Aerosols and droplets from expiratory events play an integral role in transmitting pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 from an infected individual to a susceptible host. However, there remain significant uncertainties in our understanding of the aerosol droplet microphysics occurring during drying and sedimentation and the effect on the sedimentation outcomes. Here, we apply a new treatment for the microphysical behavior of respiratory fluid droplets to a droplet evaporation/sedimentation model and assess the impact on sedimentation distance, time scale, and particle phase. Above a 100 μm initial diameter, the sedimentation outcome for a respiratory droplet is insensitive to composition and ambient conditions. Below 100 μm, and particularly below 80 μm, the increased settling time allows the exact nature of the evaporation process to play a significant role in influencing the sedimentation outcome. For this size range, an incorrect treatment of the droplet composition, or imprecise use of RH or temperature, can lead to large discrepancies in sedimentation distance (with representative values >1 m, >2 m, and >2 m, respectively). Additionally, a respiratory droplet is likely to undergo a phase change prior to sedimenting if initially <100 μm in diameter, provided that the RH is below the measured phase change RH. Calculations of the potential exposure versus distance from the infected source show that the volume fraction of the initial respiratory droplet distribution, in this size range, which remains elevated above 1 m decreases from 1 at 1 m to 0.125 at 2 m.
Aerosols and droplets from expiratory events play an integral role in transmitting pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 from an infected individual to a susceptible host. However, there remain significant uncertainties in our understanding of the aerosol droplet microphysics occurring during drying and sedimentation and the effect on the sedimentation outcomes. Here, we apply a new treatment for the microphysical behavior of respiratory fluid droplets to a droplet evaporation/sedimentation model and assess the impact on sedimentation distance, time scale, and particle phase. Above a 100 μm initial diameter, the sedimentation outcome for a respiratory droplet is insensitive to composition and ambient conditions. Below 100 μm, and particularly below 80 μm, the increased settling time allows the exact nature of the evaporation process to play a significant role in influencing the sedimentation outcome. For this size range, an incorrect treatment of the droplet composition, or imprecise use of RH or temperature, can lead to large discrepancies in sedimentation distance (with representative values >1 m, >2 m, and >2 m, respectively). Additionally, a respiratory droplet is likely to undergo a phase change prior to sedimenting if initially <100 μm in diameter, provided that the RH is below the measured phase change RH. Calculations of the potential exposure versus distance from the infected source show that the volume fraction of the initial respiratory droplet distribution, in this size range, which remains elevated above 1 m decreases from 1 at 1 m to 0.125 at 2 m.
The
transmission of respiratory pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 can
occur by direct (person-to-person) or indirect contact (through contaminated
surfaces and fomites) and by airborne transmission.[1,2] Aerosols
and droplets play a crucial role in transmitting pathogens from an
infected individual to a susceptible host, carrying the virus in large
droplets (up to ∼500 μm) and small respirable aerosol
particles (<5 μm diameter) from expiratory events including
sneezing, coughing, talking, and even breathing.[3,4] The
transport of aerosols and droplets occurs over a distance determined
by the interplay of forward momentum in an exhaled jet, droplet sedimentation,
and evaporation.[5−8] Beginning with Wells, and subsequently investigated by numerous
authors, water droplets of order 100 μm diameter are predicted
to sediment to the ground over a distance of 1–1.5 m from the
average height of an adult before they completely evaporate, providing
the rationale for guidelines on physical distancing.[3,9,10] Water from smaller droplets can
evaporate fully before sedimentation can occur, forming aerosol nuclei
from any remaining involatile components which remain airborne for
many minutes to hours.[11]Despite
the conventional delineation between droplets (particles
>5 μm in diameter) and respirable aerosols (<5 μm),
the exact picture is more complex, and this arbitrary threshold has
been widely challenged. Most recently, Prather et al. have suggested
that a more appropriate delineation between droplets and aerosols
would be at 100 μm,[12] a size that
more appropriately reflects a change in aerodynamic behavior, the
potential for inhalation, and the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions
such as physical distancing.[13,14] Although approximately
bimodal, the size distributions of small respirable particles (mass
median aerodynamic diameter, MMAD, of ∼1–2 μm)
and large droplets (MMAD 100 μm) are continuous with particles
spanning all sizes.[4,15] Indeed, we now know that over
99% of particles from an expiratory event are of respirable size already,[4] dominating over the number of any aerosol nuclei
formed from the evaporation of large droplets. The relative humidity
(RH) in the mouth and upper respiratory tract can be very close to
100% although this may depend on disease state, and so droplets and
aerosols begin their transport from the infected individual with high
moisture content.[15] Previous studies have
suggested that particles can reduce in size by more than a factor
of 2, depending on the ambient RH and the moisture content of the
particles on exhalation.[8] The buoyancy
of the turbulent warm air cloud can lead to transport over much longer
distances than previously anticipated for large droplets,[5,6] and the air flow patterns in the room can lead to enhancements in
the lifetime of suspended particles.[8,16]Although
our understanding of the transport of exhaled particles
is advancing rapidly, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge
of the droplet microphysics occurring during drying and sedimentation.
