Comments
To the Editor:
Although vaccines are effective at preventing coronavirus disease (COVID-19), uncertainty remains about practical public health responses to vaccine-resistant variants or future novel respiratory viruses. Reducing attack rates in households, estimated to be as high as 54% in the United States, is a key strategy (1). In addition to close physical contact, emerging opinion suggests that airborne transmission is linked to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread, particularly in lower-socioeconomic-status households with greater crowding, even if isolation and personal protective equipment minimize large particle transmission (2–5).
The size-dependent airborne behavior of particles originating from the respiratory tract has a continuous distribution from tens of nanometers to tens of microns. Recognizing this continuity, there are two primary pathways, requiring different control strategies, by which respiratory viral infections spread through air to others. First, larger respiratory droplets that rapidly settle onto surfaces, typically within 1–2 meters of the source, are amenable to hand hygiene, social distancing, and face masks. Second, albeit with more limited direct evidence, is aerosolization and spread of smaller respiratory droplets, or droplet nuclei, primarily <0.5 micrometers in final size, capable of staying suspended in air for hours and requiring filtering or ventilation for interdiction (2–4). We report the first naturalistic observations of household air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We know of no prior reports of air sampling for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in homes without manipulation of the behavior or activity of participants.
Rutgers Institutional Review Board approved this study, and participants provided informed consent.
Recruitment occurred in fall and winter of 2020–2021 through an e-mail flyer at the time of notification of test positivity. Adults testing positive within the prior 7 days were eligible to participate. Saliva screening at the first home visit verified continued positivity (Table 1).
| Home | Age (yr) | Sex | N Gene | ORF1-AB Gene | S Gene | Household Members (n) | Other Reported Positive* | Participant Cough |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40 | Male | 24.3 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 2 | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | 46 | Female | 16.9 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 4 | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | 31 | Male | 25.0 | 24.7 | 25.0 | 1 | N/A | No |
| 4 | 47 | Female | 23.9 | 22.2 | 24.0 | 4 | Yes | Yes |
| 5 | 61 | Female | 33.7 | 30.9 | ND | 2 | No | No |
| 6 | 65 | Female | 25.5 | 26.3 | 26.8 | 5 | No | Yes |
| 7 | 30 | Female | 27.5 | 27.7 | 27.4 | 1 | N/A | Yes |
| 8 | 64 | Male | 26.3 | 27.9 | 27.4 | 2 | No | No |
| 9 | 37 | Male | 17.7 | 17.3 | 17.0 | 3 | No | Yes |
| 10 | 47 | Male | 28.1 | 27.5 | 27.7 | 4 | Yes | No |
| 11 | 62 | Female | 25.1 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 2 | No | Yes |
Air samples were collected for 24 hours on polytetraflouroethylene (PTFE) filters (SKC Inc.) in two separate rooms (if available) in each participant’s home using an open-face filter holder and Leland Legacy pump (SKC Inc.) operated at 10 L/min. Samples were eluted in RNA-grade water and analyzed by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the presence of three SARS-CoV-2–specific genes. There is no universal protocol for RT-PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2, let alone for its analysis in environmental samples (6). Our selected laboratory (Infinite BiologiX) used a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved procedure developed at Rutgers to target three genomic regions of SARS-CoV-2: nucleocapsid (N) gene, spike (S) gene, and open reading frame-AB (ORF1-AB) region. To maximize detection sensitivity, we assessed presence (cycle threshold [Ct] < 37) or absence of each gene in our air samples (7). The selected rooms were defined as the isolation room (the room used primarily, but not exclusively, by the subject) and the common room (a separate but adjacent room). Participants recorded hours spent in both rooms during sampling, but instructions for self-isolation were not provided. Samplers were placed 1 meter away from the nearest wall and away from vents, windows, traffic flow, and obstructing furniture where possible. Samplers faced downward to avoid large droplets. The study included 11 homes (Table 1) with 20 air samples (60 individual SARS-CoV-2 gene RT-PCR tests) collected from 11 isolation rooms and 9 common rooms (Table 2).
