Modeling the impacts of physical distancing and other exposure determinants on aerosol transmission. Issue 10 (2nd November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wagner, Jeff; Sparks, Tamara L.; Miller, Shelly; Chen, Wenhao; Macher, Janet M.; Waldman, Jed M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. Volume 18:Issue 10/11(2021)
• Page Start: 495
• Page End: 509
• Publication Date: 2021-11-02
• Subjects: Aerosol models -- COVID-19 -- exposure assessment -- risk -- SARS-CoV-2; Industrial hygiene -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Occupational Health -- Periodicals; Environmental Exposure -- Periodicals; Environmental Health -- Periodicals; Occupational Exposure -- Periodicals; Hygiène industrielle -- Périodiques; Hygiène du milieu -- Périodiques; Médecine du travail -- Périodiques; 613.62
• DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2021.1963445
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-9624

Abstract

Abstract: Minimization of airborne virus transmission has become increasingly important due to pandemic and endemic infectious respiratory diseases. Physical distancing is a frequently advocated control measure, but the proximity-based transmission it is intended to control is challenging to incorporate into generalized, ventilation-based models. We utilize a size-dependent aerosol release model with turbulent dispersion to assess the impact of direct, near-field transport in conjunction with changes in ventilation, exposure duration, exhalation/inhalation rates, and masks. We demonstrate this model on indoor and outdoor scenarios to estimate the relative impacts on infection risk. The model can be expressed as a product of six multiplicative factors that may be used to identify opportunities for risk reduction. The additive nature of the short-range (proximity) and long-range (background) transmission components of the aerosol transport factor implies that they must be minimized simultaneously. Indoor simulations showed that close physical distances attenuated the impact of most other risk reduction factors. Increasing ventilation resulted in a 17-fold risk decrease at further physical distances but only a 6-fold decrease at shorter distances. Distance, emission rate, and duration also had large impacts on risk (11–65-fold), while air direction and inhalation rate had lower risk impacts (3–4-fold range). Surgical mask and respirator models predicted higher maximum risk impacts (33- and 280-fold, respectively) than cloth masks (4-fold). Most simulations showed decreasing risk at distances > 1–2 m (3–6 ft). The risk benefit of maintaining 2-m distance vs. 1 m depended substantially on the environmental turbulence and ventilation rate. Outdoors, long-range transmission was negligible and short-range transmission was the primary determinant of risk. Temporary passing events increased risk by up to 50 times at very slow walking speeds and close passing distances, but the relative risks outdoors were still much lower than indoors. The current model assumes turbulent dispersion typical of a given room size and ventilation rate. However, calm environments or confined airflows may increase transmission risks beyond levels predicted with this turbulent model.