In particular, the evaporation kinetics models are based on an assumption
that the droplets are pure water or salt solution;[3,5,8] there is little recognition that droplets
could change phase during drying to form crystalline particles;[3,17−19] and the interplay of ambient RH, drying rate, and
moisture content on the final dried particle morphology is often not
considered,[5,9] particularly for droplets that contain a
large fraction of mucins, high-molecular-weight, heavily glycosylated
proteins. Not only could these microphysical properties impact the
transported distance of droplets on exhalation through impacting on
aerodynamic size, but they could also impact survival of viruses while
airborne through influencing moisture content and particle phase.
We address these uncertainties here.
Equilibrium
Moisture Content of Respiratory
Fluid Droplets
We have performed measurements of the hygroscopic
response of artificial
saliva and deep lung fluid (DLF) using the comparative kinetic electrodynamic
balance approach on single aerosol droplets,[20,21] described in detail in the Supporting Information. The artificial saliva recipe used (Table S1) is composed of a range of ionic components, with sodium chloride
and potassium chloride the dominant components, a phosphate buffer,
mucin, and Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (a synthetic
cell culture medium that contains numerous components including amino
acids, vitamins, and glucose).[22] The artificial
deep lung fluid recipe used (Table S1)
is a complex mixture of phospholipids, cholesterol, proteins, and
antioxidants.[23] Although these artificial
recipes do not reflect the biological complexity of real respiratory
secretions, the variability between human subjects, and the possible
dependence of composition on disease state, we have selected them
as broadly representative of the ionic and organic components in human
secretions, and to provide some clarity of the dependence of the hygroscopic
response on chemical composition. We refer to these recipes directly
as saliva and deep lung fluid below, although their comparability
with real secretions must yet be addressed.Using the comparative
kinetic electrodynamic balance approach,
hygroscopic growth curves for a water activity range from ∼0.5
up to ∼0.99 are reported in Figure a, along with equilibrium solution compositions
(expressed as a mass fraction of solute) in Figure b, and compared with sodium chloride (NaCl)
solution droplets. At steady state (equilibrium composition), and
for droplets larger than 100 nm in diameter, the water activity in
a solution droplet is equal to the environmental RH, neglecting the
influence of droplet surface curvature.[24] The diameter growth factor, GFd, is defined as the ratio
of the wet droplet diameter at the specified RH to the dry particle
diameter in the limit of no moisture content (0% RH). Using κ-Köhler
theory,[25] we can define the RH dependence
of the equilibrium droplet diameter byin the limit where surface curvature does
not play a significant role in determining droplet vapor pressure,
and the hygroscopic response can be represented by a single number
defining the shape of the hygroscopic growth curve. It should be noted
that this single-parameter treatment of hygroscopic growth is increasingly
in error as the RH decreases, as is apparent in Figure a when a comparison is made with the comprehensive
E-AIM model for aqueous sodium chloride droplets. κ values of
0.290 ± 0.01 and 0.208 ± 0.008 were inferred for artificial
saliva and deep lung fluid, respectively, from the growth factors
at 95% RH. As an indicator of degree of hygroscopicity, a value of
1.2 is commonly reported for NaCl solution droplets, and a value of
<0.05 represents an organic aerosol of low hygroscopic growth.[25]
Figure 1
(a) Hygroscopic diameter growth curves for artificial
saliva and
deep lung fluid, compared with aqueous sodium chloride solution. (b)
Dependence of equilibrium solution composition, represented as the
variation in mass fraction of solute, on water activity, equivalent
to RH. The stars indicate the water activity at which a phase change
occurs.
