Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Exhaled Aerosols and Efficacy of Masks During Early Mild Infection
===========================================================================================

* Oluwasanmi O. Adenaiye
* Jianyu Lai
* P. Jacob Bueno de Mesquita
* Filbert Hong
* Somayeh Youssefi
* Jennifer German
* S.-H. Sheldon Tai
* Barbara Albert
* Maria Schanz
* Stuart Weston
* Jun Hang
* Christian Fung
* Hye Kyung Chung
* Kristen K. Coleman
* Nicolae Sapoval
* Todd Treangen
* Irina Maljkovic Berry
* Kristin Mullins
* Matthew Frieman
* Tianzhou Ma
* Donald K. Milton
* for the University of Maryland StopCOVID Research Group

## Abstract

**Background** SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology implicates airborne transmission; mask source-control efficacy for, variant impact on, and infectiousness of aerosols are not well understood.

**Methods** We recruited COVID-19 cases to give blood, saliva, mid-turbinate and fomite (phone) swabs, and 30-minute breath samples while vocalizing into a Gesundheit-II, with and without masks at up to two visits two days apart. We quantified and sequenced viral RNA, cultured virus, and assayed sera for anti-spike and anti-receptor binding domain antibodies.

**Results** We enrolled 61 participants with active infection, May 2020 through April 2021. Among 49 seronegative cases (mean days post onset 3.8 ±2.1), we detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 45% of fine (≤5 µm), 31% of coarse (>5 µm) aerosols, and 65% of fomite samples overall and in all samples from four alpha variant cases. Masks reduced viral RNA by 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 72%) in fine and by 77% (95% CI, 51 to 89%) in coarse aerosols. The alpha variant was associated with a 43-fold (95% CI, 6.6 to 280-fold) increase in fine aerosol viral RNA that remained a significant 18-fold (95% CI, 3.4 to 92-fold) increase adjusting for viral RNA in saliva, in mid-turbinate swabs, and other potential confounders. Two fine aerosol samples, collected days 2-3 post illness onset, while participants wore masks, were culture-positive.

**Conclusion** SARS-CoV-2 is evolving toward more efficient airborne transmission and loose-fitting masks provide significant but only modest source control. Therefore, until vaccination rates are very high, continued layered controls and tight-fitting masks and respirators will be necessary.

**Key Points**

*   Cases exhale infectious viral aerosols.

*   SARS-CoV-2 is evolving toward more efficient airborne transmission.

*   Loose-fitting masks significantly but moderately reduce viral RNA aerosol.

*   Tight-fitting masks or respirators and ventilation/air cleaning are essential for worker protection in public-facing or crowded indoor workplaces.

Key words
*   SARS-CoV-2
*   exhaled breath aerosol
*   face masks
*   airborne infection
*   SARS-CoV-2 variants

## Introduction

The World Health Organization[1] and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[2] recently acknowledged the growing scientific consensus that inhalation exposure is an important route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission[3,4]. The totality of evidence from epidemiologic and outbreak investigations, combined with data on the size distribution of exhaled aerosols and corresponding quantitative models, is compelling[4]. However, culture of the virus from exhaled aerosols, and direct measures of the efficacy of face masks as viral aerosol source control when worn by actual patients have been lacking. Previous reports of infectious virus[5,6] and viral RNA concentrations in room air[7,8] do not provide a clear picture of how much virus infected persons shed into the air. These gaps lead to uncertainty in estimates of exposure, derived from retrospective analysis of outbreaks[9]. New variants also appear more transmissible, but more quantitative data is needed to discern what that means for implementing effective non-pharmaceutical interventions – still a mainstay of infection protection.

We collected exhaled breath aerosol samples from polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases infected with SARS-CoV-2, including alpha and earlier variants, circulating in a university campus community using a Gesundheit-II (G-II) exhaled breath sampler[10,11]. We measured concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and recovered infectious virus from respiratory swabs, saliva, and aerosols, analyzed the effectiveness of face masks as source control, and examined the impact of the alpha variant on aerosol shedding.

## Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of the Navy. Electronically signed informed consent was obtained and questionnaire data were collected and stored with REDCap[12].

We recruited participants with active infection (defined as positive qRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory swab or saliva samples) from the University of Maryland College Park campus and surrounding community though a) daily symptom reporting and weekly pooled saliva testing from a cohort of 238 volunteers, b) direct recruiting of recently diagnosed cases targeting local clinics and campus isolation facilities, and c) frequent testing of close contacts of cases for two weeks following last contact. Recruited cases and close contacts completed online consents and a questionnaire (see Supplemental Methods) before in-person confirmation of consent and specimen collection at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. For contacts, we collected a blood specimen for serology at the first visit and measured oral temperature, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and collected a mid-turbinate swab (MTS) from each nostril and a saliva sample, at approximately two-day intervals.

