Aerial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus (and pathogens in general) through environmental e-cigarette aerosol

Background

Section 2. Vaping styles and demographics (subsection 2.1); Physical properties of inhaled and exhaled ECA (subsection 2.2); Exhaled ECA as a marker of expiratory fluid flow (subsection 2.3).

Methods I: Section 3

The lack of experimental evidence on respiratory droplets potentially carried by ECA requires inferring their characteristics through appropriate respiratory proxies on which such evidence exists. To accomplish this task we undertake the following steps: Discuss the usage of cigarette smoking as a proxy for respiratory mechanics of vaping (subsection 3.1). Vaping involves suction through a mouthpieces, whose effects on respiratory mechanics need to be examined (subsection 3.2). We provide arguments to show that mouth breathing is an appropriate proxy to infer ECA droplet emission that should result from vaping (subsection 3.3).

Methods II: Assessing exposure

We estimate the horizontal spread of droplets in exhaled ECA by modeling its flow as a turbulent jet with finite injection evolving into an unstable puff (section 4). To infer risks for volume (direct and indirect) exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus we incorporate vaping exhalations into a simplified version of the exponential dose-response reaction model developed by Buonanno, Morawska and Stabile Buonanno et al. (2020a) (section 5). We examine the experimental evidence on the disinfectant properties of ECA that could affect respiratory droplets (section 6).

Results: Section 7

• Subsection 7.1: Respiratory droplets potentially carried by ECA. Low intensity vaping should produce exhalations of mean tidal volume of 700 − 900 cm³, emitting 6–200 droplets per puff (mean 79.92, SD 74.66) overwhelmingly in the submicron range. High intensity vaping involves exhaled volumes between 1000 − 3000 cm³ and possible emission between several hundreds up to over 1000 droplets also in the submicron range.

• Subsection 7.2: Visualization of expiratory flows through exhaled ECA. This important feature follows from its optical properties: light extinction and scattering by aerosol droplets. We discuss how these properties (together with the fluid dynamical properties discussed in section 2.3) explain why expirations from vaping can be seen while those from other respiratory activities cannot.

• Subsection 7.3: Distance for direct exposure. The jet/puff hydrodynamical model presented in section 4 yields a horizontal distance spread between 0.5 − 2, 0 meters (low intensity vaping) and over 2 meters (high intensity) in the direction of the exhaled jet.

• Subsection 7.4: Exposure risks in indoor spaces without face mask wearing. We find that the intermittent nature of vaping drastically reduces the added relative contagion risk with respect to the control case of exclusive rest breathing. For a home and restaurant indoor spaces exposure to low intensity vaping just adds about 1 % extra risk with respect to the control case scenario. For high intensity vaping this added relative risk is of the order of 5 − 17 %, while it rises to 44 − 90 % and over 260 % if for exposure to vocalizing and coughing (without vaping). Mechanical ventilation significantly reduces absolute exposure risks but keeps the same relative risks.

• Subsection 7.5: Risks with universal face mask wearing. Vaping requires mask removal for (at least) short intermittent periods. However, bystanders wearing face masks would be effectively protected from these mask free emissions by locating themselves away from the zone of direct exposure delineated by the visual vaping jet.

• Subsection 7.6: ECA as disinfectant. An examination of the experimental outcomes presented in section 6 suggests that propylene glycol contained in ECA is not likely to affect respiratory droplets under the conditions of normal e–cigarette usage. Nevertheless, appropriate experiments should be set up to probe this possibility even outside the context of vaping.

We conclude the paper by presenting in section 8 its limitations, together with a final thorough discussion.

2.1. Vaping styles and demographics

2.1.2. Demographics and markets

It is crucial to examine how representative among vapers are the different puff topographies and levels of intensity, something that has varied with time depending on the popularity and availability of different devices. Currently, low powered devices (mostly closed) are the most representative in the largest and most established markets. As shown in figure 1 (Credit to ECig Intelligence Eci (2020)) consumer surveys reveal that the overwhelming majority of vapers (80% in the USA) and 90% in the UK) utilize low powered devices (mostly kits for beginners and closed systems), with advanced open tank systems taking the rest.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Usage of different classes of e-cigarette devices in the US and UK markets. Notice that only 15 % and 20 % of consumers in the USA and the UK use advanced kits that allow for the DTL vaping style (Credit to ECig Intelligence Eci (2020)).

2.2. Inhaled and exhaled E-cigarette aerosol (ECA)

The ECA is generated by various physicochemical processes: self–nucleated condensation in a super saturated medium initiates immediately once the e-liquid vapor leaves the coil, the nucleated centers generate small nm scale droplets that grow through coagulation and diffusion Floyd et al. (2018). The particulate phase is made of liquid droplets whose chemical composition closely matches that of the e-liquid: propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin or glycerol (VG), nicotine, water Grégory et al. (2020), together with a trace level contribution of nanometer sized metal particles Mikheev et al. (2016). The gas phase is chemically similar. The aerosol contains nicotine and residues produced from the pyrolysis of the glycols and the flavorings (mainly carbonyls), which can be in either the gas or particulate phase depending on their vapor pressure and volatility Pankow (2017), with most of the PG evaporating into the gas phase and VG tending to be remain in the droplets Grégory et al. (2020).

Count mean diameter (CMD) distributions of mainstream ECA droplets vary depending on the device, puffing style of users, flavors and nicotine content Floyd et al. (2018); Lechasseur et al. (2019). Droplet number count is heavily dominated by submicron droplets with CMD distributions having either single modes below 100 nm or bimodal forms (one mode well below 100 nm and one in the range 100-300 nm) Floyd et al. (2018); Lechasseur et al. (2019); Scungio et al. (2018); Sosnowski and Odziomek (2018); Zhao et al. (2016); Fuoco et al. (2014). However, particle size grows with increasing coil power Lechasseur et al. (2019) and even in low powered devices the mass distribution is dominated by droplets larger than 600 nm Floyd et al. (2018). In fact, Floyd et al. (2018) found a third mode around 1 µm that becomes more prominent at increasing power of the tested device while the nm sized modes decrease, likely because higher power involves larger vaporized mass that favors coagulation and scavenging of nm sized droplets by larger droplets.

