Covid-19 Exposure Assessment Tool (CEAT): Easy-to-use tool to quantify exposure based on airflow, group behavior, and infection prevalence in the community

Lead Contacts

Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the Lead Contacts, Afshin Beheshti (afshin.beheshti{at}nasa.gov) and Brian Schimmoller (bschimmoller{at}signaturescience.com).

Materials Availability

This study did not generate new unique reagents.

Data and Code Availability

The published article includes all datasets generated and analyzed during this study. Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the lead contact upon request.

Relative Dose Ratio Approach and Exposure Risk Model Derivation

CEAT’s relative dose ratio approach is based upon a mechanistic dose-response framework. The starting point for the inhalation dose model is to use the relationship that defines group-wide inhalation dose as a linear system where: and Q_Inhalation is the average inhalation rate for the group, C is the average concentration of the agent (in this case, aerosols containing SARS-CoV-2), Δt is the duration of group exposure, and Pe_Total is the number of people exposed in the group, which we assume is equal to the total number of people in the group. The E_{Group Dose} represents the total mass of contaminant that enters the respiratory tracts of all of the group by inhalation over the duration of the potential exposure or event. The fate or dynamics of the virus within the respiratory tract are not considered in the model and would be part of a transmission process. The critical variable that must be estimated by the model is the concentration of virus-containing aerosols that occurs as a result of the exhalation (i.e., breathing, speaking, coughing, singing) from people who are in close proximity and build up in a room over time.

There are a variety of ways of estimating concentration of contaminants in the air. Several commonly used methods include well-mixed box (WMB) models (Reinke and Keil 2009), computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models (Anthony 2009), and gaussian dispersion models (Stockie 2011). Computational fluid dynamics based models uses numerical solutions of the first principle equations of fluid flow and contaminant transport that are tailored to the specific geometry, scale and temporal lengths, and flow regimes, and are capable of modeling the complexities of particle dynamics, inhalation, exhalation, and interaction with flows in a building (Anthony 2009). Gaussian models use an explicit solution of the contaminant transport equations, and are, therefore, computationally fast compared to CFD models. Gaussian models are typically used at larger scale lengths (100s of meters or more) and are used in outside environments, not typically used in indoor modeling (Zannetti 1990). The WMB model is a simple model that can be used to estimate concentrations of contaminants in the air. It treats a room as if it were a continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) and uses the basic equations for concentration that were developed for modeling continuous reactors in chemical engineering.

The WMB (or zone) approach is widely used, and, for example, is the basis for the National Institutes of Standard and Technology’s (NIST’s) CONTAM indoor air quality model (Dols and Polidoro 2015). NIST has also applied a single zone WMB approach in its Fate and Transport of Indoor Microbiological Aerosols (FaTIMA), where it assumes rooms are single well-mixed zones (Dols et al. 2020).

The basic equation for the single zone WMB is shown below: where V is the volume of the box, Q_vent is the ventilation rate (in units of volume per time) through the box, and is the emission rate (in units of mass per time) (Fig. S1B).

If we assume the emission rate is constant starting at time equals zero, the time varying equation takes the form: Once enough time has passed to achieve equilibrium, the model takes the simple form: The basic simplifying assumption of the WMB model is that it assumes that a contaminant is instantaneously completely mixed throughout a volume of air. This instantaneously well-mixed assumption is a significant limitation when looking to determine the exposure between people in a room or space if they are in close proximity relative to the size of the room. The single zone well-mixed assumption results in the same exposure no matter how close or far people are located. Accordingly, methods that can assess the potential for higher concentrations (and exposures) that would result between closely clustered people would be useful for quantifying exposure, doses and associated risks.

Near Field (NF) and Far Field (FF) Box Model

In the field of industrial hygiene, it is recognized that the single zone box model may underestimate exposures experienced by receptors (i.e., people) close to a hazard, since it assumes that the concentration is instantaneously well-mixed over the volume of the room (Jaycock et al., 2011). While computational fluid dynamics is one option to resolve the spatial complexity of dispersion and mixing of a contaminant, industrial hygienists have devised a simpler way of estimating the high concentrations near a source using a “box within a box,” with an inner box or near field (NF) box containing the contaminant source and a receptor, and a larger, far field (FF), box that represents entire volume (e.g., room). (Fig. S1C) The time dependent concentration at the receptor is estimated by adding the NF and FF concentration contributions (Nicas 2009a; Nicas 2014). where, is the continuous mass release rate per minute of the contaminant of concern, Q_NF (or as referred to by Nicas as β) is the NF volumetric flow rate (m³ per minute), Q_FF is the FF volumetric flow rate (m³ per minute), V_NF is the NF volume (m³), V_FF is the FF volume (or volume of the room or activity space) (m³), and Δt (minutes) is the elapsed time since the start of the release.