Cohort members with a positive saliva sample, recently-diagnosed cases, and contacts with a positive test during follow-up were invited for viral shedding assessment visits on two days separated by one day. Venous blood was collected at the first visit; MTS, saliva, phone/tablet swab, and 30-minute G-II exhaled breath samples were collected at each visit[10,11]. We asked participants to provide paired breath samples at each visit with the first collected while wearing a face mask and a second without a mask[13]. We tested the mask brought by the participant and a surgical mask that we provided, and randomized which was tested at the first and second visit to avoid a systematic order bias. Cases studied before September 2020 were asked to repeat the alphabet three times within the 30-minute sampling period, as previously described [13]. Subsequent cases were asked to shout “Go Terps” 30 times and sing “Happy Birthday” loudly three times at 5, 15, and 25 minutes into each 30-minute sampling period. Participants with more severe symptoms sometimes opted to give only one 30-minute breath sample; for these participants, sampling without a face mask was given priority.

### Symptom evaluation

Symptoms were self-reported and measured on a scale of 0-3 and composite scores were sums of individual symptom scores for systemic, gastrointestinal, lower respiratory, and upper respiratory symptoms as previously described[10], see Supplementary Information [SI] for additional details.

### Sample preparation

MTS and phone/tablet swabs were eluted in 1 mL of Universal Transport Media (BD). MTS from both nostrils were combined. G-II coarse and fine aerosol samples were concentrated, resulting in a 1-mL final sample volume as previously described.[10] One aliquot each of MTS and saliva samples were kept at 4 °C for immediate qRT-PCR. All other aliquots were stored at −80 °C until further analysis.

### Laboratory analyses

Specific laboratory analysis details can be found in the SI. Cohort saliva was processed using the SalivaDirect method[14]. For all other samples, nucleic acids were extracted with MagMax Pathogen RNA/DNA Kit (Applied Biosystems) on KingFisher Duo Prime (Thermo Scientific), following manufacturer protocols specific to sample type. Viral RNA was detected and quantified using the TaqPath COVID-19 Real Time PCR Assay Multiplex and coinfection of samples was determined using the TaqMan Array Card (both Thermo Scientific). RNA copy numbers are reported per mL for saliva and per sample for all other sample types. The limit of detection (LOD) was 75 copies/sample and the limit of quantification (LOQ) was 250 copies/sample (SI).

Viral infectivity was measured by first propagating virus on Vero E6 cells stably expressing TMPRSS2 then transferring the media to A549 cells stably expressing human ACE2 (A549-ACE2). Infected A549-ACE2 cells were quantified using immunofluorescence staining with anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody (Sino Biological 40143-R004) and Hoechst 33342 (Invitrogen H3570), and imaging with a Celigo Imaging Cytometer (Nexcelom) (Figures S1, S2). Plasma was analyzed for IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a modified protocol described by Stadlbauer et al., 2020[15]. MTS and saliva samples were sequenced at the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research or the University of Maryland Institute for Genome Sciences. SARS-CoV-2 lineages and mutations were determined using PANGOLIN and Nextstrain tools[16,17].

### Statistical analysis

We included analysis of all actively infected cases recruited from the campus and surrounding community over the course of one year. To ensure comparability of with and without mask samples in the analysis of mask efficacy, we included only paired same-day samples collected with and without a face mask from the same person and controlled for numbers of coughs during each sampling session.

Data curation, cleaning, analysis, and visualization were performed using R Studio and R (version 4.1.0)[18], with R packages lme4, lmec, and ggplot2[19]. We made group comparison between seronegative and seropositive cases using two-sample t-test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. To handle censored observations below the limit of detection, we applied linear mixed-effect models with censored responses[20,21] and included nested random effects of samples within each case, and replicates within samples. The geometric means and standard deviations of viral RNA copy numbers for all sample types and the effect of the predictors of viral RNA shedding were estimated from the model. Deidentified data and code for the accepted manuscript will be made available on github.

## Results

Sixty-one people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection (recent onset and positive PCR for MTS or saliva) were enrolled in exhaled breath testing: 3 from a weekly saliva testing cohort, 43 from among 55 recently diagnosed COVID-19 cases, and 15 from among 62 contacts of cases followed to detect early onset of infection (Figure S3). Eight people (13%) with active infection had either IgM or IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at the first breath testing visit and four were unable to give a venous blood sample.

