Controlling risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers of enclosed food manufacturing facilities

3.1 Relative contribution of SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes in enclosed food manufacturing facilities with a coughing infected worker

Assuming a symptomatic infected worker (cough frequency ranged from 10-39 coughs per hour [63, 109]), we investigated the relative contribution of each transmission route (aerosol, droplet, fomite) by the distance travelled for each size class of expelled infectious particles for 1h and cumulative 8h exposures (Table 1). At 8h exposure and 1m distance between the infected and susceptible individuals, droplets (≥ 50µm) contributed 90% (absolute number: 478, 95% CI: [156-1,460]) of the infectious viral load, followed by aerosols (< 50µm) contributing 1.3% (absolute number: 7.0, 95% CI: [2-21]) and the remaining 8.3% of the infectious virus load coming from droplet and aerosol fall-out onto fomites (absolute number: 44, 95% CI: [16-122]). At 2 and 3m, the relative contribution of each transmission route to infectious virus load shifted to favor aerosols (31-59%) and fomites (25-48%), although the fomite and aerosol absolute viral load at 2 and 3m (3-11 PFUs) was 91-99% lower than the droplet absolute viral load at 1m (478 PFU). The patterns for 1h were similar (Table 1). Thus, the relative contribution of each mechanism of infectious particle spread was influenced by distance, with infectious droplet transmission representing the largest contribution to dose at 1m.

Combining aerosol, droplet, and fomite-mediated transmission pathways resulted in combined risk estimates for exposures at near distances (1m, 2m, and 3m) and beyond (>3m, aerosols only, Figure 1B). Considering combined risks associated with close contact transmission (≤3m) at cumulative 8h exposures, 1m distance (0.98, 95% CI: [0.76-1.0]) resulted in the greatest risk, followed by 2m (0.15, 95% CI: [0.07-0.32]) and 3m (0.09, 95% CI: [0.04-0.18]) distances. Infection risks associated with aerosol and droplet transmission, without fomite-mediated transmission, remained elevated at 1m: (0.96, 95% CI: 0.67–1.0). Aerosol transmission alone resulted in substantially lower combined infection risks (8h: 0.05, 95% CI: [0.01-0.13]) (Figure 1B). The combined infection risk associated with small, aerosolized particles (<50µm) resulting from closed mouth, nasal breathing events (8h: 2×10⁻⁴, 95% CI: [6×10⁻⁵ – 6×10⁻⁴]) was smaller than the risk from aerosolized particles (<50µm) resulting from coughing events (8h: 0.05, 95% CI: [0.014-0.13]) (SI Appendix, Figure S2). While we initially intended to conduct all of our analyses with either a symptomatic (coughing) or asymptomatic (breathing) infected worker, given the nominal combined infection risk for breathing in the absence of any interventions, we determined coughing events appear to drive the risk within the context of this simulated manufacturing facility. Thus, we proceeded with only a symptomatic (coughing) infected worker for analyses moving forward. Fomite-mediated transmission associated with direct tactile events with a work surface contaminated from aerosol and droplet virus fallout resulted in modest infection risks (8h): ranging from 1m (0.26, 95% CI: [0.10-0.56]), 2m: (0.07, 95% CI: [0.02-0.20]), 3m (0.02, 95% CI: [0.006-0.06]), and >3m (7.2 × 10⁻¹¹, 95% CI: [1.4 × 10⁻¹¹ – 1.1 × 10⁻¹⁰]). As anticipated, combined risks as well as risks associated with aerosol and fomite-mediated transmission accumulated with increasing exposure time from 1 to 8 hours (Figure 1B). In particular, combined risks at 1m distancing started to plateau near 5h exposure and appeared to reach the exponential dose-response upper bound of the probability of infection equal to 1.0 after 8h of cumulative exposure from a coughing infected worker. Considerable variability in the infection risk estimates were noted, as represented by wide 95% confidence intervals (SI Appendix, Table S1). This is consistent with our sensitivity analyses (SI Appendix, Table S3), which identified variability propagating through the model associated with only a few parameters (i.e. virus titer in saliva, cough frequency, inhalation and deposition rate), all of which were found to be strongly positively correlated with infection risk.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

