – certainly of no concern for brief encounters – even without a mask. Regarding brief encounters, keeping calm and moving along works even when around people who are known to be sick. For pre-symptomatics and when wearing masks, these numbers scale accordingly to even longer periods of safety – see Table 2.

Again, in a “real life” scenario, the probability of infection described above is on the order of 1 in 1000 when there is a 100 per 100,000 population infection-rate.

It is noteworthy that once an individual has reached a target exposure level, the individual should attempt to eliminate further exposure for several days to a week so that the adaptive immune system can respond to the exposure before encountering additional exposure.

General immunology and the Influenza A Challenge study referenced earlier have demonstrated that a person becoming sick begins to lightly shed virus about 2 days prior to symptoms and rapidly ramps infectivity to a peak that occurs about 1 day after symptoms begin; whereupon a normal immune system responds to reduce infectivity within a few days to a week or so of symptom onset. This may depend upon general individual health and care in using optimal balances of rest and light exercise during recovery.²² Some youth and extreme athletes are able to knock down illness within hours or a couple of days.

By knowing the type of individual that is most likely to be encountered (pre-symptomatic or sick) and the likelihood of encountering an ill person (e.g. “1 in 1000” or “Confirmed Sick”), one may discover a time limit estimate that meets one’s personal risk tolerance. It is important to keep in mind that these are estimates and the actual times could vary widely based on a large number of factors that even include amount of sleep, eating habits, exercise, and other factors too numerous to express.

Personal, business, and public health guidelines must consider many factors including number of active infections per capita, general area population density, specific environment occupancy, temperature, respiration rates, loudness of vocal activation, general population health, etc. Table 2, the studies that feed it, and other related studies, may help determine reasonable health guidelines and be useful to the general public in setting individual risk tolerances. Businesses may benefit from having this study’s actionable quantitative estimates inform specific business decisions including ventilation enhancement opportunities. Given diverse business environmental characteristics and the limitations of this study, it is recommended that this study help inform local entity specific and personal / individual decisions. It is not intended for use in specifying government policy. For example, a person in excellent health who rapidly and fully recovered from COVID-19 would likely select different conditions than those in other categories. Every person’s risk tolerance and optimal exposure level is different. Those already recovered may benefit from light rechallenges that preserve antibody titer levels and related sterilizing immunity²³. Every business building has attributes that may favor applying different estimates.

Importantly, those with co-morbidities that place them at high-risk for a severe case should target zero exposure. People who attend to these high-risk individuals should use similar precaution. Those who are at lower risk for a severe case and are not in contact with high-risk individuals could opt for a more “normal” lifestyle and use Table 2 to guide them.

One intent of this study is to identify the estimated conceptual boundaries for “Not Ill” and “Minor Illness” (Table 2) so that the “generally healthy” population that is at low-risk for a severe case could generally gravitate toward those goals such that they avoid illness and perhaps gain some level of progressive immunity during an outbreak (asymptomatic infection)²⁴. Those who have already recovered from an outbreak could select boundaries that are more-likely to help them maintain immunity without being exposed to an excessively strong (or weak) re-challenge. In healthy individuals, properly timed and dosed re-challenges can be helpful to maintain sterilizing immunity that protects those not yet infected during months-long outbreaks²⁵. Estimates such as these, especially when the accuracy is improved through similar future studies, provide the structure for a powerful 21^st century data-science-based methodology for avoiding illness and maximizing immune response.

Publicizing specific quantitative examples of exposure viral load versus symptoms and immune response could Increase public understanding and consciousness of concepts such as “viral load”, “exposure time”, “challenge dose levels”, “shedding quantities”, “immune seroconversion”, and “re-challenge” and could achieve new levels of personal hygiene that complement centuries-old adages such as “wash your hands”. Understanding the viral load threshold differences between protective vs pathologic exposure could help guide individual behavior. The COVID-19 era’s prevalence of mystery and fear could be replaced by scientific understanding and individualized immune system management innovation. It is epidemiologically possible to improve the probability of developing immunity without becoming ill.

Raising public understanding and consciousness of concepts such as “viral load”, “exposure time”, “challenge dose levels”, “shedding quantities”, “immune seroconversion”, and “re-challenge” can achieve new levels of personal hygiene that exceed centuries-old adages such as “wash your hands”²⁶. It is possible future generations would have basic knowledge most of the world never imagined in the 20^th century and prior. If primary education included content similar to this study as a health class assignment, a tremendous epidemiologically protective step forward would accompany the next generation.

Disclosures

The authors performed all work on this study without compensation as an act of good will and statesmanship and have no beneficial affiliations with any institutions related to the work.

Limitations

While the estimates in this study cannot be considered authoritative due to estimation limitations, they offer considerably greater resolution and accuracy than WHO and CDC recommendations such as “6 feet of distance” and “use facial coverings” which do not differentiate between exposure periods, environments, and severity.

The estimates in this study could be a significant improvement over current WHO and CDC guidelines in that they provide specific quantitative number estimates extrapolated from peer-reviewed studies for various environments. The various environments include typical ASHEAE office ventilation standards, one example of dramatically improved ventilation (4x), and outdoor 3 MPH conditions. The estimates also consider the infected person as either very sick or pre-symptomatic, the level of exertion of those breathing in vicinity of the infected, and various Likely Outcomes from Not Ill to Possible Severe Illness. It is desirable to add near-freezing temperature environments as it is predicted that these environments could solidify a viral load preventing diffusion and dilution, yet increasing precipitation.

This study considers aerosolized transmission at a distance of > 2 meters. The estimations in the table focus on aerosolized transmission and do not consider the case of droplet or fomite (surface contact) based transmission which can be averted through some distance, barriers, surface disinfection, socially hygienic behavior (not sneezing at your neighbor), hand-washing, and other Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI). Droplet scenarios tend to have short-lived exposure periods relative to aerosols as the droplets rapidly precipitate. Fomite disinfection may also reduce exposure period related risks.

While the reader may personally choose to consider the estimates for personal, business, and other guidelines, they have no merit of accuracy, assurance, guarantee, medical efficacy, or legal standing. In the absence of better information, these estimates should be considered only with additional good judgement and after further verification. Human response to pathogens is widely variant and these estimations assume the normal healthy population with better than average immune response and no co-morbidities. Any application of these estimates is at the risk of those applying them. There may be unforeseen errors in the estimation, extrapolation, and underlying study interpretation. There may be errors in the referenced studies. No liability may be assumed or implied. The primary purpose of this study is academic, theoretically didactive, and abstractly educational. It should be considered a simple example of estimation methods but not an authoritative reference. Choice to observe any of its specific results or commentary belong solely to the reader.

As additional data becomes available, this study could be revised to reference and include that additional data. The estimation methods used in this study could also be improved. Together, additional data and improved estimation methods could be used to revise the spreadsheet that makes the objective computations found in Table 2. Future studies could improve models and estimation accuracy. While the values in Table 2 are specific, they cannot be relied upon as accurate. This study is intended to be an early prototype of what could be accomplished going forward. It is hoped that publication of this study accelerates publication and wide-distribution of similar, yet superior, studies.