If one assumes both boxes to be at equilibrium, the equation takes the simpler form: Calculating the ventilation rates, Q_NF (or as referred to by Nicas as β) and Q_FF using the room volume and appropriate air change rate specific for each volume yields: where ACH_NF is the NF air change rate (hr^-1), and ACH_FF is the FF air change rate (hr^-1). For the time dependent form, since the volumes in the exponential term cancel themselves out, the following results: In the application of NF and FF models, it is recommended (Nicas 2009a; Nicas 2016) that the NF flow rate, Q_NF (or β), be equal to where FSA is the free surface area of the assumed NF control volume and S is a random air speed (instantaneous in random direction) at the interface of the NF and FF zones and is used assuming that half of the air volume is entering the control volume and half of the air is leaving the control volume. Further, Nicas recommends using s=15.1 meters per minute (50 feet per minute) when strong air currents are present and s=3.0 meters per minute (10 feet per minute) when air currents are lacking near the NF zone (Nicas 2014). A median random air speed for indoor office and home spaces was observed by Baldwin and Mayard, 1998 (Baldwin and Maynard 1998) to between 0.05 and 0.1 meters per second. Nicas, 2014 (Nicas 2014), referencing Baldwin and Mayard, 1998 (Baldwin and Maynard 1998), recommends that the typical value of 0.06 meters per second (3.6 meters per minute), may be used with the FSA approach in indoor settings. Accordingly, in ACH_NF can be calculated using the FSA approach as follows: As we will show, the FSA approach when applied using typical values for median random airspeed did not predict concentrations that align well with measured data. Accordingly, we have devised an alternative way of calculating the ACH_NF using an effective value for the random air speed we call s_eff that varies with distance from the source and is derived from an estimate of the eddy diffusivity. To do this we examined the gaussian/ eddy diffusivity equations and show that the NF/FF equations can equivalent in certain cases to the continuous, gaussian solution of the dispersion equation when there is no advection (i.e., mean wind speed is equal to zero). Through this analysis, we can formulate a NF/FF model that uses eddy diffusivity rather than relying on the Baldwin and Mayard, 1998 reported random air speed to provide the mixing dynamics. To illustrate this, we start with side-by-side derivations for 1) a continuous point release using the gaussian approach, 2) the NN/FF model using a spherical NF volume, and 3) the NN/FF model using a hexagonal prism NF volume, as shown in Table S4. In all three cases, we arrive at equations for concentration that are nearly identical. Assuming the same values were used for K and distance from the source, all three representations would provide nearly the same result – even the hexagonal prism representation since 6 is within five percent of 2π.

The challenge in using an eddy diffusivity model is determining the appropriate value for K (Nicas 2009b). It is important to note that in the derivation of the gaussian solution, the value for K is assumed to be constant over the domain (Stockie 2011). The form of the equation for K that we arrive at, K = x ⋅ s, is similar to the form suggested by Venkatram and Weil, 2021 (Venkatram and Weil 2021), K = α ⋅ u ⋅ l. Venkatram and Weil, 2021 (Venkatram and Weil 2021) describe α as a dimensionless value that would be determined experimentally; u is a representative velocity, and l was a representative length. For now we will assume that α = 1, such that in our case K = D ⋅ s.