A-B. SARS-CoV-2 QMRA schematic for respiratory event (coughing versus breathing) and infection risk through aerosol, close contact (1-3m, droplet and aerosol), and fomite-mediated transmission assuming no risk mitigation interventions. A. This conceptual model depicts the three transmission pathways (close contact [droplet and aerosol], aerosol, and fomite-mediated) within a representative food manufacturing facility, initiating with a single infected worker either coughing (symptomatic) or breathing (asymptomatic) to generate virus-containing respiratory droplets and aerosols. Droplets fall rapidly due to gravitational forces and were categorized by size and distance traveled from source based on empirical experiments and modeling studies (75, 110): <1m (50-750 μm), 1-2m (50-100 μm), and 2-3m (50-60 μm). Aerosols were defined as <50 μm in diameter with the ability to become aerosolized and remain suspended in the air throughout the entire facility space. B. Infection risk from combined transmission events (aerosol, droplet, fomite-mediated) in association with exposure to an infected worker (coughing) over a period of 1-8 h and as a function of distance.

3.2 Comparison of R₀ values derived from SARS-CoV-2 combined transmission risks

To assess the order of magnitude of these SARS-CoV-2 infection risk estimates at the population-level, using a 7-day infectious period, we converted the combined transmission risk estimates to population-level R₀ values. At 1m, R₀ values ranged from 2.38 (1h) to 6.83 (8h) (SI Appendix, Table S4). As all combined risk estimates (exposures ranging from 1-8h) at 1m distancing, when converted to R₀ values, were >1, this suggests that SARS-CoV-2 transmission would be sustained when workers are in close contact to each other. An R₀ value of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.48-2.2) was estimated for 2m exposures with 8h cumulative risks. Distances of 3m and beyond were found to have all R₀ values <1. These model derived R₀ values were consistent with reported population-level disease transmission events with R₀ values ranging from: 2.3 to 11 (62-64). Despite heterogeneity across attack rates and outbreak scenarios, we found that our risk estimates, when scaled, were representative of observed SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics at the population level.

3.3 Impact of individual interventions targeting combined risk

Increasing physical distancing resulted in substantial combined risk reductions following 1h exposure. An additional 1m distancing from 1 to 2m led to a 97% reduction in risk and from 2 to 3m led to a 35% reduction in risk. Increasing physical distancing by 2m from 1 to 3m resulted in a 98% risk reduction (Figure 1B, SI Appendix, Table S2). A similar trend in risk reductions was found following an 8h exposure: an additional 1m distancing from 1 to 2m led to a 84% reduction in risk and from 2 to 3m led to a 43% reduction in risk. Increasing physical distancing by 2m from 1 to 3m resulted in a 91% risk reduction. These analyses demonstrated that physical distancing 2m and beyond provided the greatest relative reduction in combined infection risk.

Universal mask use at 1m distance following 8h cumulative exposure with a coughing infected worker reduced combined infection risk by 52% (cloth mask: 0.47 risk, 95%CI: 0.20–0.87), 64% (surgical mask: 0.35 risk, 95%CI: 0.12–0.76), 88% (double masking [surgical followed by cloth]: 0.12 risk, 95%CI: 0.03– 0.55), and 99% (N95 respirator: 0.01 risk, 95%CI: 0.004–0.02), relative to no mask use (Table 2), leading to absolute risk of infection at 1m of 0.01-0.47, depending on mask type. Combining mask use and physical distancing resulted in enhanced risk reduction, suggesting a synergistic effect between these two interventions. For example, following 8h cumulative exposure, distancing from 1-2m paired with mask use resulted in risk reductions of 91% across all mask types. Physical distancing from 2-3m resulted in risk reductions ranging from 53-61% reduction depending on the mask type. Physical distancing from 1-3m resulted in risk reductions ranging from 96-97% reduction depending on the mask type. In all cases with the exception of N95 respirators, physical distancing paired with mask use resulted in a greater risk reduction than distance or mask use alone.

