COVID-19 Aerosolized Viral Loads, Environment, Ventilation, Masks, Exposure Time, Severity, And Immune Response: A Pragmatic Guide Of Estimates

Aerosolized Transmission Premise

“A database by Gwenan Knight and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)”^4,5 shows that over 94% of COVID-19 superspreading events occurred in limited ventilation areas suggesting that aerosolized transmission is a strong contributor to COVID-19 infections. “Professors and Ph.D. students at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine have pulled together an incredibly useful database of known superspreader events from around the world. It pulls together four existing databases into one.”^6,7

It can be seen from the London Medicine google docs spreadsheet that, out of a total of 1576 superspreading event entries, 1493 were classified as “Indoor”, 63 were “Indoor/Outdoor”, 4 were “Outdoor”, and the remainder were “unknown”. The large number of total cases in many of these indoor settings and anecdotal evidence of subject and index patient locations^8,9 suggests high likelihood of aerosolized transmission and tends to rule-out “droplet or fomite” only transmission. Some anecdotal descriptive notes from the spreadsheet included: “*Every* resident in this nursing home was infected. A defective ventilation system is one of the possible causes.”, “Squash game: suspected aerosol (players used the same squash hall after each other but had no physical contact) or surface transmission”.

Aerosolization Model

A virally infected person will generate aerosolized virions and it has been demonstrated that significant COVID-19 transmission modes include aerosolized virus within indoor settings^13,14. The aerosol fluid is largely water with amounts of mucosal secretions and viral elements¹⁵. This mostly water-based aerosol diffusion is complex and depends upon factors including temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, air exchange rates, turbulence, aerosol generation rates, etc. When comparing the effect of different air exchange rates on a given air viral concentration relative to a reference air exchange rate, a simple linear calculation is used for purposes of estimation within this study. This linear calculation provides approximate estimates which can provide pragmatic benefit. A better aerosolization model would likely be helpful and could be part of further work, although it may complicate the desire for “easily understood and actionable rules of thumb” regarding NPI safety protocols. Improving the accuracy without complicating the presentation of estimates would be a good goal for further work.

Coronaviruses and influenza viruses are both enveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses, and both are encapsidated by nucleoprotein and have enough similarity that they can be compared for purposes of aerosolized transmission characteristics.¹⁶

Since this study considers individuals that are more than 2 meters distant from the infected individuals, large droplet and surface contact conditions are not considered. Those considerations must be accommodated and estimated separately when they apply. Other safety protocols such as hand-washing, surface-disinfectant, droplet avoidance, etc. are well defined in other studies and resources. This study seeks to add safety protocol information regarding exposure times to infectious aerosols in various environments.

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 minutes¹⁷ (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 air flow model establishes the effect of a minimal / low terrestrial wind condition such as 3 MPH as part of a slightly conservative approach to modeling an outdoor environment as majority prevailing wind scenarios are often larger than 3 MPH. An environment with lower wind conditions and/or obstructions would differ as would higher wind conditions than this example “open air” model that serves as a specific example that functions as an example pragmatic use-case. It is noteworthy that the exposure time duration estimates associated with this example are of sufficient duration such that this single model provides a pragmatically useful outdoor example.

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.

Table 2 shows the multiple potential scenarios based on a spreadsheet formula³⁰.

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 co-morbidities 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 a 100 per 100,000 population infection-rate, 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, sore-throat, 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 PCR 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, an 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 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. Most homes with mostly closed windows have between 0.2 and 2 ACPH^31,32. In a home, times in Table 2 would be reduced by 3x to 30x when compared to a typical office building with 6 ACPH.

In a hair-styling appointment scenario, 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 with 6 ACPH 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 low concern for brief encounters – even without a mask. Regarding brief encounters, keeping calm and moving along is usually safe 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.

It is noteworthy that once an individual has reached a target exposure level, the individual should attempt to eliminate further exposure for several days so that the adaptive immune system may respond to the exposure before encountering additional exposure. A level of exercise after exposure can improve the probability and speed of immune response by accelerating viral movement into the Secondary Lymphoid Organs’ (SLO) germinal centers.^33,34,35,36

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.³⁷ 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.^38,39,40 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, each of the following might select different exposure risk tolerances:

• A person in good health who rapidly and fully recovered from COVID-19 (recently recovered / immune)

• An unexposed (COVID naïve) pro / amateur athlete in excellent health

• An unexposed (COVID naïve) middle-aged person in good health

Every individual’s risk tolerance and optimal exposure level is different. Those already recovered may benefit from light re-challenges that preserve IgA IgM antibody titer levels and related protective or even sterilizing immunity^41,42,43,44. 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. Co-habitants and care-givers 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 selecting a conceptual boundary of “Not Ill” and “Minor Illness” in accordance with personal risk preferences. It is possible that becoming exposed to very small viral loads could result in some level of protective immunity as a result of an asymptomatic infection⁴⁵.

Those who have already recovered from an infection 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 may be helpful to maintain sterilizing immunity that protects those not yet infected during months-long outbreaks⁴⁶. Estimates such as these, as accuracy is improved through future research, provide the structure for an objective data-science based methodology for avoiding illness and maximizing immune response.

When appropriately interpreted for individualized applications, the estimates herein could contribute to guidance for those at low-risk for a severe case that have no obvious COVID-19 co-morbidities, with the understanding that those at higher risk should seek to avoid all exposure risk. The estimates herein may help efforts to strike a balance in developing holistic epidemiologic interventions that consider the effects of these interventions on economic, civic, social, and mental health, which have pathologies within their own realms.

These 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”, “re-challenge”, “protective immunity”, and “sterilizing immunity”. New levels of personal hygiene that complement centuries-old adages such as “wash your hands” could become common-place.

Understanding the viral load threshold differences between protective vs pathologic exposure could help guide individual behavior. In a not-distant future, 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. While the estimates herein are of insufficient accuracy for establishing that clear guidance, they may be of some utility to a portion of the population; and the concepts presented herein could be developed such that guidance of increasing reliability becomes available over time.

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.