The 57 participants with known serologic status at the time of breath sampling (49 seronegative, 8 seropositive) were enrolled from zero to 12 days post onset of symptoms or first positive test (Table 1, Figure S4). The seronegative cases included all participants with prior singing experience and alpha variant infection – there were no other significant differences between seropositive and seronegative groups including frequency of loss of taste/smell, other symptoms, temperature and oxygen saturation. All cases were asymptomatic or mild at the time of study. No volunteer was taking antiviral medication at the time of breath sample collection and no co-infections were identified.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population

### Seronegative cases

Among seronegative participants, 4 (8%) were infected with the alpha and none with delta or other variants associated with increased transmissibility[22] (Table S1). Symptoms tended to be more pronounced at the first shedding visit and two participants were febrile at the second shedding visit (Figures S5-S6). Each of the 4 seronegative alpha variant cases had detectable concentrations of viral RNA in all MTS, saliva, fomite, and aerosol samples (Table 2). Among the remaining seronegative participants, we detected viral RNA in all MTS, 99% of saliva, 49% of fomite, 19% of coarse-, and 31% of fine-aerosol samples. The geometric mean concentrations of viral RNA were significantly greater for all sample types collected from alpha variant cases.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/T2)

Table 2. 
Viral RNA from cases seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the first assessment

### Exhaled breath viral RNA from seronegative cases without masks

Viral RNA content of 30-minute breath aerosol samples was similar to the amount of RNA recovered from participants’ mobile phones (Table 2). The frequency of detection of viral RNA in aerosols was greatest 2-5 days post onset of symptoms or first positive test (Figure S7) but was not a significant predictor of the quantity of viral RNA in the aerosols (Table 3). Viral RNA in MTS and saliva were moderately correlated (Figure S8: *ρ*=0.46) but only RNA in MTS was a strong predictor of viral load in aerosols (Table 3, Figures S9, S10). The quantity of viral RNA in the fine-aerosol fraction was 1.9-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 2.9-fold) greater than in the coarse-aerosol fraction (not shown).

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/T3)

Table 3. 
Predictors of viral RNA shedding among seronegative participants

### Effect of alpha variant infection on viral RNA shedding from seronegative cases

Alpha variant infection was associated with significantly greater amounts of viral RNA shedding than infection with earlier strains and variants. In bivariate analyses of samples collected without masks (Tables 3 and S3), the alpha variant was associated with significantly greater viral RNA shedding than wild-type and other variants not associated with increased transmissibility. Fine-aerosol shedding remained significantly greater for alpha variant infections (18-fold, 95% CI, 3.4 to 92-fold) after adjusting for the increased viral RNA in MTS and saliva, the number of coughs during sampling sessions, and symptoms (Table 3). We also analyzed the impact of alpha variants on shedding using the larger data set, including samples collected with and without masks. After controlling for the effect of masks and numbers of coughs during sampling, alpha variant infection was associated with a 100-fold (95% CI, 16 to 650-fold) increase in coarse- and a 73-fold (95% CI, 15 to 350-fold) increase in fine-aerosol RNA shedding (Table 3).

### Effect of masks on viral RNA shedding from seronegative cases

We observed statistically significant reductions in aerosol shedding after adjusting for number of coughs during sampling sessions: 77% (95% CI, 51% to 89%) reduction for coarse and 48% (95% CI, 3% to 72%) for fine aerosols (Figure 1). Analysis of the interaction of masks and the alpha variant (Table 3) confirmed that mask performance was not significantly different for alpha variant infections. The types of face masks brought by participants varied and progressed from single-layer homemade and an imported decorative scarf-mask early in the study to homemade and commercial double-layer cloth masks, surgical masks, double masks, and a KN95 over the course of the year (Table S4). We did not observe a significant difference between surgical masks and a composite of the various cloth masks studied (Table S5).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/F1)

Figure 1. 
Viral RNA shedding in paired with and without face mask samples. Viral RNA measured during 69 same-day paired sampling events with and without mask from 46 seronegative cases. Samples with no detected viral RNA were assigned a copy number value of one. Exhaled breath aerosols were obtained in 30-minute sampling durations. “+mask” = sample collected while wearing a face mask. MTS = mid-turbinate swab, Fomite = swab of participant’s mobile phone.