To evaluate the impact of ventilation on combined infection risk following an 8h exposure with an infected worker, we increased air change rates per hour from 2 to 8 ACH (Figure 2). Compared to baseline (ACH 0.1), increasing air change to between 2 to 8 ACH resulted in a percent reduction in combined infection risk at: 1m (mean of 2-8 ACH: 36%, range: 14%-54%), 2m (mean of 2-8 ACH: 74%, range: 55%-85%), 3m (mean of 2-8 ACH: 77%, range: 60%-87%), and >3m (mean of 2-8 ACH: 82%, range: 69%-90%). Similar to mask usage, reductions in the combined infection risk were enhanced when the susceptible worker was 2m or 3m, compared to 1m, distance away from the infected worker in the presence of increasing air exchange. Following 8h cumulative exposure, distancing from 1-2m resulted in risk reductions of 92-95% for ACH ranging from 2-8. Physical distancing from 2-3m produced risk reductions ranging from 50-51% for 2-8 ACH. Combining the two physical distancing ranges (1-3m) produced risk reductions ranging from 96-98% for 2-8 ACH. Rank prioritizing these single interventions suggests physical distancing, followed by mask use, and then increasing facility ventilation results in the largest combined risk reductions to a susceptible worker after an 8h-shift with a coughing infected worker. However, the impact of distancing from 2m and beyond was notably enhanced when paired with mask use (any mask type) or air change rates (≥ 2 ACH), which resulted in combined risk reductions >91%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Impact of increasing air exchange on combined infection risk reduction following an 8h-exposure to an infected worker (coughing) at various distances. For reference, air changes per hour (ACH) of 2-6 are representative of typical indoor food manufacturing facilities based on survey results. Included percentages represent the percent reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk relative to no air exchange (baseline ACH = 0.1) for combined risk at the four distances (1m, 2m, 3m, and >3m) modeled.

3.4 Impact of individual interventions targeting fomite-mediated risk

Although the relative contribution of fomites to infectious dose was low compared to droplet transmission (Table 1), fomite-mediated transmission does contribute to worker risk, particularly at close exposures. Thus, we investigated interventions specifically targeting fomite-mediated, 8h cumulative exposures from a coughing infected worker at 1m distance (worst-case scenario). Similar to the close contact and aerosol transmission pathways, mask use effectively reduced fomite-mediated transmission. Following 8h cumulative exposure at 1m, mask use reduced fomite-mediated infection risk by 62% (cloth mask: 0.10 risk, 95% CI: [0.03–0.25]), 63% (surgical mask: 0.09 risk, 95% CI: [0.03–0.25]), 88% (double masking [surgical followed by cloth]: 0.03 risk, 95% CI: [0.005–0.15]), and 99% (N95 respirator: 0.003 risk, 95% CI: [0.001–0.008]), relative to no mask use. Handwashing (2 log₁₀ virus removal efficacy) and hand sanitizer (3 log₁₀ virus removal efficacy) use resulted in large fomite-mediated risk reductions relative to no intervention: handwashing hourly (98.8% reduction; 0.003 risk, 95% CI: [0.001–0.008]) and alcohol-based hand sanitizer hourly (99.88% reduction; 3×10⁻⁴ risk, 95% CI: [1×10⁻⁴ –8×10⁻⁴]) (SI Appendix, Figure S3). Hourly glove changes (assuming handwashing completely removed all viral contamination and was performed before donning clean gloves) mitigated all SARS-CoV-2 fomite-mediated risk (data not shown). Only hourly surface disinfection (the most frequent surface disinfection scenario tested) resulted in fomite-mediated risk reductions comparable to those achieved by handwashing: hourly surface disinfection (3log₁₀ virus removal efficacy) (99.96% reduction; 1×10⁻⁴ risk, 95% CI: [3×10⁻⁵ –3×10⁻⁴]) and hourly surface disinfection (4log₁₀ virus removal) (99.99% reduction; 1×10⁻⁵ risk, 95% CI: [3×10⁻⁶ –3×10⁻⁵]), relative to no intervention (SI Appendix, Figure S3).