Cheng et al. 2011 (Cheng et al. 2011) show a relationship between the air change rate for a room and the eddy diffusivity using experimental measurements of carbon monoxide released in two indoor environments. The data from these experiments are presented in their paper and in Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012 (Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012). These approaches capture the additional turbulent kinetic energy that is added to the system through the higher air changes through ventilation or increased mixing of the air (e.g., through the HVAC system circulating the air) (Cheng et al. 2011; Venkatram and Weil 2021). This approach provides for a constant eddy diffusivity within the room and does not suggest dependency of the eddy diffusivity on the distance from the source. The recommend the eddy diffusivity (m² sec^-1) is calculated using the mechanical ACH_FF (air change rate in hr^-1) and, V, the overall volume of the room (m³), as follows: Venkatram and Weil, 2021(Venkatram and Weil 2021), using the same datasets suggest a more simple but similar relationship: Foat, et al., 2020 (Foat et al. 2020) recommend a similar relationship that was arrived at through CFD simulations over a wide of range of indoor parameters: where N equals to the number of inlet vents for the room. Foat, et al., 2020 (Foat et al. 2020) looked at a range of room volumes between 50 m³ and 5000 m³, floor aspect ratios (length/width) between 1-3, height/(floor area)² ratio between 0.1 and 1.5, and air change rate between 0.6 and 19.9 hr^-1. In most modern buildings, the number of vents would increase with increasing volume or area. Across the range of 235 scenarios that were modeled, the number of vents per 100 m² of area ranged from 3.8 to 8 vents per 100 m² (excluding the four extreme values of approximately 50 vents per 100 m²), and averaged 4.6 vents per 100 m². To limit the number of variables that the user needs to know or determine to use CEAT, we replace N with a relationship between the area of the room and a reasonable number of vents per unit area, examining values ranging from 3 to 8 vents per 100 m².

By combining the two representations of the eddy diffusivity equations and assuming that the product of D and s is a constant, we can calculate an effective velocity s_eff (in m min^-1) that is consistent with a constant eddy diffusivity at all distances from the source. Below are the Venkatram and Weil, 2021(Venkatram and Weil 2021) and Foat, et al., 2020 (Foat et al. 2020) solutions for K expressed as s_eff(in m min^-1): Since all three K and ACH relationships are constant with respect to D, the product of D ⋅ s_eff is a constant, thus any change in s is inversely proportional with the change in D. Therefore, as D increases moving away from a source, the value of s_eff decreases.

Now we come back to the relationship of K = α ⋅ u ⋅ l or expressed in our variables K = α ⋅ s_eff ⋅ D and define α, adjustments for the eddy diffusivity, as a means of capturing any dependency of K on distance from the source and adjustment to the dependence on ACH in the form (should measurement data indicate there are dependencies): Substituting the equation for K into our original equation and rearranging so that the FSA of the hexagon is still calculated, we arrive at: and ACH_NF is To calculate an average inhalation dose over a period of time, assuming that the initial concentration is zero (C(0) = 0) from a single source, we estimate the average dose by calculating the concentration at the midpoint of the duration, . As the duration increases, the factors and will converge on 1. Given that ACH_NF is likely greater than ACH_FF the factor will converge faster than the factor . Meaning, the near field term will achieve equilibrium faster than the far field term.

Validation the of the Single Source Equation with Measurement Data

We compare predictions calculated using Equation S20 to measurements of chemical and aerosol releases in indoor environments that characterize concentrations at various distances from sources. We included data from carbon monoxide (CO) releases in two homes (Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012; Cheng et al. 2014)(Acevedo-Bolton,et al., 2012), toluene releases in a test chamber (Zhang et al. 2009), benzene releases in an industrial environment (Nicas et al. 2007) and liquid aerosols containing lactose released to simulate an actual COVID-19 transmission incident that occured in a Swiss court room (Vernez et al. 2021). The study of carbon monoxide (CO) releases (Cheng et al. 2011; Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012; Cheng et al. 2014) occurred in two residential homes where seventeen separate 8-hour tests with continuous emission rates were conducted. Measurement distances from the source ranged from 0.25 meters through to 5 meters. The chamber tests conducted by Zhang, et al., 2007 involved simultaneous measurements at four points that were 0.1 meters from a release point. Across the dataset, the distance from the source varied between 0.1 meters and 5 meters, the room volumes varied between 3 m³ and 50,000 m³, and the air changes per hour between 0.17 and 218 hr^-1. We also examined an example case that was presented by Nicas 2009 (Nicas 2009a), where the conventional NF/FF approach is applied.

Examination of the performance of the three eddy diffusivity models (assuming that no adjustment is necessary and that value of α = 1 for the expression in Eq. S17) shows that the best model above 0.75 hr^-1 is the Foat, et al., 2020 (Foat et al. 2020) equation with an R² = 0.94 (Fig. S2B) when the number of vents per 100 m² is equal to 4. The best model below 0.75 hr^-1 is the Venkatram and Weil, 2021 (Venkatram and Weil 2021) model, with an R² = 0.92 (Fig. S2A). Acevedo-Bolton,et al. 2012 (Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012) show in their analysis that the carbon monoxide sensors (measuring at 15 second time intervals) at 0.25 meters were likely seeing concentrations that were above the upper limits of the instrument’s data logger (between 128 and 150 ppm), resulting in an underestimate of average reported concentration. Our model systematically overpredicts the concentrations, as compared to the measured data, at 0.25 meters and to a lesser degree at 0.5 meters. Consequently, we remove the 0.25 data from the dataset.