### Seropositive cases

Eight participants had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at the time of breath sample collection. Seropositive cases tended to cough more than seronegative cases (Table 1) but none of the exhaled aerosol samples from seropositive cases had detectable viral RNA (Table S6).

### Virus cultures

Among samples subjected to virus culture, we detected infectious virus (Figure S2) in 50 (68%) of 73 MTS and 20 (32%) of 62 saliva samples from seronegative participants (Figure 2, Table S2a). The RNA concentration associated with a 50% probability of a positive culture was 7.8 × 105 for MTS and 5.2 × 106 for saliva (Figure S11, Table S7). None of the 75 fine-aerosol samples collected while not wearing face masks were culture-positive. Two (3%) of the 66 fine-aerosol samples collected from participants while wearing face masks were culture-positive, including one from a person infected with the alpha variant 2 days post onset and one from a person with a Nextstrain clade 20G virus 3 days post onset. Fomite and coarse-aerosol samples subjected to culture were negative.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/13/2021.08.13.21261989/F2)

Figure 2. 
Viral RNA content and culture results of samples from all sampling events for seronegative cases. Samples with no detected viral RNA were assigned a copy number value of one. Exhaled breath aerosols were obtained during 30-minute sampling events and included unpaired with and without face mask samples. Five fine aerosol samples with face mask and three fomite samples were not available for culture. A subset of MTS, saliva, and coarse aerosol samples were subjected to culture. MTS = mid-turbinate swab, Fomite = swab of participant’s mobile phone.

## Discussion

Alpha variant infection yielded one to two orders of magnitude more viral RNA in exhaled breath when compared with earlier strains and variants not associated with increased transmissibility. Our observation of increased aerosol shedding, even after controlling for the increased amounts of viral RNA in the nose and mouth, suggests that evolutionary pressure is selecting for SARS-CoV-2 capable of more efficient airborne transmission.

We recovered infectious virus from two exhaled breath fine-aerosol samples, approximately two-thirds of MTS, and one-third of saliva samples. Logistic regression analysis of the MTS and saliva samples suggests that there is a small but measurable probability that each RNA copy represents an infectious viral particle consistent with previous dose-response models of infectious viruses[23]. The probability of detecting infectious virus in our cell culture system may be as high as 10−4 per RNA copy in saliva samples with 102 copies. We recovered infectious virus from one of the two fine-aerosol samples with >104 RNA copies per sample, where the estimated probability of a positive culture was 8% per sample, based on the regression model. The other culture-positive aerosol sample was one of 98 aerosol samples below the 75-copy limit of detection for RNA. This observation is consistent with a previous report of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in an aerosol sample with very low RNA copy numbers[5], and may suggest that virus particles in respiratory aerosols contain fewer defective virions than MTS, or that the fluid is less likely to interfere with viral cell attachment and entry than are nasal secretions and saliva. It is likely that human airway epithelium is more susceptible to infection than laboratory cell cultures[24].

The assorted face masks used by the study volunteers produced significant, albeit modest, reductions in the amount of viral RNA in exhaled breath, supporting their use as source control. Consistent with previous studies of influenza, SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was shed more abundantly in fine than coarse aerosol and masks were more effective at blocking release of coarse aerosol[10,13,25,26]. The effectiveness of face masks for blocking release of fine aerosol (1.9-fold) was similar to the effectiveness we previously reported for influenza (2.8-fold). However, the 4.3-fold (or 77%) reduction in coarse aerosol was significantly less than the 25-fold reduction previously observed for influenza shedding[13]. This discrepancy likely arose because the more vigorous and extended vocalizations in the current study would be expected to maximize leakage around loose-fitting face masks. Face masks worked equally well for containing alpha variant and “wild-type” aerosol shedding.

Viral RNA aerosol collected from 22 COVID-19 patients in Singapore using a G-II measured similar RNA copy numbers and overall rates of positive breath samples (59% versus 51% here) during singing and loud talking as observed here[27]. A majority (68%) of the cases studied in Singapore were infected by variants associated with increased transmissibility, while 18% of infections were not variants of concern or interest, and each case was sampled on only one day. By comparison, our sample included more “wild-type” infections and sampling days per person allowing analysis of the impact of variants on shedding. One delta variant was studied in Singapore and none in this study. The shedding rates detected using the G-II in both studies, however, were lower than those reported by Ma et al. using a sampler that requires subjects to blow through a narrow straw[28]. Ma et al. and our data are in agreement that among persons infected with “wild-type” strains, a minority (26% and 31%, respectively) shed detectable levels of viral RNA into aerosols. However, our data on alpha variant infections and the data from Singapore suggest that this is changing and most cases may now be shedding viral aerosols more frequently. We have yet to enroll cases with the delta variant and study them using the Maryland protocol to test the expectation, based on our current findings, that delta will be associated with an additional large increase in aerosol shedding.