3.5 Impact of bundled risk mitigation strategies targeting combined infection risk

Our survey of food manufacturing facilities and discussions with food industry experts (data not shown) indicated that various, simultaneous COVID-19 specific infection control measures (mask use, physical distancing, air changes per hour, hand hygiene, surface disinfection, sick worker furlough) have been consistently implemented in food production and processing facilities, in practice. Bundled strategies of physical distancing of 2m, universal mask wearing (cloth, surgical, or double masking), and at least 2 ACH (industry standard), combined with handwashing (hourly) and surface disinfection (twice per shift, 4h and 8h) resulted in combined infection risks less than 1% in an 8h-shift (Table 3). Comparable combined infection risks (<1%) were achieved with bundled strategies incorporating reduced frequencies of surface disinfection (once per shift) and hand hygiene (twice per shift); reduced efficacies of surface disinfection (1 to 3 log₁₀ virus removal efficacy); and with hand sanitizer used interchangeably with handwashing (data not shown), in addition to mask use and ACH. If physical distancing is not possible, at 1m distancing, the largest combined infection risk reduction of 98% resulted from double mask use with 6 ACH (risk: 0.02, 95% CI: [0.002-0.14]), relative to no interventions.

3.6 Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the most influential parameters for SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, reported as Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The parameters with the greatest contribution to infection risk were consistent across the aerosol and droplet transmission pathways and included the SARS-CoV-2 titer in saliva (aerosol ρ=0.58; droplet ρ= 0.73); cough frequency of the infected worker (aerosol ρ=0.24; droplet ρ=0.30); inhalation rate (aerosol ρ=0.19; droplet ρ= 0.16); and lung deposition rate (aerosol ρ=0.21; droplet ρ=0.16) (SI Appendix, Figure S1). The dose-response k parameter was found to have a moderate correlation with SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (droplet ρ = 0.36). The parameters with the greatest impact on reducing infection risk included mask filtration efficiency (ρ= -0.13 to -0.16)) and the number of air changes per hour (ρ= -0.52 to -0.35). Notably the parameters describing tactile events, such as transfer efficiency and number of contacts, generally had smaller effects (ρ = -0.002 to 0.005) on the infection risk estimates.

We also evaluated the contribution of individual parameters to the overall variability associated with the estimated infection risk. Variability, representing temporal, geographical, and individual heterogeneity, was generally quite low for each individual parameter, with the largest values associated with: (1) the distribution of particle sizes found in a cough or breathing event; (2) cough frequency; (3) masking efficacies; (4) room air exchange; (5) transfer efficiencies from fomite-to-hand; and (5) transfer efficiencies from hand-to-face mucous membranes. (SI Appendix, Table S3). The overall impact of variability on aerosol and droplet infection risk estimates, defined as the variability ratio (97.5^th model estimate/the median model estimate), were modest (variability ratio: 6.8 to 10.2). For the fomite-mediated transmission pathway, considerable variability was found to propagate through the simulated viral concentration on the fomite surface, to the viral concentration on hands, and ultimately for the fomite-mediated risk.

2.1 Model overview

Model design of the indoor food manufacturing facility was informed by prior field studies conducted in fresh produce packing facilities along the southern United Sates and northern Mexican border states (98-101). As a representative food manufacturing facility, we also applied information on equipment and facility design from frozen food manufacturers associated with the frozen fruit and vegetable sector. In addition, we leveraged the modeling frameworks of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol transmission in a seafood market in Wuhan, China (79), Middle East Respiratory Virus (MERS) aerosol and droplet transmission in a hospital (102), and fomite-mediated transmission for influenza A virus (103, 104). Additional details on model vetting are provided in the SI Appendix.