The major difference between the two models is the inclusion of a factor that captures the number of vents. It is reasonable to assume that spaces with very low air change rates do not have vents (or do not have functional vents), so the inclusion of the number of vents in the equation is not meaningful and in low air change rates the Venkatram and Weil, 2021(Venkatram and Weil 2021) equation is sufficient. Also, the lower limit of the air change rate in the Foat, et al., 2020 (Foat et al. 2020) dataset was 0.6 hr^-1 and only three of the 235 modeled scenarios analyzed had air change rates less than 0.75 hr^-1. Given that (1) most commercial and institutional facilities will have air change rates that are greater than 1 hr^-1, (2) would have an additional air change rate term to account for HVAC recirculation and filtration, and (3) these facilities’ HVAC systems will include inlet vents, it is important to use a method that addresses the effect of vents on dispersion and is accurate at high air change rates. Also, given that the risks of COVID-19 exposure are highest when the air change rates are low such as when natural ventilation is relied upon, it is important to have a method that works well in those conditions. The Acevedo-Bolton, et al., 2012 (Acevedo-Bolton et al. 2012) dataset and the Venkatram and Weil, 2021 (Venkatram and Weil 2021) estimate for eddy diffusivity cover those low air change rate scenarios.

Based upon these factors and our analysis, in the CEAT model, we use the unadjusted Venkatram and Weil, 2021 (Venkatram and Weil 2021) model to estimate eddy diffusivity at air change rates at or below 0.75 hr^-1 and the Foat, et al., 2020 model (Foat et al. 2020) to estimate eddy diffusivity above 0.75 hr^-1 with an assumption of 4 vents per 100 m². The results of this combined model compared to the measured data, are shown in Fig. S2C.

Multiple Sources

Equation S21 provides an estimate of the average concentration from one person’s emission at a receptor, but not the contribution of how multiple people’s emissions would affect the concentration. To address multiple sources in combination, the additivity property of the “superposition principle of linear systems” can be applied (Illingworth 1991), which enables that the effect of each person’s emissions at a receptor can be calculated separately and summed. The superposition principle has been applied to outdoor air pollution dispersion modeling (Stockie 2011) and provides the theoretical basis for modeling complex scenarios involving multiple emission sources in outdoor gaussian plume models such as EPA’s AIRMOD (US EPA 2019). The logic is, therefore, if a NF and FF approach can be used to estimate the higher concentration in the close proximity of one person to another person, then if n people were added to the system, and n additional NF boxes were added, the terms would be added to the equation for each person (i.e., emission source), with each being independent and summing to total concentration, as shown below: The superposition principle also includes a homogeneity property, which allows us to apply a scalar factor across all emission sources resulting in the concentration at the receptor changing proportionally to the value of the scalar. This property provides the conceptual basis that allows one to conclude that if the emission rate from each source is increased or decreased by a factor, that one could assume the concentration would increase or decrease by the same factor. The scalar could also be the product of several scalars, including a probability factor. CEAT will use this property defining a scalars, and φ(phi), to adjust both the emission rate and the probability of the emission rate, assuming that the emission rate and the probability of emission rate are constant for all sources for a given scenario, resulting in the following equation: In a two-source system with one receptor, where the distance between the two receptors and the source equidistant shown in Fig. S3A, the following equation can be written: Using a hexagonal prism for the NF volume allows one to place the system of equations on a regular grid of equidistant triangles (Fig S3A). Using a regular grid of equidistant triangles, as compared to a regular rectangular grid, has advantages since all nodes are equidistant from their nearest neighbors. This equidistant neighbor feature is particularly useful given the objective to assess various distancing options. The use of a triangular grid allows one to conveniently draw a hexagonal prism that is made up of six triangular prisms that approximates a cylinder, with each centered on the six closest nodes to the receptor, (Fig. S3B). The orientation of the triangular prism within the box makes no difference to the calculations. Accordingly, we can rotate each of the triangular prisms 180 degrees for visual convenience (Fig. S3C). We do this because we can define the system identically from two perspectives, the source view and the receptor view.

