Abstract
Airborne transmission is an important transmission pathway for viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Regions with a higher proportion of people wearing masks show better control of COVID-19, but the effectiveness of masks is still under debate due to their limited and variable efficiencies in removing respiratory particles. Here, we analyze experimental data and perform model calculations to show that this contrast can be explained by the different regimes of abundance of particles and viruses. Because of the large number of particles exhaled during human respiration and vocalization, indoor environments are usually in a particle-rich regime which means that masks cannot prevent the inhalation of large numbers of respiratory particles. Usually, however, only a small fraction of these particles contain viruses, which implies a virus-limited regime where masks can help to keep the number of inhaled viruses below the infectious dose. For SARS-CoV-2, the virus load in the respiratory tract of infectious individuals can vary by 3 to 4 orders of magnitude (5th to 95th percentile), leading to substantial variations in the abundance of airborne virus concentrations and infection risks. Nevertheless, we find that most environments are in a virus-limited regime where masks have a high efficacy in preventing the spread of COVID-19 by aerosol or droplet transmission during short-term exposure. The characteristic contrast between particle-rich and virus-limited regimes explains why face masks are highly efficient in most but not all environments, and why the largest benefits can be achieved by non-linear synergetic effects of combining masks with other preventive measures such as ventilation and social distancing to reduce airborne virus concentrations and the overall risk of infection.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study is supported by the Max Planck Society (MPG). Y.C. thanks the Minerva Program of MPG
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Competing Interest Statement: Authors declare no competing interests.
Data Availability
All data is available in the main text or the supplementary materials.