The inhaled aerosol mass yield depends on the topography parameters given in Table 1. At inhalation of mainstream ECA instrument measured droplet density numbers are in the range n = 1 − 5 × 10⁹/cm³ Lechasseur et al. (2019); Scungio et al. (2018); Sosnowski and Odziomek (2018); Zhao et al. (2016); Fuoco et al. (2014). Total average droplet numbers of N_p = 7.6 × 10¹⁰ were reported in Manigrasso et al. (2015) for a tank system using e–liquids with high nicotine content in a 2 second machine puff regime³ with V_b = 50 mL puff volume (N_p decreases 25 % with nicotine-free e-liquids). Using the same experimental design Fuoco et al. (2014) reported an increase of up to 30% for 4 second machine puff regime. The estimation N_p ∼ 10¹⁰ − 10¹¹ is reasonable given a particle number concentration of ∼ 10⁹/cm³ and V_b = 20 − 100 mL of low intensity vaping, with N_p ∼ 10¹² for high intensity vaping with V_b = 500 mL.

Data on the gas/particle phase partition of the aerosol mass yield m_b is roughly: 50% Total Particulate Matter (TPM), 40% PG/VG gas phase, 7% water vapor, < 3% nicotine McAdam et al. (2019), roughly a similar gas/particulate phase partition to that of tobacco smoke Martonen (1992). As shown in Grégory et al. (2020) and Pankow (2017) the presence of compounds in gas or PM form depends on their vapor pressure, with PG tending to be gaseous, VG in PM, for nicotine it depends on its PH, while some aldehydes (like formaldehyde) are most likely in the gas phase.

Values of particle numbers and densities for the exhaled ECA can be estimated by considering its retention by the respiratory system. Retention of ∼ 90% of total inhaled aerosol mass was reported in St. Helen et al. (2016) for a wide variety of devices and e–liquids, with the following average compound specific retention percentages: 86% VG, 92% PG, 94% nicotine, while Sam-burova et al. (2018) reported 97% total aldehyde retention. This high retention percentages are consistent with the mass distribution of inhaled ECA dominated by larger micron sized droplets which tend to be efficiently deposited in the upper respiratory tracts Floyd et al. (2018). Assuming equal retention rate for the particulate and gas phases, we take as total mass of exhaled aerosol and total numbers of exhaled ECA droplet to be 10 % of the values of m_b listed in Table 1 and 10 % of the values of N_p = 6.7 × 10¹⁰ reported in Manigrasso et al. (2015) for a 2 second machine inhalation puff and 50 mL puff volume. Droplet number density of ECA as it is exhaled can be estimated from these values of N_p bearing in mind that the exhaled ECA is now diluted in tidal volumes V_T listed in Table 1 for the various vaping topographies. This yields number densities in the approximate range n_p = 10⁶ − 10⁷ cm⁻³ (lower to higher vaping intensities).

Exhaled ECA dilutes and disperses very fast. Its chemical composition is similar to that of inhaled ECA, both in the gas phase and the droplets Floyd et al. (2018), with PG and water in the latter evaporating rapidly. Since hyperfine nm sized droplets deposit efficiently by diffusion in the alveolar region and larger micron sized droplets (which tend to grow from hygroscopic coagulation Asgharian et al. (2018); Floyd et al. (2018)) deposit by impaction in the upper respiratory tracts Asgharian et al. (2018); Manigrasso et al. (2015); Lechasseur et al. (2019); Sosnowski and Odziomek (2018), the CMD distribution of ECA as it is exhaled should be dominated by modes in intermediate ranges 0.1 − 0.5 µm. Since there are no ECA measurements at the exhalation point (the vaper’s mouth), we can estimate the representative droplet diameter by a rough order of magnitude calculation: assuming an aerosol mass yield of 5 mg of inhaled ECA for a low powered device, a 90·% retention of aerosol mass with 50 % made of PM, the total droplet mass of exhaled ECA should be around M_p = 0.25 mg. Since 90 % of droplets are retained, the total number of exhaled droplets should be N_p = 7.6 × 10⁹ droplets Manigrasso et al. (2015), leading to a median droplet mass of , where ρ_p is the droplets density that we can assume to be close to VG density: ρ_p = 1.3 gm/cm³, leading to d_p = 0.38 µm. Similar order of magnitud values are obtained for the parameters of high intensity vaping.

The fact that CMD chamber measurements are in the range d_p = 0.1 − 0.2 µm can be explained by the fact that detectors are located 1-2 meters from the exhalation source, thus measured ECA droplets have already undergone significant degree of dilution and evaporation (as shown in Grégory et al. (2020) droplets’ mass can decrease by one third in just 1 second by evaporation of its PG content). This is consistent with droplet number densities dropping at least two orders of magnitud from ∼ 10⁶ − 10⁷ cm⁻³ as they are exhaled to n ∼ 10⁴ − 10⁵ cm⁻³ at one meter distance from the emission and further dropping to near background levels n ∼ 10³ cm⁻³ at two meters Zhao et al. (2017); Martuzevicius et al. (2019); Palmisani et al. (2019).

2.3. Exhaled ECA as a visual tracer of respiratory fluid flow

The overwhelmingly submicron droplets that form the particulate phase of ECA have negligible influence on its fluid dynamics, acting essentially as visible tracers or (to a good approximation) as molecular contaminants carried by the fluid. This follows from its basic fluid dynamical characteristic: it is a “single–phase fluid flow” (SFF) system Yeoh and Tu (2019); Elghobashi (1994). As a consequence, ECA droplets visually mark the actual expiratory flow associated with vaping exhalations (we discuss the optical properties that allow for its visualization in section 7.2).

Exhaled ECA is just one among numerous gas markers and aerosols in a SFF regime that serve (and are widely used) to visualize expired air Ai et al. (2020); Nazaroff (2004). This also applies to mainstream exhaled tobacco smoke, whose particulate matter is also made of submicron liquid and solid droplets. In fact, there are studies that have directly used cigarette smoke as a tracer to visualize respiratory airflows Gupta et al. (2009, 2010); Ivanov (2019). Respiratory droplets potentially carried by exhaled ECA would not change its possible role as a tracer of expiratory flows, since as we show further ahead (section 3.3) these droplets are also overwhelmingly in the submicron range and their numbers are several orders of magintude fewer than ECA droplets.

Submicron ECA droplets (whose density should be close to VG density ρ_p ∼ 1.3 gm/cm³) are evolving along a carrier fluid made of the gas phase of ECA strongly diluted in exhaled air (in practice, we can think of the carrier fluid simply as exhaled air at mouth temperature ∼ 30 − 35°C). In what follows we examine two criteria that determine the SFF character of exhaled ECA: the particles’ relaxation time and volume fraction.