(a) Hygroscopic diameter growth curves for artificial
saliva and
deep lung fluid, compared with aqueous sodium chloride solution. (b)
Dependence of equilibrium solution composition, represented as the
variation in mass fraction of solute, on water activity, equivalent
to RH. The stars indicate the water activity at which a phase change
occurs.It is clear from the model presented
in Figure that the
saliva and deep lung fluid are
considerably less hygroscopic than salt solution, with values of GFd of 1.089 ± 0.003, 1.065 ± 0.003, and 1.301 at 50%
RH, respectively. Thus, if all droplets were to start at 100 μm
at 99.5% RH, they would equilibrate to droplets of 28.0, 30.4, and
20.9 μm diameter at 50% RH for saliva, deep lung fluid, and
salt solution, respectively. Although saliva and deep lung fluid both
contain significant mass fractions of various salts (see Table S1), they are also rich in organic components
and retain less water at all RH values than the corresponding pure
salt solution. This is reflected in the lower reported value for the
κ-parameter for saliva and deep lung fluid relative to sodium
chloride. Interestingly, despite the chemical complexity of saliva
and deep lung fluid, the similar fractions of organic and salt components
result in closely matching hygroscopicity curves. Functional fits
for the equilibrium solution compositions over the full RH range are
shown in Figure b
and are given in Table S2. These fits allow
the equilibrium composition, and corresponding solution density, to
be calculated down to an RH at which a phase change is observed. The
mass fraction of solute (MFS) tends to 1 only at 0% RH. Indeed, the
possibility that a phase change occurs can be ignored in order to
estimate the compositional dependence of the respiratory aerosol down
to fully dry conditions. At the phase change RH, it is possible that
the particle may undergo full crystallization or partial crystallization,
and
the RHs of the phase change for saliva and deep lung fluid are very
close to the accepted RH for crystallization of NaCl; we will return
to this in Section .
Accurate Hygroscopic Response and the Impact
on Sedimentation Distance
Combined with the 2-dimensional
model of Xie et al. for exploring
the competition between sedimentation, evaporation, and momentum,[3] we can simulate the trajectories of single droplets
on exhalation for speaking, coughing, and sneezing, accounting for
the measured hygroscopic response of the respiratory aerosol droplets.
The model allows the calculation of the evolving size, temperature,
velocity, and position for a single droplet emitted into a gas phase
of a given temperature and RH. Although the equations used are well-established,
there are implicit assumptions that the droplet is spherical and falls
within the continuum regime when interacting with the gas phase (i.e.,
the Knudsen number is ≪1). This means that the model calculations
will become less accurate as particles depart from sphericity or transition
into the free molecule regime (i.e., diameter < ∼300 nm).
Unique to this study, we use our measured hygroscopic response of
simulated saliva and deep lung fluid (as presented in Section ) to predict the evolving
moisture content, water vapor pressure, evaporative flux, and, thus,
droplet size following exhalation.We incorporate the treatment
for the buoyant respiratory jet proposed
by Liu et al.[26] Based on well-established
jet behavior, Liu et al. provide equations for calculating the trajectory
and dissipation (of velocity, temperature, and water vapor density)
for a jet emitted into a gas phase. The initial jet velocity is set
at 10 m/s, corresponding to a cough, unless stated otherwise. We assume
that the initial moisture content is set by an RH in the mouth of
99.5% and a temperature of 308 K (35 °C),[15] and that the average height of the person’s mouth
is 1.6 m above the ground. We show time-dependent evaporation curves
in Figure a for saliva
droplets initially spanning 5–200 μm in diameter at 5
μm intervals, evaporating into 50% ambient RH, with equilibration
requiring from <1 s for the smallest droplet to 60 s for the largest
droplet.
Figure 2
(a) Simulated evaporation time scales for saliva droplets evaporating
at 293 K (20 °C) and 50% RH with initial diameters spanning 5–200
μm (5 μm intervals). (b) Comparison of the evaporation–sedimentation
curves for saliva droplets 20–150 μm in initial diameter
(5 μm intervals), projected by a cough at 10 m/s at 293 K and
50% RH. The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red (traveling
from left to right). (I) indicates the initial droplet size and (F)
the size at deposition. (c) Dependence of sedimentation distance on
RH for saliva droplets initially 60 μm in diameter generated
by a cough at 10 m/s at 293 K and 0–100% RH (5% RH intervals).
The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red.
(a) Simulated evaporation time scales for saliva droplets evaporating
at 293 K (20 °C) and 50% RH with initial diameters spanning 5–200
μm (5 μm intervals). (b) Comparison of the evaporation–sedimentation
curves for saliva droplets 20–150 μm in initial diameter
(5 μm intervals), projected by a cough at 10 m/s at 293 K and
50% RH. The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red (traveling
from left to right). (I) indicates the initial droplet size and (F)
the size at deposition. (c) Dependence of sedimentation distance on
RH for saliva droplets initially 60 μm in diameter generated
by a cough at 10 m/s at 293 K and 0–100% RH (5% RH intervals).