| Home | Isolation Room | Common Room | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N Gene | ORF1-AB Gene | S Gene | Subject Present (h)* | N Gene | ORF1-AB Gene | S Gene | Subject Present (h)* | |
| 1† | ND | ND | ND | 16 | — | — | — | 0 |
| 2† | 34.3 | ND | 36.6 | 24 | — | — | — | 0 |
| 3 | ND | ND | ND | 22.5 | ND | ND | ND | 0 |
| 4 | 31.4 | 28.5 | 28.8 | 10 | ND | 34.5 | 36.4 | 14 |
| 5 | 35.8 | 32.8 | 33.1 | 17 | 32.0 | 30.9 | 31.6 | 7 |
| 6 | ND | 34.4 | ND | 23.5 | ND | ND | ND | 0.5 |
| 7 | ND | ND | ND | 17 | ND | 33.7 | 36.8 | 7 |
| 8 | ND | ND | ND | 22 | ND | 35.8 | ND | 2 |
| 9 | 32.1 | 31.3 | ND | 12 | 32.2 | 31.6 | 32.0 | 4 |
| 10 | ND | ND | ND | 13 | ND | ND | ND | 10 |
| 11 | ND | 34.7 | 36.2 | 14 | ND | 34.9 | ND | 8 |
| Homes detected | 4 | 5 | 4 | — | 2 | 6 | 4 | — |
In addition to the primary case, one or more known or suspected recently positive individuals were reported to be present in 4 of 11 (36%) homes at the time of sampling. During sampling, participants reported spending between 10 and 24 hours in the isolation room. Seventy-three percent of participants reported spending some time in the common room (range 0–14 h) and 45% of participants reported time in other areas of the home (range 0–8 h).
For each of the three genes, the percentage of homes with a positive air sample ranged from 36% to 45% in the isolation room and from 22% to 67% in the common room. Eight homes out of 11 (73%) had at least one gene detected, and 5 of 11 isolation room samples had at least two genes detected. Six of nine homes with sampling in both the isolation room and common room had at least one gene detected in the common room (Table 2), and four of these common rooms had two genes detected. Seven of these nine homes reported no other cases in the household (Table 1), including the two living alone, and in five of these homes, the common room was positive for viral aerosols. An additional occupant who recently tested positive or had symptoms consistent with COVID-19 was present in only two of seven (29%) homes with multiple occupants and a valid common room test.
Our results provide strong empirical support that aerosols of small respiratory droplets and nuclei containing airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA are present both within and outside of home isolation rooms, presenting infection risk beyond close contact with other occupants.
Our indoor air sampling data clearly demonstrate that measurable airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA is present in home air of most infected individuals. We found SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA, likely as both free virus and bound to other particulate matter (PM), not only in the isolation room but, importantly, elsewhere in the home (common room), consistent with high risk of home airborne transmission. Previously, detection of airborne SARS-CoV-2, likely as part of PM, has been limited to the hospital or clinic setting (8–12), an automobile cabin (13), and two reports identifying it in outdoor PM samples (14, 15).
Further buttressing our findings is a study of viral aerosols measured only in isolation rooms of apartments at a specified distance of 2 meters from the participant, using a 20-minute scripted (nonnaturalistic) air sampling protocol (16). Our novel empirical findings support the hypothesis that exposure to airborne small droplets and/or droplet nuclei is a pathway for COVID-19 transmission and a candidate explanation for high household attack rates (1).