Submicron particles in a carrier fluid essentially follow the fluid flow because of their little inertia. They are well within the Stokes regime with Reynolds numbers Re_p ≪ 1 and negligibly small relaxation times t_rel, the response time of an aerosol particle to adjust to external forces. For d_p = 0.3 µm we get Hinds (1999) where µ = 1.895 × 10⁻⁵gm/(sec cm) the dynamic viscosity of air at 35 C and C_c = 1 + (λ/d_p)[2.34 + 1.05 exp(− 0.39d_p/λ)] ≈ 1.4 is the Cunningham slip factor with λ = 0.066 µm the mean molecular free path of air.

The relaxation time (1) provides the time scale for a particle released into a fluid with velocity U along a horizontal stream to settle into the fluid velocity (neglecting gravity). In this case (see Chapter 3 of Hinds (1999)) the velocity of the particle v_p(t) = U (1 − e^−t/trel) becomes practically identical to U in about 10⁻⁵ seconds (instantaneously in practical terms), thus justifying the notion of particles simply following the fluid flow with (practically) no influence on its dynamics.

This behavior occurs also for the larger ECA droplets of d_p ∼ 1 µm whose relaxation times are t_rel ∼ 10⁻⁴ (since ). Evidently, these relaxation times are much smaller than macroscopic characteristic times of the carrier fluid (for example a 2 second inhalation time or even the tenths of a second the ECA stays in the mouth cavity Asgharian et al. (2018)). The Stokes number is defined as S t = t_rel/t_f, where t_f is a characteristic fluid time, hence for the exhaled ECA we have S t ≪ 1, which is another criterion to define SFF systems.

Another criterion for an aerosol to be described as SFF systems is the ratio ϕ of total volume of the particles to the fluid volume satisfying Yeoh and Tu (2019); Elghobashi (1994) where N_p is the total number of particles, is the particles’ volume (assuming they are spherical) and V_f is the fluid volume. Substituting the qualitative values we obtained for the exhaled ECA: N_p = 7.6 × 10⁹, d_p = 0.3 µm and an exhaled air volume of V_f = V_T = 300 − 1500 mL for a low intensity regime yields ϕ = 1 − 3 × 10⁻⁷, which fulfills (2). This condition holds even if we assume that a large part of the mass distribution is contained in micron sized (d_p ∼ 1 µm) droplets making (say) 1-10 % of the total number. The value of ϕ is bound to decrease as the exhaled ECA dilutes and the volatile droplet compounds (PG and water) evaporate. As shown in Grégory et al. (2020) this process decreases the droplets mass (and thus volume) to one third while the fluid volume increases and thus ϕ necessarily decreases.

Evidently, larger droplets (diameters larger than a few µm) are present in particle diameter distributions (of both ECA and respiratory droplets) and such particles should contain a significant portion of the aerosol mass Floyd et al. (2018), but they are too few in numbers and deviate from the flow following ballistic trajectories, thus do not affect the dynamics of the carrier fluid to consider ECA as a biphasic fluid flow system.

3.1. Vaping as a respiratory process

Tobacco smoke is a valid physical reference for ECA, as it is also an aerosol in a SFF regime characterized by a particulate phase made of predominantly submicron particles with similar particle numbers and diameter distributions Floyd et al. (2018); Sosnowski and Odziomek (2018); Sosnowski and Kramek-Romanowska (2016) (though the particulate and the gas phases of each aerosol have very different chemical properties). This fact, together with the fact that most vapers are either cigarette smokers or ex–smokers of cigarettes, justifies inferring the respiratory parameters of vaping (especially exhaled volume) from the respiratory parameters of smoking reported in the literature (see reviews in Bernstein (2004); Marian et al. (2009), see also Table 3).

3.2. Mouthpieces, noseclips and the breathing route

Mouthpieces (MP) and nose-clips (NC) (to block nasal inspiration) are standard instruments in observational studies, not only those aimed at studying droplet emission, but of respiratory patterns and flows in human subjects. Since the results of these studies can serve as appropriate proxy values to infer droplet emission in vaping, it is important to assess the effects of these instruments in respiratory mechanics. For the purpose of the present article, this issue is interesting because ECA is inhaled in e–cigarettes through mouthpieces (though without obstruction of nasal breathing).

3.3. Likely characteristics of respiratory droplets carried by ECA

The discussion in the previous sections has allowed us to infer the characteristics and parameters of the respiratory mechanics of vaping. We need now to identify among respiratory processes the ones that most closely fit these parameters in order to use their available experimental data to infer the capacity of vaping for respiratory droplets emission.

5.1. Infective quanta

To evaluate indirect exposure risks from vaping we simplify and adapt the analytic risk model of Buonanno, Morawska and Stabile (hereafter BMS) Buonanno et al. (2020a) who have examined the potential SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission in various indoor micro-environments (see also their previous paper Buonanno et al. (2020b)). BMS develop this model by means of Mon-tecarlo simulations in which variability of droplet emission rates and exposure parameters is described by suitable probability distributions. Our approach is to assume median values for these variables (50 percentiles) of these distributions, similar to their approach in their previous paper Buonanno et al. (2020b). This is justified because our aim is to evaluate the risks from indoor COVID-19 transmission from vaping, speaking and coughing (all episodic or intermittent expirations) in comparison with what can be denoted as a “control case” scenario of risks in a space were the infectious vaper is only rest breathing (a continuous expiration). We are not aiming at providing a full comprehensive risk analysis for each respiratory activity separately under more realistic conditions (something that would justify a full separate study in itself).

BSM consider the notion of an infective “quantum”: the dose of airborne respiratory droplet nuclei necessary to infect 63 % of exposed susceptible individuals. They introduce the “quantum emission rate” ER_q (emitted quanta per hour) for various respiratory expirations where c_v is the viral load (RNA copies/mL) in the sputum of a SARS-CoV-2 infected person (symptomatic or not), c_RNA is the number of RNA copies per PFU (plaque forming unit) needed to generate infection and c_PFU is quanta-to-PFU conversion parameter, f_br is the number of breaths per hour and V_T the tidal exhaled volume, 𝒞_d is the droplet volume concentration (in mL/m³, hence 𝒞_d V_T is the total volume of exhaled droplets in mL). BMS define the product “IR = V_T × f_br” as an “inhalation rate”, but it is really an exhalation rate expressible in units m³/h.