The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red.Evaporation occurs during the sedimentation of the droplets,
changing
the droplet mass as a function of time and leading to size-variant
trajectories ( Figure b). For example, a droplet initially 150 μm in diameter evaporates
to 139 μm in a 50% RH environment over 3.6 s before the droplet
sediments to the ground, traveling a horizontal distance of 0.97 m
from the source. Indeed, the droplet is not equilibrated at deposition
requiring a full 30 s to reach within 5% of its final equilibrated
size (42.0 μm). In other words, most of the moisture loss occurs
after the droplet has deposited onto the ground. By contrast, a 60
μm diameter droplet evaporating in a 50% RH environment equilibrates
to a size of 17.0 μm within 7.2 s, completing equilibration
well within the 70 s it takes to sediment to the ground. This droplet
travels a horizontal distance of 2.9 m from the source. Droplets with
an initial diameter <60 μm do not sediment at all within
the horizontal distance of 4 m from the source and fully equilibrate
with the ambient RH in <7 s. These droplets shrink to around 29%
of their initial diameter. Sedimentation distance is also strongly
dependent on RH (see Figure c). At lower RH values, the droplet loses a larger fraction
of moisture content and mass over a shorter time frame and therefore
travels longer distances from the source.In Figure a, we
compare two limiting trajectories (at 100% and 0% ambient RH) for
saliva, deep lung fluid, aqueous sodium chloride, and water droplets
initially 70 μm in diameter. At high environmental RH (i.e.,
when the evaporation rate is slow), the hygroscopic response is small
and does not significantly impact the droplet trajectory and sedimentation
rate. By contrast, when environmental RH is low (i.e., the evaporation
rate is high), the hygroscopic response is large and impacts both
the sedimentation rate and droplet trajectory. The dependence of the
sedimentation distance on initial droplet size and RH for saliva droplets
projected from a cough at 10 m/s is shown more completely in Figure b. While droplets
<30 μm exit the simulation window at 4 m without sedimenting,
droplets larger than 100 μm sediment in under 1 m. Sedimentation
distances for droplets of the intermediate size range are strongly
dependent on initial droplet size and environmental RH. The dashed
line indicates the initial diameter/RH combinations where the droplet
reaches the 4 m distance limit of the simulations without sedimenting.
Below this line (i.e., lower RH and/or smaller initial diameter),
we have chosen to not place a limit on the sedimentation distance,
reflecting the limitations of the model that do not include the impact
of external forces such as air currents.
Figure 3
(a) Comparison of the
sedimentation trajectories of droplets composed
of saliva, lung fluid, sodium chloride, and pure water showing two
limiting cases for droplets initially of the same size (70 μm).
The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red. (b) Sedimentation
distance for saliva droplets projected from a cough at 10 m/s into
an environment at 293 K (20 °C). The black dashed line indicates
when the 4 m sedimentation limit is reached. (c) Change in sedimentation
distance on assuming that the droplets are composed of sodium chloride
solution rather than saliva. The dashed lines indicate when the 4
m sedimentation limit is reached for saliva (black) and NaCl (green).
(a) Comparison of the
sedimentation trajectories of droplets composed
of saliva, lung fluid, sodium chloride, and pure water showing two
limiting cases for droplets initially of the same size (70 μm).
The trajectory of the respiratory jet is shown in red. (b) Sedimentation
distance for saliva droplets projected from a cough at 10 m/s into
an environment at 293 K (20 °C). The black dashed line indicates
when the 4 m sedimentation limit is reached. (c) Change in sedimentation
distance on assuming that the droplets are composed of sodium chloride
solution rather than saliva. The dashed lines indicate when the 4
m sedimentation limit is reached for saliva (black) and NaCl (green).The influence of the aerosol hygroscopic response
on sedimentation
distance is reported in Figure c, which reports the increase in sedimentation distance if
the droplets are assumed to behave like NaCl rather than saliva. The
white section in Figure c indicates the initial diameter/RH region where droplets composed
of one or both fluids reach the 4 m limit, and no comparison of sedimentation
distance is possible. The hygroscopic response has the greatest impact
on sedimentation distance at low RH (when the evaporation rate is
highest) and at intermediate droplet size (<80 μm). However,
for larger droplet sizes and at most environmental RHs, the exact
choice for the representation of the aerosol hygroscopic response
has little impact on the sedimentation distance and previous models
assuming aqueous sodium chloride will provide a fair approximation.
Indeed, when comparing predictions assuming a droplet composed of
aqueous sodium chloride to saliva, the change in sedimentation distance
for most large initial droplet sizes and RHs is <0.1 m. However,
it is important to note that an accurate understanding of the time-dependent
moisture content may play an important role in understanding the survival
of viruses and bacteria in evaporating droplets.Although Figure b reports dependencies
of sedimentation distance from a cough on
RH and droplet size for saliva droplets, deep lung fluid droplets
exhibit a similar behavior: minimal changes to sedimentation distance
relative to sodium chloride droplets are observed except when the
hygroscopic response occurs over a sufficiently short time compared
to sedimentation (fast drying at low RH or small droplet size) to
impact on the trajectory (see Figure S2). We also report simulations of the sedimentation distance for saliva
droplets and deep lung fluid droplets generated by speaking at a jet
speed of 5 m/s in Figures S3a and S4a,
including the change in sedimentation distance from those predicted
if the droplets are assumed to be composed of sodium chloride in Figures S3b and S4b. When compared with droplets
generated from a cough, the lower initial momentum of droplets from
speaking ensures they travel a shorter distance. Thus, there is less
absolute difference in the sedimentation distances predicted when
comparing different treatments of hygroscopic growth.Time scales
for sedimentation can be estimated in quiescent air
and scale with the square of the radius for particles larger than
1 μm in diameter, i.e., in the continuum limit in the absence
of a slip correction factor. At the terminal settling velocity, water
droplets of 1 mm and 100, 10, and 1 μm diameter sediment 1 m
in ∼30 ms, 3 s, 300 s, and 8 h, respectively. Of course, these
sedimentation time scales are so long for small droplets that they
are largely dispersed and carried by convective air currents. We report
the calculated sedimentation times and the dependence on droplet diameter
and RH in Figure assuming
the hygroscopic growth is consistent with the saliva formulation.