Despite models, laboratory experiments, and theory-based discussions, previous field data have not empirically addressed or clarified the relative importance of real-world exposure pathways that must be interdicted to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Studies are needed with adequate power and definitive assessment of infection status of all household members, their locations within the household, clear discrimination between aerosols and larger droplets by size-selective sampling, and assessment of aerosolized virus viability (12).
| 1. | Lewis NM, Chu VT, Ye D, Conners EE, Gharpure R, Laws RL, et al. Household transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:1805–1813. |
| 2. | Morawska L, Cao J. Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: the world should face the reality. Environ Int 2020;139:105730. |
| 3. | Zhang R, Li Y, Zhang AL, Wang Y, Molina MJ. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020;117:14857–14863. |
| 4. | Asadi S, Bouvier N, Wexler AS, Ristenpart WD. The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: does COVID-19 transmit via expiratory particles? Aerosol Sci Technol 2020;0:1–4. |
| 5. | Romano SD, Blackstock AJ, Taylor EV, El Burai Felix S, Adjei S, Singleton CM, et al. Trends in racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 hospitalizations, by region - United States, March-December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:560–565. |
| 6. | Salvatore PP, Dawson P, Wadhwa A, Rabold EM, Buono S, Dietrich EA, et al. Epidemiological correlates of polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold values in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis 2021;72:e761–e767. |
| 7. | Radbel J, Jagpal S, Roy J, Brooks A, Tischfield J, Sheldon M, et al. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is comparable in clinical samples preserved in saline or viral transport medium. J Mol Diagn 2020 l;22:871–875. |
| 8. | Stern RA, Koutrakis P, Martins MAG, Lemos B, Dowd SE, Sunderland EM, et al. Characterization of hospital airborne SARS-CoV-2. Respir Res 2021;22:73. |
| 9. | Birgand G, Peiffer-Smadja N, Fournier S, Kerneis S, Lescure FX, Lucet JC. Assessment of air contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2033232. [Published erratum appears in JAMA Netw Open 4:e2037904. |
| 10. | Kenarkoohi A, Noorimotlagh Z, Falahi S, Amarloei A, Mirzaee SA, Pakzad I, et al. Hospital indoor air quality monitoring for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus. Sci Total Environ 2020;748:141324. |
| 11. | Lednicky JA, Shankar SN, Elbadry MA, Gibson JC, Alam MM, Stephenson CJ, et al. Collection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus from the air of a clinic within a university student health care center and analyses of the viral genomic sequence. Aerosol Air Qual Res 2020;20: 1167–1171. |
| 12. | Lednicky JA, Lauzardo M, Fan ZH, Jutla A, Tilly TB, Gangwar M, et al. Viable SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients. Int J Infect Dis 2020;100:476–482. |
| 13. | Lednicky JA, Lauzardo M, Alam MM, Elbadry MA, Stephenson CJ, Gibson JC, et al. Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from the air in a car driven by a COVID patient with mild illness. Int J Infect Dis 2021;108:212–216. |
| 14. | Setti L, Passarini F, De Gennaro G, Barbieri P, Perrone MG, Borelli M, et al. SARS-Cov-2RNA found on particulate matter of Bergamo in Northern Italy: first evidence. Environ Res 2020;188:109754. |
| 15. | Kayalar Ö, Arı A, Babuççu G, Konyalılar N, Doğan Ö, Can F, et al. Existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on ambient particulate matter samples: a nationwide study in Turkey. Sci Total Environ 2021;789:147976. |
| 16. | Rodríguez M, Palop ML, Seseña S, Rodríguez A. Are the portable air cleaners (PAC) really effective to terminate airborne SARS-CoV-2? Sci Total Environ 2021;785:147300. |
* These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.
Supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant ES05022 and NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (CATS) (UL1TR003017); the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Training Grant in Exposure Science (1T32ES019854) (N.T.M.); and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Education and Research Centers (ERC) grant (T42 OH008422) (F.T.L.).
Author Contributions: R.J.L., G.M., K.B.G., and H.M.K. conceived of the study, trained and supervised field staff, and drafted the manuscript. S.A. oversaw air sampling. N.T.M., P.O.-S., and F.T.L. assisted with data analysis and interpretation. A.L., A.d.R., and L.C. performed air sampling and assisted with data handling. S.H. assisted with recruitment of subjects and writing.
Author disclosures are available with the text of this letter at www.atsjournals.org.