Our study had several limitations. Although we attempted to identify and test cases early through weekly testing of a cohort and intensive follow-up of close contacts, most cases were still studied several days after onset of symptoms or first positive test. This likely resulted in missing the most contagious period[29,30]. Furthermore, all cases were mild at the time of testing and only two went on to have moderate severity and require hospitalization. As a result, our data may not represent the full spectrum of shedding. The types of face masks worn by participants changed over the course of the study, as did the quality of surgical masks that we could purchase. Therefore, we cannot report on the efficacy of specific loose-fitting masks. This work does, however, provide information on the average amount of source control provided by community masking. Finally, logistical considerations required that we freeze samples between collection and culture, with potential loss of infectiousness, especially for dilute aerosol specimens.

Overall, our results demonstrate that people with mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections released infectious aerosols in their exhaled breath. Face masks provided significant source control suggesting that community-wide masking even with loose-fitting masks can reduce viral aerosols in indoor air by half, making a significant contribution to reducing the spread of COVID-19. Our data also suggest that the virus is evolving toward more effective dissemination through aerosols and demonstrate that infectious virus can escape from loose-fitting masks. With the dominance of newer, more contagious variants than those we studied, increased attention to improved ventilation, filtration, air sanitation, and use of high-quality tight-fitting face masks or respirators (e.g., ASTM F3502-21 face-coverings or NIOSH approved N95 filtering face-piece and elastomeric respirators) for respiratory protection will be increasingly important for controlling the pandemic. This will be especially true where vaccination rates are low, vaccine is not available, and for people with poor immune responses or waning immunity. Therefore, our data support community mask mandates and tight-fitting masks or respirators for workers in healthcare but also in all workplaces where people are sharing indoor air or have frequent public contact.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Information [[supplements/261989_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

Deidentified data and code for the accepted manuscript will be made available on github.

## Disclaimers and Funding

Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The investigators have adhered to the policies for protection of human subjects as prescribed in AR 70–25. The View(s) expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Departments of the Army, Navy or Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of these agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred.

This work was supported by Prometheus-UMD, sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) BTO under the auspices of Col. Matthew Hepburn through agreement N66001-18-2-4015. This work was also supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS), Grant Number HHSN272201400008C, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Contract Number 200-2020-09528. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of these funding agencies and no official endorsement should be inferred.

This work was also supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and a generous gift from The Flu Lab ([https://theflulab.org](https://theflulab.org)). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Jacques Ravel, Dr. Luke Tallon, and the Institute of Genome Sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine for performing deep sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 samples. We also thank Dr. Jamal Fadul and his clinic in College Park, Maryland, for assistance in recruiting study participants.

## Footnotes

*   * Dr. Donald K. Milton, University of Maryland School of Public Health, 4200 Valley Drive, College Park, MD 20742 email: dmilton{at}umd.edu; phone: 301-405-0389 (Alternate: Dr. Filbert Hong, at the same address, email fhong{at}umd.edu, phone: 301-405-4081)

*   Received August 13, 2021.
*   Revision received August 13, 2021.
*   Accepted August 13, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted? 2021. Available at: [https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted](https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted). Accessed 31 May 2021.
    
    

2.  2.CDC. Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. 2021. Available at: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html). Accessed 8 May 2021.
    
    

3.  3.Morawska L, Milton DK. It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:2311–2313.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciaa939&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

4.  4.Greenhalgh T, Jimenez JL, Prather KA, Tufekci Z, Fisman D, Schooley R. Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet 2021; 397:1603–1605.
    
    

5.  5.Lednicky JA, Lauzardo M, Fan ZH, et al. Viable SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 100:476–482.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.025&link_type=DOI) 

6.  6.Lednicky JA, Lauzardo M, Alam MdM, et al. Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from the air in a car driven by a COVID patient with mild illness. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 2021. Available at: [http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.01.12.21249603](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2021.01.12.21249603). Accessed 1 February 2021.
    