As an example, a 100 μm initial diameter droplet takes between
6.3 and 21.9 s to sediment depending on the ambient RH. During the
transport time to deposition, any pathogen in the aerosols or droplets
will be exposed to UV light and the “open air” factor,
potentially degrading the viability of the pathogen through the action
of atmospheric oxidants or UV light. For example, time scales for
degradation of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol by UV light (the time scale for
a reduction of viral load of 1 order of magnitude) have been measured
to be <10 min in regions of mid-intensity UV, and <5 min in
areas of high irradiance.[27,28]
Figure 4
Sedimentation time scale
for saliva droplets at 293 K (20 °C).
The black dashed line indicates when the 4 m sedimentation limit is
reached.
Sedimentation time scale
for saliva droplets at 293 K (20 °C).
The black dashed line indicates when the 4 m sedimentation limit is
reached.
Deposited Saliva Particles
Are Mostly Solid
and Nonspherical below 50% RH
Up to this point, we have assumed
that the evaporating droplets
remain liquid throughout the RH range, even down to full dry conditions
at 0% RH in the limit of zero water content. The solubility limit
of sodium chloride is surpassed as the RH decreases below 75%; in
aerosol droplets, the crystallization relative humidity is 45% RH,
corresponding to a supersaturation of ∼2, i.e., a solute concentration
that is a factor of 2 higher than can be supported in a bulk solution.[24] Such high salt concentrations are expected to
play a role in the loss of viability of bacteria and the infectivity
of viruses.[29−31] The phase behavior of saliva and deep lung fluid
droplets remains uncertain, despite their high salt contents.In Figure a, we
report the evaporation kinetics of deep lung fluid into an environment
of varying RH using the same instrument described for our hygroscopicity
measurements. As reported earlier, the droplets rapidly lose water
to redress the imbalance between the starting water activity in the
droplet and the surrounding environmental RH, equilibrating to a size
and composition where the water vapor pressure above the droplet solution
equals the partial pressure of water at a large distance from the
droplet. A reduction in the RH leads to an increasing rate of evaporation
and a decrease in the equilibrated size of the solution droplet, with
retention of diminishing amounts of water. Once the RH is below 50%,
the light scattering pattern used to estimate the droplet size becomes
extremely irregular, indicating that the droplet is no longer a homogeneous
sphere, and the reported size becomes noisy and unreliable. In Figure a, the time of onset
of the disruption to the scattering pattern is identified with a star,
and the noisy data points are removed. We previously demonstrated
that the phase can be identified, and in this case, the particle morphology
can be assigned to be nonspherical, potentially crystalline.[32] Similarly, the evaporation of saliva droplets
shows a phase change below 45% RH (Figure S5). SEM images of crystalline NaCl, deep lung fluid, and saliva, collected
at 35% RH and 295 K, are shown in Figure c. The morphological differences observed
in the SEM images between the dried particles of the different compositions
will lead to different aerodynamic properties during sedimentation,
which are not explicitly included in our modeling.
Figure 5
(a) Evaporation kinetics
of deep lung fluid droplets with varying
RH. The stars identify the onset of disruption to the light scattering
pattern, indicating that a phase change has occurred to a nonspherical
particle morphology. (b) Phase identification on sedimentation for
deep lung fluid droplets with varying droplet size and RH from a cough
at 10 m/s into an environment at 293 K (20 °C). The red bounded
region indicates that droplets undergo a phase change before sedimenting
onto a surface. (c) SEM images of the effloresced particles obtained
from NaCl, deep lung fluid, and saliva droplets evaporated at 35%
RH and 295 K. The scale bar represents 5 μm (NaCl and deep lung
fluid) and 10 μm (saliva).
