Abstract
Background Exhaled respirable aerosols (<5 µm diameter) present a high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. Many guidelines recommend using aerosol precautions during ‘aerosol generating procedures’ (AGPs) and droplet (>5 µm) precautions at other times. However, there is emerging evidence that respiratory activities such as cough and not AGPs are the important source of aerosols.
Methods We used a novel chamber with an optical particle counter sampling at 100 L/min to count and size-fractionate all exhaled particles (0.5-25 µm). We compared emissions from ten healthy subjects during respiratory ‘activities’ (quiet breathing, talking, shouting, forced expiratory maneuvers, exercise and coughing) with respiratory ‘therapies’ designated as AGPs: high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and single or dual circuit non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, NIPPV-S and NIPPV-D, respectively. Activities were repeated wearing facemasks.
Results Compared to quiet breathing, respiratory activities increased particle counts between 34.6-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.2 to 79.1) during talking, to 370.8-fold (95% CI, 162.3 to 847.1) during coughing (p<0.001). During quiet breathing, HFNO at 60 L/min increased counts 2.3-fold (95% CI, 1.2 to 4.4) (p=0.03) and NIPPV-S and NIPPV-D at 25/10 cm H2O increased counts by 2.6-fold (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.1) and 7.8-fold (95% CI, 4.4 to 13.6) respectively (p<0.001). During activities, respiratory therapies and facemasks reduced emissions compared to activities alone.
Conclusion Talking, exertional breathing and coughing generate substantially more aerosols than the respiratory therapies HFNO and NIPPV which can reduce total emissions. The risk of aerosol exposure is underappreciated and warrants widespread targeted interventions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Supported by a Prince of Wales Hospital Foundation research grant. 2020/NR7
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:
The protocol was approved by the South Eastern Sydney Ethics Committee (ETH01467/2020) and written consent obtained.
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
Supported by a Prince of Wales Hospital Foundation research grant. 2020/NR7
Conflicts of interest – none to declare
@CoVCast
Data Availability
Share upon reasonable request.