The system shown in Fig. S3D can be used to evaluate both the NF and FF concentrations from up to six sources at the receptor in the center, using the equation below. We can calculate the ACH_NF using the equation derived earlier for a hexagon: By substituting for the V_NF, Which simplifies to: In the same way that a six source system was devised, a 12-source system that still keeps each person in the system D distance apart, but in this case is located two D away from the receptor. In this case, instead of a hexagon, a dodecagonal prism (12-sided prism) is drawn (Fig. 3F). In the 12-source system, we take 1/12th of the emissions and use 1/12 of the total dodecagonal prism volume. The ACH_NF is calculated using the dimension of the 1/12 triangular wedge which is derived as follows. Which simplifies to: Successive rings, out to nine rings are included in CEAT, to allow up to a maximum of 270 people. Each ring adds 6 additional people more than the previous ring (i.e, the first ring holds 6 people, the second ring holds 12 people, the third ring holds 18, etc.) (Fig S3E). Table S5 has the equations for the area of each of the triangular prisms, along with the equation used to calculate the ACH_NF for each ring.

Applying the superposition principle, the contribution of each person on the receptor at the center can be calculated. Going out to 60 sources (four rings) we get: The formula may be simplified by pulling out the factors common in the two terms and rearranging as follows:

Calculating the effective ACH_FF and ACH_NF to address sinks and turbulence

For the purposes of calculating the far field concentration term, the ACH_FF should include any mechanisms that remove air from the space (e.g., natural ventilation, infiltration mechanical ventilation), mechanisms that remove the contaminant from the space (e.g., filtration and deposition), and mechanisms inactivate contaminants (e.g., reaction, temperature, humidity, radiation). The ACH_{HVAC Re.}be based upon the flow rate and the portion of the recirculated air from which any contaminants has been removed (ACH_{HVAC Re} × Ef_Filter): For the purposes of calculating the eddy diffusivity, the ACH_FF should only include mechanisms that result in actual air flow. So the ACH _Inact. and ACH_Dep have not been included and the unreduced ACH_{HVAC Recirc} should be used, as shown. For the final ACH_NF, the ACH _Inact. and ACH_Dep should be added back in, as shown below for the 1st Ring of sources:

Dose Model

As stated earlier, we employ a basic inhalation dose model: Where, D_Quanta is the quantity of inhaled infectious material, C_AVE is average air concentration over the duration (mass/m³), Q_inhale the inhalation rate (m³/min), and Δt is the duration of exposure (min).

Since we are looking at this model from a worker safety perspective, we can also look at the total inhalation dose of all people in an activity space by multiplying the total number of people, assuming we are using, ideally, an average concentration and the same duration in the activity space. The concentration contributions are calculated for a person assumed to be at the center of a triangular grid where people are spaced equidistantly (based upon the distancing specified). We assume the concentration at the center is representative for all people in the group since: 1) each person’s location is likely not static during the activity and 2) exposure is driven mostly by the close-in sources (i.e., other people) and all people have close-in sources.

If we include mask effectiveness in the model, recognizing that there is an effect on both the inhalation side (1 − Ef_in) and on the exhalation side (1 – Ef_out), the equation takes the following form: This equation calculates the total inhalation dose that a worst-case person (located at a receptor at the center of all rings) would receive if all people were emitting at a rate for the exposure duration. It assumes that all people are emitters (i.e., infected), when in fact only a few may be emitters. Based upon the homogeneity property of the principle of superposition, φ, in the expanded dose equation can be the likelihood that a person is infected, as shown below. or written more succinctly, where, Additional terms can be added to Eq. S44 for each hexagonal ring as more people are added. CEAT allows up to 250 people.

Impact of Prevalence of Infection in Community

Critical to the exposure assessment is the consideration of the likelihood that any individual member of the group is infectious at the start of the scenario or modeled event, with the likelihood of infection represented by the variable φ. In the CEAT model, the range of likelihood of infectiousness in the group can range from 1.0 (certain infectiousness) on the high end, to a value on the low end that is 100 times less than what is estimated as the community average infectiousness. In all of the cases, we assume that at least one person is not infectious, so the population that could be infectious is the size of the group, Pe, minus 1.

We estimate the community average infectiousness by using the reported 7-day average per 100,000 of diagnosed cases (Cases_{Per 100000}), an estimate of the ratio of the undiagnosed cases over the diagnosed cases (R_Undiag), and the average length of an infectiousness in days, (D_Inf), multiplied by the subgroup factor, which is the adjustment of the subgroup’s rate of infectiousness as compared to the rate of infectiousness of the community. We assume that within a community, the population can be subdivided into subpopulations as follows:

1. Group Factor = 0.01 The Group is composed of people who, prior to the event are estimated as having a likelihood COVID-19 infection that is 100 times lower than the community’s average due to their adhering to public health guidance on distancing, masking, and exposure to crowds/people.