(a) Evaporation kinetics
of deep lung fluid droplets with varying
RH. The stars identify the onset of disruption to the light scattering
pattern, indicating that a phase change has occurred to a nonspherical
particle morphology. (b) Phase identification on sedimentation for
deep lung fluid droplets with varying droplet size and RH from a cough
at 10 m/s into an environment at 293 K (20 °C). The red bounded
region indicates that droplets undergo a phase change before sedimenting
onto a surface. (c) SEM images of the effloresced particles obtained
from NaCl, deep lung fluid, and saliva droplets evaporated at 35%
RH and 295 K. The scale bar represents 5 μm (NaCl and deep lung
fluid) and 10 μm (saliva).Based on the observation of prompt crystallization in the single
droplet drying measurements, we can assume that evaporating respiratory
fluid droplets undergo a phase change to a particle of nonspherical
shape once they reach a water activity of 0.45. The particles could
be crystalline, amorphous, or mixed phase, and it is not possible
from our measurements to discriminate between these. Although there
may be some inhomogeneity in the concentration profile of evaporating
droplets, and the surface will increase in solute concentration more
rapidly than the core,[33] we do not include
this in our modeling. In Figure b, we indicate the combinations of starting droplet
size and environmental RH that lead to a phase change during the drying
process before sedimentation. For all droplets <∼100 μm
in diameter, the phase change occurs prior to deposition provided
that the RH is below the reported phase change RH. For droplets >100
μm in diameter, phase change occurs before sedimentation only
when the drying rate is sufficiently large that the solute concentration
can rise sufficiently rapidly for the phase change to occur. Droplets >120
μm in diameter are unlikely to undergo a phase change before
deposition, but they may be strongly supersaturated in salt and will
likely form salt crystals on impact on a surface.It could be
anticipated that the high contents of mucin and surfactants
in respiratory fluid droplets would lead to delayed moisture release
with the droplets becoming viscous on drying or a surface film delaying
water evaporation. We have seen such behavior for the drying kinetics
of a wide range of high-molecular-weight systems including saccharides
and triblock polymers, and the impact of this on atmospheric aerosols
has long been debated.[34−36] If the viscosity of a droplet rises during drying,
the diffusion constant of evaporating water molecules decreases imposing
a kinetic constraint on the moisture release kinetics.[36] We have also demonstrated that the formation
of solid condensed monolayer films on the surface of an evaporating
droplet impedes water evaporation.[37] In
this work, we observed a small degree of kinetic limitation for deep
lung fluid, as shown by the delay to reach equilibrium at 50% and
65% RH in Figure a,
but no such limitation for saliva (Figure S5), suggesting that the diffusional time scale of water in the drying
particles is typically shorter than the drying time (of order 1 s).
This conclusion is consistent with a value for the viscosity that
remains below 1 Pa s, the viscosity of a relatively viscous liquid
(e.g., glycerol), 3 orders of magnitude more viscous than water.[38,39]
Changes in Temperature Impact Drying Rates and
Sedimentation Distance
Notably, very few studies have explored
the change in sedimentation
distance with ambient temperature. The vapor pressure of water is
strongly dependent on temperature,[40] and
this impacts on the compositionally dependent vapor pressure of saliva
and deep lung fluid droplets. In addition, the ambient temperature
also impacts on the buoyancy of the respiratory jet. At warmer temperatures,
the jet is less buoyant and carries the entrained droplets greater
distances. We compare droplet evaporation–sedimentation profiles
for 60 μm diameter droplets at 50% RH and temperatures of 273–303
at 5 K intervals in Figure a. The hygroscopic response is only very weakly dependent
on temperature, so we assume that the hygroscopicity measurements
reported earlier are temperature invariant. At the lowest temperature,
the droplet sediments ∼1.85 m from source, evaporating to an
equilibrated diameter of 16.8 μm. At elevated temperature, the
vapor pressure is higher, and the droplet evaporates more rapidly.
This, combined with the reduced buoyancy of the respiratory jet, contributes
to an increase in the sedimentation distance. At 293 K, the droplet
sediments at ∼2.9 m. As an indicator of the sensitivity of
the sedimentation distance to temperature, we report the change in
sedimentation distance when the temperature is 303 K (30 °C)
compared with 283 K (10 °C) in Figure b.
Figure 6
(a) Dependence of sedimentation distance on
temperature for saliva
droplets initially 60 μm in diameter generated by a cough at
10 m/s at 50% RH and 273–303 at 5 K intervals. The dashed lines
represent the trajectory of the respiratory jet at 273 K (black) and
303 K (red). (b) Increase in sedimentation distance for saliva droplets
generated by a cough when the ambient temperature increases to 303
K compared with 283 K. The region to the left of the dashed lines
indicates when the 4 m limit is reached without sedimentation occurring
for 283 K (black) and 303 K (yellow).