2.2 Model structure

The overall model structure initiates with a single infected worker exposing a single susceptible worker over a work shift lasting up to 8h either through coughing (symptomatic) or breathing (asymptomatic) respiratory events. Virus-containing droplets and aerosols generated from these respiratory events then feed into the close contact, aerosol, and fomite-mediated transmission pathways. Please refer to SI Appendix for additional details on the transmission pathways by event. In our model, SARS-CoV-2 infection risk to the susceptible worker resulted from respiration/deposition of particles in the nasal-pharyngeal region (droplet and aerosol); direct spray onto mucous membranes (droplet); and indirect tactile transfers associated with contaminated fomite surface(s) (Figure 1). Exposure to aerosols (<50 µm) by the susceptible worker occurred both near (close contact 1-3m) and farther (beyond close contact >3m) from the infected individual. Exposure to droplets (50-750 μm) by the susceptible worker occurred only within close contact distancing. Here, droplet exposures were characterized by the transport properties of the droplets (i.e. ballistic gravitational trajectories) and the possible horizontal distance traveled. For instance, with a coughing infected worker, a susceptible worker at <1m distancing would be exposed to the full range of 50-750 μm droplets, whereas distancing of 1-2m would result in exposure to 50-100 μm droplets (droplets >100 μm having settled to the floor/fomite surface), and distancing of 2-3m would result in exposure to 50-60 μm droplets (droplets >60-100 μm having settled to the floor/fomite surface). In addition to these droplet exposures, when in close contact, a susceptible worker would also be exposed to aerosol particles (<50 µm), as coughing events produce both aerosol and droplet particles simultaneously. Viral contamination of a fomite surface occurred through respiratory particles falling from the air, either by the terminal settling velocity of aerosols or gravitational ballistic trajectory of droplets, onto a 0.5m by 0.5m stainless steel surface within 1m of the susceptible worker. Of the total respiratory particle fallout from the air, we assumed only a proportion of this total would land and contaminate the fomite surface (fomite surface area/cross-sectional facility area). Fomite-mediated transmission involved tactile contact between the susceptible worker’s fingers and palms (of both hands) and the fomite surface (accounting for surface area of the hand relative to the fomite surface); virus transfer from fomite to hands; followed by virus transfer from fingertips to facial mucous membranes (accounting for the surface area of the fingers relative to that of the hands). SARS-CoV-2 infection risk to the susceptible worker was calculated by incorporating the dose from each individual transmission pathway and applying an exponential dose-response model based on data from SARS-CoV and murine hepatitis virus infection in mice (105, 106). As there is currently no SARS-CoV-2 dose-response model, consistent with other SARS-CoV-2 QMRA models (18, 50, 60, 61), we applied this SARS-CoV dose-response given the high degree of comparability between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (genetic and amino acid homology, transmission pathways, etc.) (73). Infection control measures were implemented to target one or more of the SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathways (droplet, aerosol, and fomite-mediated). For instance, mask use by the infected worker aimed to interrupt the shedding of virus-laden droplet and aerosol particles into the air and on the fomite surface and to protect the susceptible worker. Similarly, handwashing and surface disinfection disrupted the indirect tactile transfer of virus to the susceptible worker’s mucous membranes.

The two model outcomes included: 1) the individual and cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection risks from close contact (droplet and aerosols at 1, 2, 3m), aerosol (<50 µm), and fomite-mediated (droplet and aerosol fallout) exposures to a susceptible worker following an up to 8h-shift with an infected worker in an indoor food manufacturing facility; and 2) the relative reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk attributed to commonly-used infection control interventions (physical distancing, mask use, air change rates, surface disinfection, hand hygiene). The model was developed in R (version 4.0.3; R Development Core Team; Vienna, Austria) using the mc2d package for Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses (107). For each simulation, 10,000 iterations were run using model parameters selected from defined probability distributions or assigned values (SI Appendix, Table S1). Sensitivity analyses conducted on the simulation number demonstrated the risk estimates stabilized after 1,000 iterations, ensuring 10,000 iterations were more than sufficient. Please refer to SI Appendix for additional details on the transmission pathways by event.