    

7.  7.Chia PY, Coleman KK, Tan YK, et al. Detection of air and surface contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in hospital rooms of infected patients. Nat Commun 2020; 11:2800.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-020-16670-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32472043&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

8.  8.Liu Y, Ning Z, Chen Y, et al. Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two Wuhan hospitals. Nature 2020; 582:557–560.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

9.  9.Miller SL, Nazaroff WW, Jimenez JL, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by inhalation of respiratory aerosol in the Skagit Valley Chorale superspreading event. Indoor Air 2020;
    
    

10. 10.Yan J, Grantham M, Pantelic J, et al. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2018; 115:1081–1086.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTE1LzUvMTA4MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA4LzEzLzIwMjEuMDguMTMuMjEyNjE5ODkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

11. 11.McDevitt JJ, Koutrakis P, Ferguson ST, et al. Development and Performance Evaluation of an Exhaled-Breath Bioaerosol Collector for Influenza Virus. Aerosol Sci Technol 2013; 47:444–451.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/02786826.2012.762973&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23418400&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

12. 12.Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2019; 95:103208.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31078660&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

13. 13.Milton DK, Fabian MP, Cowling BJ, Grantham ML, McDevitt JJ. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog 2013; 9:e1003205.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23505369&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

14. 14.Vogels CBF, Brackney D, Wang J, et al. SalivaDirect: Simple and sensitive molecular diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 2020. Available at: [http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167791). Accessed 17 August 2020.
    
    

15. 15.Stadlbauer D, Amanat F, Chromikova V, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion in Humans: A Detailed Protocol for a Serological Assay, Antigen Production, and Test Setup. Current Protocols in Microbiology 2020; 57:e100.
    
    

16. 16.O’Toole Á, Hill V, McCrone JT, Scher E, Rambaut A. cov-lineages/pangolin. CoV-lineages, 2021. Available at: [https://github.com/cov-lineages/pangolin](https://github.com/cov-lineages/pangolin). Accessed 15 July 2021.
    
    

17. 17. Trevor Bedford,  Richard Nehe,  James Hadfield, et al. Nextstrain SARS-CoV-2 resources. 2020. Available at: [https://nextstrain.org/sars-cov-2/](https://nextstrain.org/sars-cov-2/). Accessed 29 July 2021.
    
    

18. 18.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021. Available at: [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/).
    
    

19. 19.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Springer International Publishing, 2016. Available at: [https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319242750](https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319242750). Accessed 11 June 2020.
    
    

20. 20.Vaida F, Fitzgerald AP, DeGruttola V. Efficient Hybrid EM for Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models with Censored Response. Comput Stat Data Anal 2007; 51:5718–5730.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.csda.2006.09.036&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19578533&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249316000022&link_type=ISI) 

21. 21.Vaida F, Liu L. Fast Implementation for Normal Mixed Effects Models With Censored Response. J Comput Graph Stat 2009; 18:797–817.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1198/jcgs.2009.07130&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25829836&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

22. 22.CDC. SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions. 2021. Available at: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html). Accessed 12 July 2021.
    
    

23. 23.Haas CN. Estimation of risk due to low doses of microorganisms: a comparison of alternative methodologies. Am J Epidemiol 1983; 118:573–582.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113662&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6637984&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1983RL60900013&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Pohl MO, Busnadiego I, Kufner V, et al. SARS-CoV-2 variants reveal features critical for replication in primary human cells. PLoS Biol 2021; 19:e3001006.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33760807&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

25. 25.Lindsley WG, Noti JD, Blachere FM, et al. Viable influenza A virus in airborne particles from human coughs. J Occup Environ Hyg 2015; 12:107–113.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/15459624.2014.973113&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Leung NHL, Chu DKW, Shiu EYC, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med 2020; 26:676–680.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32371934&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

27. 27.Coleman KK, Tay DJW, Tan KS, et al. Viral Load of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Aerosols Emitted by COVID-19 Patients while Breathing, Talking, and Singing. medRxiv 2021; :2021.07.15.21260561.
    
    

28. 28.Ma J, Qi X, Chen H, et al. COVID-19 patients in earlier stages exhaled millions of SARS-CoV-2 per hour. Clin Infect Dis 2020; Available at: [https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1283/5898624](https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1283/5898624).
    
    

29. 29.He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature Medicine 2020; 26:672–675.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M20-3012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F08%2F13%2F2021.08.13.21261989.atom) 

30. 30.Yang Q, Saldi TK, Gonzales PK, et al. Just 2% of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals carry 90% of the virus circulating in communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2021; 118:e2104547118.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxODoiMTE4LzIxL2UyMTA0NTQ3MTE4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDgvMTMvMjAyMS4wOC4xMy4yMTI2MTk4OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)