For the infection parameters BMS consider values that have emerged from recent data: c_v = 10⁷ RNA copies/mL (average in the range 10³ − 10¹¹), c_RNA = 1.3 × 10² RNA copies/PFU and c_PFU = 2.1 × 10² PFU/quanta. For the droplet volume concentration they take as reference an experimental value that incorporated dehydration effects in droplets associated with loud speech Stadnytskyi et al. (2020), then using experimental data from Morawska et al Morawska et al. (2009) to scale this reference to other respiratory expirations, leading to the following values (in mL/m³) In order to fit vaping expirations into these values we need to make some assumptions on the involved parameters, besides considering the effects on exposure from the time duration of expiratory activities. In particular, we need to evaluate their mean quanta emission rate only in the times when they occur and compare with the rates of normal rest breathing (which takes place all the time). To simplify matters, we assume that c_v, c_I and f_(br) are largely unaffected by the timing of these expiratory activities. We have then

• Low intensity MTL Vaping. A vaper breathes N_(tot) times in (say) one hour and of these breaths N_(vp) coincide with vaping expirations (puffs), the expression for ER_q in (13) must be modified as where N_(vp) N_(tot) are the number of vaping puffs and total number of breaths per hour, V_T(br) V_T(vp) and 𝒞_d(vp), 𝒞_i(br) are the tidal volumes and droplet volume concentration for vaping and rest breathing. For low intensity MTL vaping we assume a tidal volume of V_T = 750 cm³ supported by inference from data discussed in previous sections, while for droplet volume concentration we assume 𝒞_d = 3 × 10⁻³ mL/m³, a plausible value denoting emissions slightly above rest breathing but below normal speech in (14), fitting the ‘whispered counting’ data of Morawska et al. (2009). For the number of breaths we can take the average values of 160 daily puffs in a 16 hour journey Dautzenberg and Bricard (2015); Cahours and Prasad (2018) and breathing frequency of f_(br) = 16/min (in the range 12-20), so that N_(tot) = 960 breaths/h and N_(vp) = 10 breaths/h.

• High intensity DTL vaping. We assume V_T = 2000 cm³ as an average tidal volume. However, there is ambiguity in inferring a value for droplet volume concentration because of insufficient data on how much the larger tidal volume and deeper inhalation of DTL vaping can modify respiratory droplet numbers and diameters. As mentioned in section 2.2, higher powered devices associated with DTL vaping tend to increase ECA droplet sizes and diameters Lechasseur et al. (2019); Floyd et al. (2018) but it is not certain if this applies to respiratory droplets. However, as mentioned in section 3.3, speech involves droplet generating mechanisms that are distinct from those of breathing Asadi et al. (2019); Morawska et al. (2009); Johnson et al. (2011), resulting in higher rate of droplet emission even with a tidal volume only slightly larger than the breathing rest value of 400 600 cm³ Bailey and Hoit (2002); Hoshiko (1965). Thus, we have two plausible options to account for a higher total volume of exhaled droplets 𝒱_d = V_{T d}: it may follow simply from a larger V_T with the same value 𝒞_d = 3 × 10⁻³ mL/m³ of low intensity vaping, or we might assume the larger value of 𝒞_d for normal speech in (14). Instead of choosing one option, we will keep the continuous range of 𝒞_d = 3 − 6 ×10⁻³ mL/m³. Regarding the number of breaths we can assume the same values as low intensity vaping: N_(tot) = 960 breaths/h and N_(vp) = 10 breaths/h.

• Normal speech. The equation for ER_q in (13) needs to be modified in a similar way as (15), replacing the droplet volume concentration 𝒞_d with the value for normal speech in (14) and we take as tidal volume the value V_T = 600 cm³, roughly 10 % larger than the average rest value Bailey and Hoit (2002); Hoshiko (1965). To incorporate the timing we replace N_(vp) with a number count of breaths coinciding with a given percentage of an hour interval spent on continuously speaking in a given indoor environmant. For 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 % of the hour (960 total breaths) we have N_(sp) = 48, 96, 192, 288, 384 breaths/h.

• Coughing. The emission data from coughing in Morawska et al. (2009) is comparable to that of ‘unmodulated vocalization’ (repeating the vowel “aahh”). Hence, we can use (15) with the value for droplet concentration volume of loud speaking in (14) as a proxy for coughing, while for coughing tidal volume we have V_T = 1400 cm³ Gupta et al. (2009). Assuming a cough every 2 and 3 minutes, N_(vp) is replaced by N_(cf) = 20, 30.

Considering the plausible assumptions stated above, we display in figure 3 the logarithmic plots of quanta emission rate ER_q from an infectious individual as a function of viral load c_v, for rest breathing, low and high intensity vaping, speaking for 10 %, 20 %, 30 % and 100 % of the time, as well as coughing every 2 and 3 minutes. The numerical values of ER_q in quanta per hour for c_v = 10⁷ RNA copies/mL are where the symbols br, vpL, vpH, sp10, sp20, sp30, sp40, sp100 and cf respectively denote breathing, vaping low and high intensity, speaking 10, 20, 30, 40, 100% of the hour and coughing 30 times. Notice that for low and high intensity vaping ER_q is very close to the control case of rest breathing (almost indistinguishable for low intensity vaping), while even speaking 10 % of the hour (6 minutes) yields a larger ER_q value than the upper end of high intensity vaping. Also, normal speech for a full hour (not uncommon) produces a higher quanta emission than coughing 30 times

5.2. Exponential dose-response risk model

In order to evaluate a time dependent risk for expiratory activities that incorporates quanta emission rates and indoor environment variables, BSM consider the “dose response exponential model” given in terms of the the density of the quanta n(t) in units quanta/m³ under the assumption that n(0) = 0 (no exposure at initial time t = 0) where V is the volume (m³) of the indoor micro-environment, N is the number of exposed susceptible individuals, IR is the inhalation rate (m³/h) of these individuals and IVVR is the infectious virus removal rate, which which BMS take as the sum of three factors: IVVR = AER + κ + λ, where AER is the ventilation air exchange rate, κ is the particle deposition on surfaces and λ is the virus inactivation (all of these quantities given as h⁻¹).

We evaluate in section 7.4 the risk R for vaping exhalations and other respiratory activities, aiming at the evaluation of their relative risk with respect to the control state of continuous breathing, assuming a home and restaurant scenarios with natural and mechanical ventilation.