2. Group Factor = 0.1 The Group is composed of people who, prior to the event are estimated as having a likelihood COVID-19 infection that is 10 times lower than the community’s average due to their adhering to public health guidance on distancing, masking, and exposure to crowds/people.

3. Group Factor = 1 The Group is composed of people who, prior to the event are estimated as having a likelihood COVID-19 infection that is equal to the community’s average.

4. Group Factor = 0.1 The Group is composed of people who, prior to the event are estimated as having a likelihood COVID-19 infection that is 10 times higher than the community’s average due to their not adhering to public health guidance on distancing, masking, and exposure to crowds/people.

5. φ = 1 The group is composed of people who are known to be infectious.

Impact of Variants

We handle the current community prevalence of variants and the relative infectiousness of the prevalent variants by assuming that some variants may be significantly more or less transmissive than other variants. For the fraction of total cases of more infectious variants, we can adjust the fractional exposure upward or downward to account for its infectiousness.

Efficacy of Immunity

Immunities, including vaccination and recovered cases, are addressed in two ways:

1. It reduces the rate of virus shedding of immunized persons who do become infected, thus reducing the emission rate, , for the fraction of people with immunity; this is based upon a 3 times reduction in shedding observed by (Levine-Tiefenbrun et al. 2021).

2. The immunity is treated as a barrier to infection with an effectiveness that is equal to its published efficacy based conceptually on the model used by the EPA for dose and exposure definition (US EPA 2019).

We are assuming that immunity gained by recovery from COVID is equal to the immunity gained from vaccination.

Efficacy of Testing

We address the efficacy and timing of testing regimes, relative to the days an individual is expected to be infectious. We assume that if an individual is infectious, at the time of the event, the timing of the infection prior to the event is a uniform distribution. For example, if D_Inf = 5, and they were tested three days prior to the event, there is a 3/5 chance they were infected when they were tested and a 2/5 chance they got infected after they were tested (in the two subsequent days before the event). Assuming a testing false negative rate (R_{False Neg.}) of 10%, the testing adjustment factor, which assumes testing was performed three days before the event, is computed as follows:

• If D_Inf < 3, there is no adjustment to the likelihood that an individual is infectious because testing was performed prior to anyone becoming infectious.

• If the D_Inf ≥ 3, the testing adjustment is computed as the weighted likelihood of either (a) having been infected at the time of testing and obtaining a false negative test or (b) becoming infected after the test: where R_{False Neg.}is currently set to 0.10.

Relative Dose Ratio Approach: How we establish the baseline

Rather than directly calculating a dose-response, we use a comparative dose approach. We compare all scenarios to a baseline scenario discussed in Table S2. The model’s results are aligned with the US OSHA classifications of exposure risks (US OSHA 2020), by benchmarking the dose calculations to a baseline scenario that is considered high risk by US OSHA. We define the baseline scenario to represent a person (i.e., medical worker) who is exposed to a COVID-19 infected person. We apply assumptions to this scenario, addressing each of the factors in Table S2, to arrive at a baseline inhalation dose value. The inhalation dose for other scenarios is compared to the baseline dose by a simple ratio. Below is the full ratio equation with the “i th” scenario in the numerator and the baseline (BL) in the denominator. We can rearrange the terms in each of the i scenario (E_{mass i}) and the baseline (E_{mass BL}):

Emission Rate Approach

Deterministic dose-response models provide estimations of the intake dose and estimations of the probability of infection for the intake dose. These models require a means of quantifying the dose and quantifying the pathogen-host interaction via a dose response (i.e., a tolerance dose – the dose above which someone is certain to be infected or a threshold dose – minimum dose needed to initiate a chance of infection in any person) (Sze To and Chao 2010). To calculate risks using a dose-response approach, similar to what was done by Parhizkar, et al., 2021, the following is needed: (1) an explicit mass rate or particle count rate emitted from an infected person, (2) information on particle size emitted and particle size distribution, and (3) the explicit response threshold dose or tolerance dose. Determining these data requires environmental measurement and epidemiological studies of transmission. While CEAT is also based upon a deterministic dose-response framework, it does not use explicit values for emission rate and dose response. Instead it calculates a dose ratio (using Equation S44), based upon comparing a baseline scenario that has been defined as high risk to an evaluated scenario (i.e., i^th scenario). This simplification provides a means to rapidly deploy a comprehensive risk model during an infectious disease outbreak ahead of public health and medical authorities having detailed data on the explicit viral emission rates and dose responses. The CEAT model does, however, require that a public health authority (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or other governmental health department) or other expert defines an exposure and dose scenario that is consistent with high risk exposure. In CEAT, we have used the OSHA classifications of exposure risks (US OSHA 2020) for this purpose.

