Abstract, Introduction, Overview, Purpose
This study seeks to better understand how indoor ventilation improvements could offer significant protection against aerosol transmission of COVID-19. It compares the effects of infected person[s] shedding virus in multiple indoor and outdoor settings and estimates resulting infection potential at multiple severities based on exposure time. An attempt to find this information from online searches that included medical journals, private industry, and US government provided materials failed to find specific quantitative estimates and recommendations, which motivated this study.
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.
While these estimations have unknown error margins and cannot be considered authoritative, they may have utility in comparing various environments and relative risk factors. The estimates in this study also present an initial framework and specific quantitative examples for better understanding of the effects of ventilation on aerosolized transmission, and the immunology related to graduated challenge doses, and the potential for low-level viral load exposure to result in some level of immunity without symptoms of illness (asymptomatic infection).
This study finds that outdoor environments reduce transmission risk by multiple orders of magnitude when compared to common indoor environments, that improved ventilation can reduce risk within indoor environments, and suggests that environments with diluted viral loads improves the probability of developing protective immunity while limiting symptoms and illness.
This study’s multiple examples of specific quantitative viral load exposure levels versus symptoms and immune response, and simplified descriptions of the quantitative differences between protective vs pathologic exposure levels, could provide an intriguing inductive learning tool that protectively guides individual behavior within the general public.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
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.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a meta-study that does not require IRB approval. We don't know if it requires EQUATOR Network submission and need assistance in this area.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Numerous edits. Changed from initial draft to first release 2020.1006e
Data Availability
The manuscript contains all relevant data and references.