7.1. Respiratory droplets emission

From the evidence and data examined in section 3 it is plausible to assume that droplet emission in smoking and vaping (at least MTL style) can be reasonably inferred from outcomes of studies in Table 3 with comparable exhaled tidal volumes (see Table 2), including outcomes of studies mentioned previously that examined breath holds.

The studies we have summarized and listed in Table 3 only involve mouth breathing, but share some common respiratory features with vaping and smoking: oral inspiration with usage of MP’s (in vaping), as well as qualitatively similar exhalation velocities and respiratory parameters: inhalation/exhalation times and tidal volumes. However, there are also differences: smoking and vaping do not involve the nose occlusion of these experiments, but involve suction which the subjects of the latter experiments did not experience. While absence of NC’s would imply a tidal volume very close to rest values in MTL smoking and vaping, this absence is compensated by the increase due to the need to overcome airflow resistance through suction. The decrease of droplet emission from the mouth/oropharynx hold in MTL topography (absent in normal breathing) was a detected outcome in two of the studies listed in Table 3. We have then the following inferences regarding emission of respiratory droplets

• MTL vaping and smoking (and even DTL vaping not involving deep inspiration). The outcomes displayed in Tables 2 and 3 suggest that exhaled droplets in mean tidal volumes V_T = 700 − 900 cm³, overwhelmingly in the submicron range (typically peaking at d_p = 0.3 − 0.8 µm), as well as a small rate of droplet emission: roughly N_p = 6 − 200 per exhalation (mean N_p = 79.82, standard deviation 74.66, computed from the outcomes listed in Table 3 for exhaled volume of 800 cm³), with droplet number densities well below n_p = 1 cm⁻³. However, the wide individual variation reported in these studies should also apply to vaping, including the existence of a small minority of outlier individuals that can be thought of as “super emitters” reaching over N_p ∼ 1000 per exhalation.

• DTL vaping. It involves a spectrum of deeper respiratory intensity than MTL vaping and thus should involve a higher rate of droplet emission. Perhaps the closest analogue in the studies listed in Table 3 to infer droplet emission for intense DTL (2-3 LT exhalation) breathing at fractional residual capacity in Almstrand et al. (2010) that reported emission rates of around 1000/LT. However, this style of vaping is practiced by a small minority of vapers (roughly 10-20 %, see figure 1), while extreme vaping with big clouds (the so called “cloud chasers”) is even less frequently practiced in competitions or exhibitions. Evidently, this type of extreme vaping cannot be sustained for long periods and is not representative even of DTL vapers.

While the inferred droplet numbers in the upper end of high intensity DTL vaping can be comparable with low end numbers for vocalizing, the latter involves modes with larger mean diameters because of distinct droplet generation processes Asadi et al. (2019); Morawska et al. (2009); Johnson et al. (2011).

7.2. Visualization of the respiratory flow

As opposed to other respiratory expirations (breathing, vocalizing, coughing, sneezing), by-standers can actually see the respiratory flow of ECA expirations. This feature has important safety implications that we discuss in section 8.2.1. In section 2.3 we discussed the fluid dynamical property that assures that submicron droplets (ECA and respiratory) actually follow the fluid flow. We provide here a brief discussion of optical properties of aerosols that allow for their visualization (see comprehensive explanation in Ruzer and Harley (2012); Hinds (1999); Kulkarni P and K (2011)).

Visualization and coloring of aerosols follow from the interaction of light with its particulate phase through absorption and scattering (refraction, reflection and difraction), which depends on the particles’ number density n_p, chemical nature and the ratio of their diameters to visible light wavelengths: α = πd_p/λ with λ = 0.4 − 0.7 µm. This interaction is described in relatively simple terms for ultra-fine particles (d_p < 0.05 µm or α ≪ 1) by Rayleigh’s molecular scattering theory and for large particles with d_p > 100 µm in terms of geometric optics. Particles with diameters in the intermediate range correspond to Mie scattering theory, which becomes particularly complicated for d_p roughly comparable to λ or α ≈ π, as is the case for ECA and respiratory droplets. Since the latter are liquid droplets, they are in practice non-absorbing so that scattering is the dominant effect.

A simpler approach to aerosol optics follows from the notion of light extinction, the loss of intensity I from absorption and scattering in the direction of an incident parallel non-polarized light beam, with intensity I₀, crossing a distance L within an aerosol. This is described by the extinction coefficient σ_e through the Lambert-Beer (or Bouguer) law where n is the total particle number density, is the mean particle diameter and, for non-absorbing particles, Q_e ≈ Q_scatt is the scattering extinction efficiency taken as constant (a valid approximation for a fixed λ and a very small diameter range around ).

The fact that n in non-biological aerosols (like exhaled ECA) is much larger than in bioarosols that are just “airborne” without ECA (as in “normal” respiratory activities) explains why exhaled ECA is visible while the bioaerosols are not. To illustrate this point quantitatively, consider the light extinction law (19) for an incident beam with wavelength λ = 0.5 µm crossing an exhaled ECA jet (see figure 3). From the mean diameters obtained in sections 2.2 and 7.1, we have µm and µm for respiratory and ECA droplets (the latter just at exhalation before their rapid evaporation), while (from figure 16.2 of Hinds (1999)) we have Q_e = 2, 3.5 respectively for ECA and respiratory droplets, as their respective refractive indices are roughly those of water and VG: m = 1.33, 1.5. While L is the same (same fluid jet) and and Q_e have comparable values for both types of droplets, the large difference in n makes a significant effect in light transmission through the beam that indicates the aerosol visibility in its specific direction if I/I₀ < 1. In numbers: we have n ∼ 10⁷ cm⁻³ and L = 15 cm for ECA just at exhalation, leading to impaired light transmission, I/I₀ = 0.51, while at 1 meter distance after significant dilution: , L = 25 cm and n ∼ 10⁵ cm⁻³, we have almost full light transmission I/I₀ = 0.99. For respiratory droplets n ∼ 0.1 − 1 cm⁻³, leading to practically full light transmission I/I₀ ≈ 1 irrespective of L (in the appropriate ranges delineated by the exhaled jet).