(a) Dependence of sedimentation distance on
temperature for saliva
droplets initially 60 μm in diameter generated by a cough at
10 m/s at 50% RH and 273–303 at 5 K intervals. The dashed lines
represent the trajectory of the respiratory jet at 273 K (black) and
303 K (red). (b) Increase in sedimentation distance for saliva droplets
generated by a cough when the ambient temperature increases to 303
K compared with 283 K. The region to the left of the dashed lines
indicates when the 4 m limit is reached without sedimentation occurring
for 283 K (black) and 303 K (yellow).
Changes in Airborne Volume Fraction with Distance
and Potential Exposure
Although the model has its limitations,
indicative calculations
of the changing fraction of the original aerosols and droplets remaining
elevated from expiratory activity at varying distance can be made
as well as, thus, the potential degree of exposure. It should be recognized
that the model makes no attempt to represent the following: the intricacies
of the dynamics of particle impaction on surfaces (in this case, the
face of a susceptible individual) and the change in deposition efficiency
with particle size and Stokes number; the actual area of exposed mucous
membranes (i.e., the eyes, nose, and mouth); the thermal flows generated
by individuals; the inhalation dynamics on inspiration; and the dose
required for infection. It also only considers droplets which are
initially emitted along the center of the respiratory jet (i.e., those
which are anticipated to travel the furthest) and ignores any of the
complexities associated with an ensemble droplet plume, such as droplet/droplet
interactions. However, the model does make it possible to integrate
the fraction of the droplet size distribution passing through a chosen
window transverse to the exhalation jet (Figure a). We have explored the dependence of this
fraction remaining airborne on RH, temperature, and distance, considering
travel distances of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 m.
Figure 7
(a) Schematic of the
indicative exposure calculation. The fraction
of droplets and aerosols passing through the window at 1, 1.5, 2,
2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 m is calculated. (b) RH-dependent volume exposure
fraction at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 m for saliva droplets with
an initial diameter <100 μm. These calculations are for a
cough at an ambient temperature of 293 K. (c) Temperature-dependent
droplet number exposure fraction at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4
m for saliva droplets with an initial diameter <100 μm. These
calculations are for a cough at an ambient RH of 50%.
(a) Schematic of the
indicative exposure calculation. The fraction
of droplets and aerosols passing through the window at 1, 1.5, 2,
2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 m is calculated. (b) RH-dependent volume exposure
fraction at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 m for saliva droplets with
an initial diameter <100 μm. These calculations are for a
cough at an ambient temperature of 293 K. (c) Temperature-dependent
droplet number exposure fraction at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4
m for saliva droplets with an initial diameter <100 μm. These
calculations are for a cough at an ambient RH of 50%.More completely, using the model predictions, we identify
the volume
fraction of respiratory droplets in the initial diameter size range
<100 μm from a cough that remain at an elevation above 1
m at each of the separation distances while varying RH and keeping
temperature constant at 293 K (Figure b) and temperature while keeping RH constant at 50%
(Figure c). Specifically,
we divide the particle size distribution into 2 halves, those that
are too large to remain airborne and have trajectories that take them
below 1 m above the ground at the chosen separation distance, and
those that are sufficiently small to remain elevated above 1 m. We
then integrate the volume concentration distribution, determining
the fraction in the volume distribution that remains elevated above
1 m where the volume fraction can be expected to provide a good estimate
of the mass fraction. The size distribution reported by Johnson et
al. is assumed to be the initial distribution of droplet sizes (Figure S6a).[4]For droplets in the initial diameter range <100 μm generated
by a cough at 293 K and at 50% RH, the maximum initial droplet sizes
that pass through the windows at 1, 1.5, and 2 m are 100, 80, and
65 μm, respectively. This corresponds to volume fractions remaining
elevated transiting through the window at 1, 1.5, and 2 m of 1, 0.350,
and 0.125. As the RH increases, the fractional exposure decreases
due to the slower evaporative flux and loss of mass, ensuring that
the droplets sediment more rapidly. The fractional exposure increases
with increasing temperature, due to the enhanced evaporative flux
and reduced jet buoyancy. At 2 m of separation, the corresponding
fraction in number concentration remaining elevated is 0.834 (Figure S6b). This demonstrates the dominant contribution
to the volume distribution of the relatively small number of larger
droplets compared to more numerous smaller droplets. Indeed, these
fractions are qualitatively consistent with the recent computational
fluid dynamics models reported by Chen et al.[7] Although Chen et al. considered the fluid dynamics more accurately,
our focus is to study the more accurate representation of the microphysical
properties of the evolving aerosols.
Conclusions
Here, we present a new, empirically derived treatment for the evaporation
of respiratory fluid droplets and apply a simple 2-dimensional respiratory
droplet evaporation/sedimentation/momentum model to assess the impact
on sedimentation outcomes. The droplet mass (calculated from the size
and density) is the dominant factor controlling the sedimentation
time and, hence, the distance carried by the respiratory jet. We identify
regimes where evaporation and the factors governing evaporation have
negligible or dramatic impacts on the sedimentation outcomes. For
initial droplet diameters above 100 μm, the ambient conditions
(RH and temperature) and representation of the composition/hygroscopic
response have little impact on the sedimentation distance, and previous
models assuming aqueous sodium chloride will provide a fair representation.