While the ratio model does not directly use Wells-Riley approach, it does benefit from the data that have been empirically-derived from use of the Wells-Riley approach, allowing us to adjust the CEAT dose ratio results and exposure risk results for various activities and vocalization intensities. We use the back-calculated quanta per hour from Buonanno, et al., 2020a and Buonanno, et al., 2020b to inform the ratio of emission rates, . We make the assumption that these empirically-derived ratios would be correlated with explicit mass or particle count ratios that would be appropriate for deterministic dose-response models.

It is instructive to note that the CEAT approach does not require a means of varying the emission rate ratios. If Wells-Riley-derived emissions for various activities and vocalization intensities were not available, the assumption could be made that emission rate was constant (i.e., ). All of the other ratio factors in Eq 46 could still be used to evaluate the i^th dose scenario versus the baseline scenario. The majority cases that the CEAT was employed assumed that the Step 5 vocalization intensity was “standing and speaking” which uses in in the model’s calculations. The fact that Wells-Riley-derived data are not essential to use CEAT is a benefit of the CEAT approach.

Gathering Scenario

To determine the gathering scenario, we considered three different counties for the date of 1/31/2022 that were in different regions of the US with very low COVID-19 cases (Montgomery County, MD), very high COVID-19 cases (Knox County, TN), and a county with cases in between the two (Suffolk County, MA). In this analysis, we estimated that a typical gathering will last 5 hours and can be held both indoors or outdoors. The indoor scenario is considered to take place in a room (i.e. 30ft x 30ft x 9ft or 9.14m x 9.14m x 2.74m). We utilized the COVID ActNow tracker (U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker) to determine the latest number of cases and vaccination rates on 1/31/2022. In addition, we utilized CDC’s Nationwide Commercial Laboratory Seroprevalence Survey (U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker) to determine the current population recovered from COVID-19, and CDC’s Variant Proportions Tracker (U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker) to determine the estimated percentage of existing SARS-CoV-2 variants that exist in the infected population in each region. At the time of analysis for all counties the Omicron variant accounts for >99% of COVID-19 cases (U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker). It is estimated that the Omicron variant is 440% more transmissible than the original SARS-CoV-2 reference strain (Araf et al. 2022). We analyzed for the following different parameters to account for multiple different scenarios that gatherings can take place: distancing ranging from 1.5ft to 10ft, masks usage (i.e. no masks, average masks, and N95/KN95 masks), and if the group of people are either “following all public health guidance” or “equal to the community average”. In addition, we also considered testing to be included with one of the scenarios. All data was recorded in Microsoft Excel 2019 and all data analyses were completed using R version 4.0.3, RStudio version 1.4.1717, and ggplot2 v3.3.5 (Wickham 2016).

NASA Ames Research Center CEAT Tool Usage

In initial assessments, utilizing CEAT V B.6 that was released on November 25, 2020 Step 1 (“The group is composed of people who…”) was generally selected as “You think are following all public health guidance”. Step 2 (“Number of People Sharing Activity Space”) was set to the requested number of personnel required to conduct the operation in-person. In general this was 2 to 4 people per location per operation. Selected distance (Step 3) was set to 6 feet (“-6 distancing adjustment”) unless specified otherwise. For Mask Efficacy (Step 4) “cloth masks” worn by all personnel were selected as cloth was the most likely utilized (−5 and -3, respectively). Very few projects were using surgical masks and masks were required to be worn by everyone on campus at this time. Vocalization (Step 5) and breathing (Step 6) adjustment rates, as well as Duration of Activity (Step 7) were based on the operations reported in the RTOW plan submission. Typical operations are conducted while “standing”, “speaking”, and “passive” (0 and 0) for 8 hours. Ventilation rates (Step 8) and Adjustment for room sizes (Step 9) were based on location of the operation reported in the RTOW plan submission. Step 10 (“Calculate Adjustment to Local Community’s Current Conditions”) was based on the State of California (US State of California 2022a). The California case rate was chosen instead of the local county case rate as the majority of the NASA ARC workforce resides in the general Bay Area which encompasses nine counties, some of which have weekly case rates more similar to California than to the local county. After inputting these desired values for the variables in Steps 1-10, the relative exposure ratio for a given condition was recorded and analyzed in Microsoft Excel 365.

