Rebecca A Stern1, Petros Koutrakis2, Marco A G Martins2, Bernardo Lemos3, Scot E Dowd4, Elsie M Sunderland1,2, Eric Garshick5,6,7. 1. Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. 2. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Heath, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Environmental Health and Molecular and Integrative Physiological Sciences Program, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Molecular Research LP (MR DNA), Shallowater, TX, USA. 5. Pulmonary, Allergy, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine Section, VA Boston Healthcare System, 1400 VFW Pkwy, West Roxbury, Boston, MA, 02132, USA. Eric.Garshick@va.gov. 6. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Eric.Garshick@va.gov. 7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Eric.Garshick@va.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanism for spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been attributed to large particles produced by coughing and sneezing. There is controversy whether smaller airborne particles may transport SARS-CoV-2. Smaller particles, particularly fine particulate matter (≤ 2.5 µm in diameter), can remain airborne for longer periods than larger particles and after inhalation will penetrate deeply into the lungs. Little is known about the size distribution and location of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA. METHODS: As a measure of hospital-related exposure, air samples of three particle sizes (> 10.0 µm, 10.0-2.5 µm, and ≤ 2.5 µm) were collected in a Boston, Massachusetts (USA) hospital from April to May 2020 (N = 90 size-fractionated samples). Locations included outside negative-pressure COVID-19 wards, a hospital ward not directly involved in COVID-19 patient care, and the emergency department. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in 9% of samples and in all size fractions at concentrations of 5 to 51 copies m-3. Locations outside COVID-19 wards had the fewest positive samples. A non-COVID-19 ward had the highest number of positive samples, likely reflecting staff congregation. The probability of a positive sample was positively associated (r = 0.95, p < 0.01) with the number of COVID-19 patients in the hospital. The number of COVID-19 patients in the hospital was positively associated (r = 0.99, p < 0.01) with the number of new daily cases in Massachusetts. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent detection of positive samples in non-COVID-19 than COVID-19 hospital areas indicates effectiveness of COVID-ward hospital controls in controlling air concentrations and suggests the potential for disease spread in areas without the strictest precautions. The positive associations regarding the probability of a positive sample, COVID-19 cases in the hospital, and cases in Massachusetts suggests that hospital air sample positivity was related to community burden. SARS-CoV-2 RNA with fine particulate matter supports the possibility of airborne transmission over distances greater than six feet. The findings support guidelines that limit exposure to airborne particles including fine particles capable of longer distance transport and greater lung penetration.
BACKGROUND: The mechanism for spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been attributed to large particles produced by coughing and sneezing. There is controversy whether smaller airborne particles may transport SARS-CoV-2. Smaller particles, particularly fine particulate matter (≤ 2.5 µm in diameter), can remain airborne for longer periods than larger particles and after inhalation will penetrate deeply into the lungs. Little is known about the size distribution and location of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA. METHODS: As a measure of hospital-related exposure, air samples of three particle sizes (> 10.0 µm, 10.0-2.5 µm, and ≤ 2.5 µm) were collected in a Boston, Massachusetts (USA) hospital from April to May 2020 (N = 90 size-fractionated samples). Locations included outside negative-pressure COVID-19 wards, a hospital ward not directly involved in COVID-19patient care, and the emergency department. RESULTS:SARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in 9% of samples and in all size fractions at concentrations of 5 to 51 copies m-3. Locations outside COVID-19 wards had the fewest positive samples. A non-COVID-19 ward had the highest number of positive samples, likely reflecting staff congregation. The probability of a positive sample was positively associated (r = 0.95, p < 0.01) with the number of COVID-19patients in the hospital. The number of COVID-19patients in the hospital was positively associated (r = 0.99, p < 0.01) with the number of new daily cases in Massachusetts. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent detection of positive samples in non-COVID-19 than COVID-19 hospital areas indicates effectiveness of COVID-ward hospital controls in controlling air concentrations and suggests the potential for disease spread in areas without the strictest precautions. The positive associations regarding the probability of a positive sample, COVID-19 cases in the hospital, and cases in Massachusetts suggests that hospital air sample positivity was related to community burden. SARS-CoV-2 RNA with fine particulate matter supports the possibility of airborne transmission over distances greater than six feet. The findings support guidelines that limit exposure to airborne particles including fine particles capable of longer distance transport and greater lung penetration.
Authors: John A Lednicky; Michael Lauzardo; Z Hugh Fan; Antarpreet Jutla; Trevor B Tilly; Mayank Gangwar; Moiz Usmani; Sripriya Nannu Shankar; Karim Mohamed; Arantza Eiguren-Fernandez; Caroline J Stephenson; Md Mahbubul Alam; Maha A Elbadry; Julia C Loeb; Kuttichantran Subramaniam; Thomas B Waltzek; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; J Glenn Morris; Chang-Yu Wu Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Joshua L Santarpia; Danielle N Rivera; Vicki L Herrera; M Jane Morwitzer; Hannah M Creager; George W Santarpia; Kevin K Crown; David M Brett-Major; Elizabeth R Schnaubelt; M Jana Broadhurst; James V Lawler; St Patrick Reid; John J Lowe Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: James Hadfield; Colin Megill; Sidney M Bell; John Huddleston; Barney Potter; Charlton Callender; Pavel Sagulenko; Trevor Bedford; Richard A Neher Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 6.931
Authors: Sima Asadi; Anthony S Wexler; Christopher D Cappa; Santiago Barreda; Nicole M Bouvier; William D Ristenpart Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Rebecca A Stern; Michael E Charness; Kalpana Gupta; Petros Koutrakis; Katherine Linsenmeyer; Rebecca Madjarov; Marco A G Martins; Bernardo Lemos; Scot E Dowd; Eric Garshick Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Marianna Conte; Matteo Feltracco; Daniela Chirizzi; Sara Trabucco; Adelaide Dinoi; Elena Gregoris; Elena Barbaro; Gianfranco La Bella; Giuseppina Ciccarese; Franco Belosi; Giovanna La Salandra; Andrea Gambaro; Daniele Contini Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 5.190
Authors: Robert J Laumbach; Gediminas Mainelis; Kathleen G Black; Nirmala T Myers; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Shahnaz Alimokhtari; Shirin Hastings; Alicia Legard; Adriana de Resende; Leonardo Calderón; Frederic T Lu; Howard M Kipen Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-02
Authors: G Buonanno; A Robotto; E Brizio; L Morawska; A Civra; F Corino; D Lembo; G Ficco; L Stabile Journal: J Hazard Mater Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 10.588
Authors: Evgenia Chezganova; Olga Efimova; Vera Sakharova; Anna Efimova; Sergey Sozinov; Anton Kutikhin; Zinfer Ismagilov; Elena Brusina Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-06-30