2.3 Data sources

Model parameters derived from the peer-reviewed literature were grouped into five categories and are summarized in SI Appendix, Table S1. These included: (i) facility specifications; (ii) viral shedding through cough or breathing events; (iii) fomite-mediated transmission parameters; (iv) dose-response parameters for SARS-CoV-2 infection risk; and (v) risk mitigation interventions (physical distancing, ventilation, mask use, surface disinfection, hand hygiene). The indoor food manufacturing facility simulated in this model was a single-story building (10m x 10m x 10m), representing a total volume of 1000 cubic meters with an internal temperature of 70°F and relative humidity of 40-65%, which is similar to conditions in many facilities in the industry (personal communication with Dr. Sanjay Gummalla, American Frozen Food Industry).

2.4 Model validation and calibration

Following model development, validation was conducted to ensure the model structure and risk estimates aligned with the published literature, our evolving understanding of SARS-CoV-2 biology and environmental behavior, and that risk estimates were of an appropriate order of magnitude relative to documented SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. This involved elicitations of opinions from food processing experts related to the structure of the model and relevant model inputs (e.g. facility ventilation, standard operating procedures for masks, types of surface disinfection products and their frequency of use, etc.); additional details are in SI Appendix. Through a systematic review of all published (on or prior to December 2020) SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks with confirmed-positive index and secondary cases, we compared model risk estimates to those derived from real life situations such as SARS-CoV-2 household transmission and recreational or work-based activities with well-defined exposure times and distances. We calibrated our model to the risk for a 1h, close contact (1m) exposure to that of approximately 38% (108, 109), which represents the attack rate from two well-characterized, 1h close contact (1m) exposures. Specifically, this calibration involved adjusting select parameters (e.g. salivary viral titer, coughing frequency, dose-response infectivity), while remaining within the range of parameter values derived from the literature. This calibration was corroborated by additional elicitation of opinions from infectious disease clinicians treating COVID-19 patients in metro-Atlanta.

2.5 Aerosol transmission modeling

For aerosol transmission, we leveraged the SARS-CoV-2 air transport model proposed by Zhang et al. (79), with modifications as described below and in SI Appendix. Briefly, aerosolized particles were assumed to be homogenously distributed throughout the facility, such that aerosol exposure by the susceptible worker was uniform throughout the entire indoor facility. Viral particles were removed through viral decay, based on a temperature- and humidity-specific viral decay rate, λ_v (1/s), and removal by ventilation, Q (m³/s) converted from air changes per hour (ACH). The baseline model assumed negligible ventilation (ACH 0.1). The total loss of virus-containing room air volume was calculated as: where f_V represented the facility volume (m³).

The concentration of infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles (PFU/m³) at time t remaining in the air, (C_t), was calculated by: where, σ was the viral shedding rate (PFU/s) from an infected worker and Δt the time change (1/s) from the prior one-hour time step. The virus-laden particles that remained in the air from the prior time-step (based on change in time, Δt), C_t,carry, (PFU/m³) were included in the calculation of the total viral concentration, C_t,total, (PFU/m³) at time t: The amount of virus that fell from the air, Fall_t,a (PFU), at each time-step was determined by the particle size-dependent terminal settling velocity, (m/s) (𝓋_ts), the facility surface area (m²)(f_a), and Δt as follows: Viral loss due to the aerosol terminal settling velocities and viral decay at 1h intervals was nominal, resulting in accumulation of virus-laden aerosol particles in the air over time.

2.6 Close contact transmission modeling

Close contact transmission represented exposure of the susceptible worker within 1, 2, and 3m of the infected worker to droplets (direct spray, respiration) and aerosols (respiration) that deposited into the nasal-pharyngeal region or entered the upper airways. As larger particles (>50 μm) settle out of the air at faster rates than aerosols (<50 μm), for close contact transmission we assumed that all droplets (>50-750 μm) would fall from the air over the course of each one-hour time-step. Therefore, there was no carry-over or accumulation of virus in the air associated with these large droplets between time-steps. To reflect these droplet particle dynamics, particle probability estimates (denoted pp) derived from modeling work by Wei et al., (110) were used to generate the proportion of droplets that are capable of reaching 1-3m distances as follows: Here, pp represented the probability that a droplet would reach 1-3m. This droplet-mediated viral exposure was added to the aerosol viral exposure calculated in section 2.5 to generate the close contact transmission exposures (droplets and aerosols) for 1-3m distances. The inverse of pp, ppfall, was used to calculate the viral concentration (PFU/m³) fallout from the air and available to contaminate the fomite surface (Fall_t): where, C_t is the viral concentration (PFU/m³) in the air at time t.