CEAT V B.14 was released on December 13, 2020 the inputs were similar to that of V B.6, the difference being that for Step 9 actual room dimensions could be entered.

CEAT V B.29 was released on May 6, 2021 Step 1 (“The group is composed of people who…”) was selected as “Are following all public health guidance”. However, since the percent vaccination rate was unknown, it was not checked. Step 2 (“Number of People Sharing Activity Space”) was set to the requested number of personnel required to conduct the operation in-person. In general this was 2 to 4 people per location per operation. Selected distance (Step 3) was set to 6 feet unless specified otherwise. For “Mask Type and Prevalence” (Step 4) “cloth masks” worn by all personnel were selected as cloth was the most likely utilized. Very few projects were using surgical masks and masks were required to be worn by everyone on campus for all but a 6 week window where masks were optional for vaccinated personnel. Vocalization (Step 5) and breathing (Step 6) adjustment rates, as well as Duration of Activity (Step 7) were based on the operations reported in the RTOW plan submission. Typical operations are conducted while “standing”, “speaking”, and “passive” for 8 hours. Ventilation rates (Step 8) and Adjustment for room sizes (Step 9) were based on location of the operation reported in the RTOW plan submission. Step 10 (“Calculate Adjustment to Local Community’s Current Conditions”) was based on the State of California (US State of California 2022a), (US State of California 2022b) and variant information was input from CDC data (CDC 2020c). When variant prevalence was introduced into the CEAT in later iterations, the three most prevalent variants in Health and Human Services (HHS) Region 9 were used (CDC 2020c). Specifically, the variant prevalence data from Nowcast was utilized. Instead of utilizing the predetermined variants provided in the CEAT, NASA ARC input data from the three most prevalent variants in the HHS Region 9. The “Protection Effectiveness of Immunity (%)” in Step 10 was set to 66% based on published research regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccine against the Delta variant (Fowlkes 2021). After inputting these desired values for the variables in Steps 1-10, the relative exposure ratio for a given condition was recorded and analyzed in Microsoft Excel 365. Although CEAT V B.32 was released on August 29, 2021 it was not used in this analysis. To generate a graphical representation of the data (Fig. 4) we associated numerical values to the different parameters in the table and utilized R version 4.03, RStudio version 1.4.1717 with the following R packages: ggplot2 v3.3.5 (Wickham 2016).

For the longitudinal review of the NASA ARC “Centerwide Accepted Median Exposure Risk Ratio” in relation to the community case rates CEAT V B.6, V B.14, and V B.29 were utilized, this was dependent on the newest version available. Initial inputs at the time of the RTOW plan were utilized and Step 10 (“Calculate Adjustment to Local Community’s Current Conditions”) rates were updated on a biweekly basis based on the State of California (US State of California 2022a). The median of all project exposure risk ratios was used instead of the average to account for the high fluctuations in exposure risk ratios. Hypothetical exposure risk ratios were back-calculated to March 2020. Only projects that had been approved to RTOW, along with projects that were deemed mission essential and were exempt from the work from home policy (e.g. Security Guards, Security Operations Center) were included in the calculated biweekly median risk ratio. The relative exposure ratio for a given condition was recorded, the median exposure ratio was calculated biweekly, and the correlation coefficient compared to the community case rates was calculated in Microsoft Excel 365. The median of all project exposure risk ratios was used instead of the average to account for the high fluctuations. Although the CEAT was not used at NASA ARC until December 2020, hypothetical exposure risk ratios were back-calculated to March 2020, when NASA ARC enacted their mandatory work from home policy, for each project using the known historic California case rates. Only projects that had been approved to RTOW, along with projects that were deemed mission essential and were exempt from the work from home policy (e.g. Security Guards, Security Operations Center) were included in the calculated biweekly median exposure risk ratio. A plot was generated for this data (Fig. 5) using R version 4.0.3, RStudio version 1.4.1717 with the following R packages: ggplot2 v3.3.5 (Wickham 2016).