Extinction through a parallel beam provides a limited description of light scattering in an aerosol, which occurs through each droplet in all directions. The rigorous description through Mie scattering theory is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is evident that droplet numbers play a significant role since total scattered intensity is basically the sum of scattered intensity from each droplet. The light extinction law (19) is valid under the assumption that photons in all directions follow classical paths and their scattering complies with a Poisson distribution (a good approximation for sufficiently diluted aerosols). Under these assumptions the mean free path between scattering events is simply (see chapter 13 of Kulkarni P and K (2011)) ℓ = 1/σ_e = 1/(C_e n), where is the extinction cross section per droplet. Evidently, light scattering in the scales of the ECA jet is negligible for bio-aerosols with very low n, as the mean free path ℓ becomes extremely large (much larger than the bio-aerosol scale). For , Q_e = 2 and n ∼ 0.1 − 1 cm⁻³ we have ℓ→10⁸ − 10⁹ cm = 10³ − 10⁴ km, a huge value that explains the practical lack of scattering events in these bio-aerosols.

7.3. Distance for direct exposure

Direct exposure to respiratory droplets carried by exhaled ECA can be inferred from the horizontal displacement or penetration distance of the jet/puff system whose dynamics follows from equations (7)–(10) with the parameter values in (11)–(12). We display in figure 4 displacement distances and centerline velocities for assorted values of initial exhalation velocities U₀ corresponding to the vaping intensities we have considered.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Jet/Puff horizontal displacement and centerline velocity. Panel (a) displays the displacement z_jc of the staring jet (blue) and z_pc of the puff (red) as functions of time from (equations (7)–(10)), for the three vaping topographies described in section 2.1: DTL (Direct to Lung), MTL (Mouth to Lung) and MP (Mouth Puffing). We assumed as injection (exhalation times) 3, 4 and 5 seconds. The initial velocities from top to bottom are U₀ = 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400 cm/s. Panel (b) depicts centerline velocities U_c for the starting jet (equation (8)), as functions of the horizontal displacement z_jc during the injection times and initial velocities of panel (a) (green for MP, blue for MTL and red for DTL). Notice that once injection stops the jet has reached velocities comparable to those of indoor air currents.

Notice that the maximal penetration goes beyond that afforded by the momentum trust of the starting jet, with the puff further evolving at lesser speeds. Horizontal penetration varies from 0.5 meters for Mouth Puffing (U₀ = 0.5 m/s) through the range between 0.6 and 2.0 meters the MTL regime (U₀ = 0.3 − 3 m/s) and beyond 2 meters for the higher intensity DTL regime (U₀ = 1.5 − 4 m/s). Centerline velocity drops to about 0.2 m/s at different times and distances when fluid injection stops in all cases.

Given its short time duration and close distance scope of the momentum trusted staring jet, the analytic model (7)–(8) remains a reasonably good approximation to infer the necessary distance to minimize the risk of direct exposure of bystanders to respiratory droplets. As the jet evolves while fluid is injected there is increasing entrainment from the surrounding air at velocity U_e ∝ U_r, with entrained air reaching about 40 % of the jet mass at the end of injection in the transition towards the puff (around its virtual origin) Ghaem-Maghami (2006); Ghaem-Maghami and Johari (2010). Since there are airflow currents of ∼ 10 cm/s (and up to 25 cm/s) even in still air in home environments with natural ventilation Matthews et al. (1989); Berlanga et al. (2017), at this stage the puff formation can be easily destabilized by vortex motion generated through turbulent mixing from the large velocity fluctuations produced by the entrainment Wei and Li (2015); Vuorinen et al. (2020).

Turbulence and thermal buoyancy become important factors when there is human motion or walking Wang and Chow (2011), or in micro-environments with mechanical ventilation (mixed or displaced) He et al. (2011); Gao and Niu (2007); Gao et al. (2008), resulting in a faster disruption and dispersion of the slow moving puff, carrying the submicron ECA and respiratory droplets along the air flow. In general, submicron droplets exhaled at the velocities under consideration can remain buoyant for several hours, with mixing ventilation tending to uniformly spread them, whereas directed ventilation tends to stratify them along different temperature layers. In all cases there is a risk of indirect contagion by exposure to these droplets. The detailed description of droplet dispersion after the puff is disrupted is a complicated process that requires computational techniques that are beyond the scope of this paper (see comprehensive analysis in Vuorinen et al. (2020)).

7.4. Estimation of exposure risks

To evaluate the risk of exposure to respiratory droplets carried by vaping exhalations in indoor environments we have adapted in section 5 the “dose response exponential model” developed by Bounnano, Morawska and Stabile (BMS) Buonanno et al. (2020a)⁴. Specifically, we evaluate equation (17) that defines the risk R (as a fraction < 1) for the value IR = 0.96m³/h taken from the previous paper of BMS Buonanno et al. (2020b) and justified as a level of physical activity half way between standing and light activity. For the remaining parameters BSM assume the range AER = 0.2 − 0.5/h for natural ventilation and AER = 9.6/h for a restaurant scenario with mixed ventilation. BMS compute the deposition rate by dividing typical gravitational settling velocity for supermicron particles (10⁻⁴ m/s) by the height of emission (1.5 m), leading to κ = 0.24/h, while for the viral inactivation they take the measured aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 virus mean life of 1.1 hours Van Doremalen et al. (2020) and even longer periods Fears et al. (2020), leading to λ = 0.63/h. We consider the following home and restaurant indoor scenarios:

• Home scenario. We assume one infectious vaper and three exposed susceptible family members (N = 3). Total exposure time T = 12 h. Indoor volume 125 m³ (small 50 m² apartment with roof height of 2.5 m). For natural ventilation: AER = 0.2/h we have IVVR = 1.07/h.

• Restaurant, natural ventilation with open door. Thirty costumers (N = 30), total exposure time T = 3 h. Air exchange rate AER = 0.5/h, indoor volume 300 m³ (100 m² area with roof height of 3 m), results in IVVR = 1.37/h

• Same restaurant endowed with mechanical ventilation: AER = 9.6/h (taken from Buo-nanno et al. (2020b)), results in IVVR = 10.47/h

The infection risk R for home and restaurant scenarios is plotted in figures 5 and 6 as a function of time for breathing, low and high intensity vaping, various percentages of time spent speaking and coughing every 2 minutes, considering natural and mechanical ventilation. As expected from the quanta emission rates displayed in figure 3, the exposure time of different expirations is a crucial factor in computing R. Exposure to vaping expiration (vaper doing 10 puffs per hour) poses an infection risk to bystanders that is very close to that from the control case scenario: exclusive normal rest breathing (for low intensity vaping the infection risk is practically indistinguishable). The infection risk from a person vaping is well below that from the same person speaking and coughing: speaking only for 10 % of the time (6 minutes per hour) already yields a higher infection risk than high intensity vaping, while speaking 30 − 40 % yields up tp 4 times the infection risk, which is roughly the values plotted in figure 7.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: Infection risk in a home environment.