2.7 Fomite-mediated transmission modeling

Fomite-mediated transmission was calculated using the droplet and aerosol fallout, Fall_t,a (PFU) and Fall_t (PFU/m³) and the resulting viral contamination on the fomite surface, F_t,a and F_t,ccd (PFU), at time t:

Fallout from aerosols: Fallout from close contact droplets: where f_V was the volume of the facility (m³), H_sa was the surface area of the susceptible worker’s hand that touched the fomite surface (m²), f_a was the cross-sectional area of the facility (m²), and λ_v,fomite was the viral decay of SARS-CoV-2 on the fomite surface. The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 transferred to a hand, C_hand (PFU/h), following a tactile event at time t was calculated using an approach previously applied to influenza A virus exposure (103): where H_surface was the frequency of contacts between the hand and fomite per minute (contacts/min), F_t was the viral concentration on the fomite (PFU) at time t, F₁₂ was the proportion of virus transferred from fomite to hand, and λ_v,hand was the viral decay of SARS-CoV-2 on the hand. The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 on the hand and fallout from close contact droplets both assume first-order loss of virus infectivity.

2.8 Risk assessment

Individual and cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection risks for all three transmission pathways (droplet, aerosol, and fomite-mediated) were estimated for the susceptible worker following an 8h-shift based on exposure to each pathway.

Aerosol and droplet doses were calculated based on the infectious virus concentration in the air (C_t), lung deposition fraction (L_dep), inhalation rate (I_R), and exposure duration (E_t): The fomite-mediated dose was calculated from the viral contamination on the hand (C_hand) at time t, the frequency of hand-to-face contacts (H_face), the surface area ratio of fingers (F_sa) to hand (H_sa), the fraction of pathogens transferred from hand-to-face (F₂₃), and the exposure duration (h): The probability of infection for a given dose based on these individual and combined transmission pathway exposures was estimated using an exponential dose-response model (k_risk). This model was based on the pooled data from studies of SARS-CoV and murine hepatitis virus infection in mice by intranasal administration (105, 106): For the combined risk estimate, doses from the individual transmission pathways were assumed to be independent.

2.9 Stochastic sensitivity analysis

Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to identify the most influential parameters in the model by ranking the correlation between risk estimates (8h) and parameter values using the tornado diagram plotting function within the mc2d package in R. To examine the contribution of each parameter to the propagation and overall variability within the model, we applied the built-in “mcratio” function (111) in the mc2d R-package.

2.10 Risk mitigation intervention testing

Risk mitigation interventions were selected based on international (EU-OSHA)- and domestic (OSHA, FDA)-recommended guidance and industry practices (according to survey results from food manufacturing facility managers) for worker safety (40) and COVID-19 prevention (37). Interventions included physical distancing (1-3m), concordant universal mask use (surgical, cloth, double masking, N95), improved air changes per hour (ACH 2-8), surface disinfection (3-4 log₁₀ virus removal) (112), and hand hygiene (handwashing [2 log₁₀ virus removal (113)], alcohol-based hand sanitizer [3 log₁₀ virus removal], and glove use [100% virus removal]). Due to the variability in virus removal efficacies of surface disinfectants across products and in hand hygiene practices, we set these efficacies as point values in the model. Surface disinfection was simulated once, twice, four times and hourly per 8h-shift, and hand hygiene was simulated hourly (i.e. handwashing, hand sanitizer, glove use) (personal communications with Dr. Sanjay Gummalla, American Frozen Food Industry). All risk mitigation strategies were assumed to be implemented with 100% compliance and in the manner specified. Parameters associated with the interventions (see Supplementary Materials) were based on controlled laboratory studies.