Below 100 μm, and particularly below 80 μm, the increased
settling time means that evaporation plays a significant role in influencing
the size and compositional changes that occur during the sedimentation
process. Under these circumstances the application of an appropriate
microphysical treatment and correct specification of the ambient conditions
are crucial to accurately assess sedimentation distance and time.
Failure to account for the composition can lead to sedimentation distance
differences >1 m and beyond, under dryer conditions. Likewise,
increasing
the ambient temperature from 283 to 303 K can increase the sedimentation
distance by well above 2 m. Very small aerosol droplets, where surface
curvature is an important influence on vapor pressure and, thus, on
evaporation rate (i.e., ∼<100 nm), are not considered in
this work. These are smaller in dimension than the SARS-CoV-2 virus
and unlikely to present a route for effective viral transmission.A saliva droplet with an initial diameter of 100 μm emitted
by a cough will take between 6.3 and 21.9 s to sediment depending
on the ambient RH. Providing that the RH is below the phase change
RH, this provides enough time for the droplet to undergo a phase change
prior to sedimenting. Indeed, this is the case for all initial diameters
below 100 μm. It is important to note that an accurate understanding
of the phase and time-dependent moisture content may play an important
role in understanding the survival of viruses and bacteria in evaporating
droplets.[41]In terms of potential
exposure, we calculated the fraction of droplets
below 100 μm from a measured respiratory droplet distribution
that remain elevated above 1 m at regular separation distances between
1 and 4 m. We show that the fraction in the initial volume distribution
decreases from 1 to 0.125 as the separation distance is increased
from 1 to 2 m under typical ambient conditions.We acknowledge
the limitations of the study for accurately calculating
the trajectories of very small (<∼300 nm) or nonspherical
aerosols. We do not account for the dynamic complexities within an
ensemble droplet plume, nor the deposition dynamics for droplets impacting
on a susceptible person. We also recognize that the artificial recipes
used here may not reflect the complexity, variability, or disease
state dependence of real respiratory secretions, and this will be
addressed in a future publication.
Authors: Shanna Ratnesar-Shumate; Gregory Williams; Brian Green; Melissa Krause; Brian Holland; Stewart Wood; Jordan Bohannon; Jeremy Boydston; Denise Freeburger; Idris Hooper; Katie Beck; John Yeager; Louis A Altamura; Jennifer Biryukov; Jason Yolitz; Michael Schuit; Victoria Wahl; Michael Hevey; Paul Dabisch Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Henry P Oswin; Allen E Haddrell; Mara Otero-Fernandez; Jamie F S Mann; Tristan A Cogan; Thomas G Hilditch; Jianghan Tian; Daniel A Hardy; Darryl J Hill; Adam Finn; Andrew D Davidson; Jonathan P Reid Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Robert Groth; Luke T Cravigan; Sadegh Niazi; Zoran Ristovski; Graham R Johnson Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Chia C Wang; Kimberly A Prather; Josué Sznitman; Jose L Jimenez; Seema S Lakdawala; Zeynep Tufekci; Linsey C Marr Journal: Science Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Abigail Dommer; Lorenzo Casalino; Fiona Kearns; Mia Rosenfeld; Nicholas Wauer; Surl-Hee Ahn; John Russo; Sofia Oliveira; Clare Morris; Anthony Bogetti; Anda Trifan; Alexander Brace; Terra Sztain; Austin Clyde; Heng Ma; Chakra Chennubhotla; Hyungro Lee; Matteo Turilli; Syma Khalid; Teresa Tamayo-Mendoza; Matthew Welborn; Anders Christensen; Daniel G A Smith; Zhuoran Qiao; Sai Krishna Sirumalla; Michael O'Connor; Frederick Manby; Anima Anandkumar; David Hardy; James Phillips; Abraham Stern; Josh Romero; David Clark; Mitchell Dorrell; Tom Maiden; Lei Huang; John McCalpin; Christopher Woods; Alan Gray; Matt Williams; Bryan Barker; Harinda Rajapaksha; Richard Pitts; Tom Gibbs; John Stone; Daniel Zuckerman; Adrian Mulholland; Thomas Miller; Shantenu Jha; Arvind Ramanathan; Lillian Chong; Rommie Amaro Journal: bioRxiv Date: 2021-11-15
Authors: Tareq Hussein; Jakob Löndahl; Sara Thuresson; Malin Alsved; Afnan Al-Hunaiti; Kalle Saksela; Hazem Aqel; Heikki Junninen; Alexander Mahura; Markku Kulmala Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 3.390