The curves display R as a function of exposure time T from (17). The abbreviations br, vpL, vpH, sp10, sp20, sp30, sp40 and cf stand for rest breathing, vaping low intensity, vaping high intensity (upper end option), speaking for 10, 20, 30, 40, % of time and coughing. Notice the dramatic reduction of R achieved by mechanical ventilation (air exchange rate of 3/h). Also: the curves for the risks from vaping (all intensities) are practically indistinguishable from that of the case control scenario of rest breathing (red circles).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6: Infection risk in a restaurant.

The same abbreviations as in figure 5 plus sp100 (speaking 100 % of the time, a possible outcome when spending 3 hours in a restaurant). As in figure 5, mechanical ventilation (air exchange rate 9.6/h) achieves a dramatic reduction of R and the curves for the risks from vaping are practically indistinguishable from the curve of the control case scenario of rest breating (red circles).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7: Added percentage risks of expiratory activities with respect to the control case scenario of rest breathing.

The percentage values with respect to the control case are: low intensity vaping 1.3 % (vpL), high intensity vaping 5.2-17.7 % (vpH), speaking 44% (sp10), 88% (sp20), 132% (sp30), 176% (sp40) for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of time, coughing 259% 30 times per hour (cf). These values were obtained from (ε 1) 100 for ε defined for these expiratory activities by (20)–(22).

A good inference of the risk from intermittent and episodic expiratory activities (vaping, speaking, coughing) relative to the control case scenario of exclusive rest breathing (a continuous expiration) is furnished by the ratio R_(A)/R_(br), where A = vp, sp, cf (see (16)). Plotting this ratio from (17)–(18) for every expiratory activity yields near constant curves around the values of the quotients ER_q(A)/ER_q(br) (see numerical values in (16)). This is not surprising since ER_q is the only variable in R that characterizes the infectious person (the other variables characterize the indoor micro-environment and the exposed susceptible persons). Hence, given the same indoor micro-environment and same number of susceptible individuals, we consider risks relative to the control case scenario of rest breathing in terms of the ratio of quanta emission. Using (15) we have where 𝒱_d(A) = V_T(A) 𝒞_d(A) is the total exhaled droplet volume (in mL) for each expiratory activity “A”. Since N_(br) = N_(tot), then for a heavy breathing activity in intense aerobic exercise ε might grow only because of the much larger tidal volume. However, for a truly intermittent expiration like vaping we have N_(vp)/N_(br) ≪ 1 and thus ε ≈ 1 holds even if we have 𝒱_d(A)/ 𝒱_d(br) ≫1 (large exhaled amount of droplets as with the large tidal volumes in extremely intense vaping). For the values of tidal volume and droplet volume concentration we have used the numerical values in (16), we have the following relative risks which provides an intuitive indication of the added exposure risks relative to the control case from the different expiratory activities.

We display in figure 7 the numerical values of ε, as an added risk with respect to the control case for various expiratory activities with respect to the continuous presence of risk from rest breathing and under the assumptions we have used. These numbers clearly reflect the effects of the intermittence or duration time of each activity. Under normal vaping conditions (10-15 puffs per hour) the added risk of low intensity vaping respect to the control scenario of exclusive rest breathing is of the order of 1 % (since ε − 1 ∼ 10⁻²). For high intensity vaping it is 5 17 %, given the ambiguity in the range of 𝒱_d = V_T 𝒞_d, still it is of the order of ε − 1 × 5 10⁻² − 10⁻¹, also a low added risk since the low value of N_(vp)/N_(br) compensates for the large exhaled tidal volume. Notice that the added risk respect to the control case grows to ∼ 40 % just for talking for 10 % of the time and easily reaches 176 % if talking 40 % of the time. Coughing is also intermittent, possibly even more intermittent than vaping, but its large amount of exhaled droplets (large factor of 28 in (22)) can offset this effect. For speaking ε can be large even if normal speech involves a tidal volume close to rest breathing, but it also involves a much larger amount of time (larger number of breaths in typical conversation).

7.5. Effects of universal face mask wearing

In our risk evaluation in a home and restaurant scenarios we did not assume face mask wearing by emitters and receivers of infective quanta. However, while other respiratory activities can proceed when face mask are worn, vaping necessarily requires their removal at least for the brief time lapse of intermittent puffs. This fact has little real life relevance in our risk evaluation for the home scenario because face mask are rarely worn at home (even under confinement). Assuming that containment measures permit that bars and restaurants remain open, our risk evaluation also remains roughly valid for such venues (if vaping is allowed), as eating and drinking also require face mask removal, which in a convivial atmosphere (with conversations accompany eating and drinking) should involve quanta emissions by mask-free patrons whose duration is likely to exceed the strict time needed to eat and drink. However, it is still necessary to examine exposure risks in hypothetical indoor scenarios in which universal face mask wearing is strictly enforced. In particular, we need to emphasize the effects on those face masks that are usually worn at a community level: surgical masks and/or those made of cotton and other fabrics.

Face masks, in their multiple designs and fiber characteristics (see review in Tcharkhtchi et al. (2020)), filter aerosol particles through various physical processes: gravitational sedimentation, inertial impaction, interception, diffusion and electrostatics, each of which govern and/or becomes dominant in specific ranges of particle sizes, airflow, leaks and environmental factors according to aerosol filtering theory Hinds (1999). The key issue we need to assess is how much cotton and surgical masks protect (in terms of filtering efficiency) their wearers from inward emission when they are exposed to outward quanta emissions by potentially infectious individuals not wearing face masks (as vapers when vaping). It is especially useful to compare this protection with respect to the one they would get when exposed to emitters who are also masked (i.e. reciprocal masking).

Filtering efficiency is high in outward emission for N95 respirators (over 90 %) and slightly less so (74 %) in surgical masks in human emitters breathing, speaking and coughing Asadi et al. (2020), with decreasing diameters of filtered droplets, though in these experiments droplet counts excluded ultra-fine droplets below 300 nm and leaks were not evaluated. Similar results were obtained in laboratory conditions with a non-biological aerosol, though leaking decreased efficiency in surgical and cotton masks between one half and two thirds Drewnick et al. (2021).

Evidently, face masks also protect their wearers from inward emissions, as revealed by the following two laboratory experiments:

• In Sickbert-Bennett et al. (2020) two human subjects in different body postures, wearing well fit N95 respirators and surgical masks (tied with stripes or ear loops), were exposed to a non-biological polydisperse aerosol (d_p = 0.02 − 3.00 µm) released in a chamber at concentrations between 2000-5000 cm⁻³. Fitted filtration efficiency was above 95 % in all N95 respirators, 71.5 % for the surgical mask tied with stripes and 38.1 % for the one fit with ear lobes. Efficiency decreased for the latter to 21.2 % when the subjects turned their head left or right, showing the effects of leaks.

• In Ueki et al. (2020) a bio-aerosol generated by a nebulizer emitted at flow velocity of 2 m/s, simulating a mild cough airflow, was used to examine virus penetration (in terms of virus titer) between two mannequins separated at distances of 50 and 100 cm, in experiments wearing loose and fit N95 respirators, surgical and cotton masks. The filtering efficiency was measured in terms of the detected percentage of virus titer in the receiving mannequin with respect to the titer in the emitting one. For 10⁵ PFU (plaque forming units) when the receiver was wearing different face masks and the emitter was unmasked filtering efficiency was: 17 %, 47 %, 57 % and 79 % for the cotton mask, surgical mask, loose and fit N95 respirators respectively. When both mannequins wore a surgical mask the filtering efficiency significantly rose to 60 %, 71 %, 69 % and 92 %. Efficiency was about 10 % lower for 10⁸ PFU. Virus titers decreased to 45 % and 31 % when mannequins (both unmasked) were placed at distances of 50 cm and 100 cm with respect to their values at 25 cm separation.

Both laboratory experiments describe, in spite of their idealization, the relatively low protection afforded by cotton and surgical masks to bystanders exposed to either unmasked emitters at close range and/or high droplet concentrations, flow and virus titer, which are precisely the conditions characteristic of direct exposure that would likely affect bystanders (wearing such masks) placed at the source (close to the mouth) of the jet exhaled by an infectious vaper or by someone infectious breathing, talking or coughing without wearing a mask.

However, as opposed to masked bystanders exposed to mask-less emissions from other respiratory activities, bystanders close to a vaper can avoid instinctively the spatial zone of direct exposure that is clearly delineated by the visible emission jet exhaled by a vaper. Bystanders wearing cotton or surgical masks located outside the exhaled jet would be subjected to indirect exposure to a very low concentration of submicron droplet nuclei (the so-called “aerosols”) dispersing through air currents at ambient velocities that depend on the ventilation regime (roughly below 10-20 cm/s with natural ventilation Matthews et al. (1989); Berlanga et al. (2017)). These are evidently very different conditions from those of the experiments described above, and thus wearing these masks would offer these bystanders a much higher level of protection.

In particular, a much decreased airflow in indirect exposure implies a much decreased face velocity U_f, the air velocity at the mask surface obtained by dividing the air flow (LT/min) over the mask surface area. Intuitively, under these conditions the masks capture more particles (droplet nuclei) because the permanence time of the latter favors the capture mechanisms that are dominant for this particle size range: diffusion and interception. The dependence of the percentage of filtration efficiency E on U_f when diffusion and interception are dominant is given by (see equations 9.19 and 9.35 of Hinds (1999)), so that E 100 % as U_f decreases to conditions of indirect exposure. The same arguments apply to indirect exposure to drifting droplet nuclei from other respiratory activities that are sufficiently small to remain buoyant for long times.

As a consequence, universal wearing of cotton and surgical face masks practically offers complete protection against indirect exposure to small nuclei spread once respiratory droplets have evaporated. Evidently, it would be extremely complicated to adapt the relative risk model we have presented to these conditions, since we would have to re-calculate in terms of the filtering efficiency of the face masks the quanta emission assigned to the control state of breathing emitters, of the comparative emitters talking and coughing, as well as the exposed receivers. However, incorporating this complexity might not be worthwhile given the fact that SARS-CoV-2 transmission via indirect exposure is still uncertain and controversial NAS (2020); Jayaweera et al. (2020); Shiu et al. (2019).

7.6. Disinfectant properties under realistic vaping conditions

It is difficult to relate the highly controlled and idealized experiments described in section 6 to the erratic and highly variable conditions in vaping. First, as we argued in section 3.3, the desiccating effect of PG and VG is not likely to be effective on the submicron respiratory droplets accompanying exhaled ECA, as the latter are, most likely, desiccated nuclei of evaporated droplets. Second, in these experiments pure PG (as aerosol or as vapor) was supplied continuously and spread evenly under carefully controlled conditions, whereas particulate and gas phase concentrations of ECA rapidly vary with time and position. The gas phase of ECA is a mixture of PG and other compounds (VG, nicotine, with residual concentrations of mostly aldehydes) and is supplied into the surrounding air (when inhaled or exhaled) intermittently during puffs and spreads rapidly and unevenly. Third, bactericidal effects in these experiments were registered with PG concentrations of: 50 − 500 mg/m³ which are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than maximal gaseous PG concentrations of exhaled ECA registered in experiments involving several users vaping in relatively small chambers during hours: 0.3 − 0.4 mg/m³ Czogala et al. (2014); Liu et al. (2017).

However, the disinfection might be more plausible for inhaled ECA. Since about 92 % of inhaled PG is retained St. Helen et al. (2016), PG concentrations inside the respiratory tracts approach the lower end of concentrations in the experiments and could interact with droplets still in aqueous form. Still, the disinfectant effect is unlikely to occur, as the transit and absorption time of ECA in the respiratory system is too short (around 5-6 seconds) and this effect is much less efficient in the prevailing relative humidity close to 100 %.

As we have argued throughout this article, exhaled ECA (as an expiratory activity) should spread respiratory droplets in the environment. However, it is very unlikely that its chemical medium could inhibit COVID-19 contagion by disabling or destroying the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Conversely, it is equally unlikely that this chemical medium could (somehow) enhance the probability of contagion in comparison with “normal” airborne transmission. Nevertheless, the chemical interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and PG and/or other glycols and compounds of ECA needs to be probed and tested in well designed experiments, even outside the context of vaping.

8.1. Limitations

8.2. Safety considerations