Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 5;16(1):e0244983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244983

Propagation of viral bioaerosols indoors

Olga B Kudryashova 1,¤,*, Evgeny V Muravlev 1, Aleksandra A Antonnikova 1, Sergey S Titov 1
Editor: Amitava Mukherjee2
PMCID: PMC7785217  PMID: 33400714

Abstract

Here we look into the spread of aerosols indoors that may potentially carry viruses. Many viruses, including the novel SARS-CoV-2, are known to spread via airborne and air-dust pathways. From the literature data and our research on the propagation of fine aerosols, we simulate herein the carryover of viral aerosols in indoor air. We demonstrate that a lot of fine droplets released from an infected person’s coughing, sneezing, or talking propagate very fast and for large distances indoors, as well as bend around obstacles, lift up and down over staircases, and so on. This study suggests equations to evaluate the concentration of those droplets, depending on time and distance from the source of infection. Estimates are given for the safe distance to the source of infection, and available methods for neutralizing viral aerosols indoors are considered.

Introduction

The coronavirus pandemic that stroke the world in 2020 has posed a series of questions for humanity that need to be solved. And these are not only medicine-related issues but also those relating to other specialists. In particular, of importance is research on generation, evolution, and propagation of bioaerosols containing viral particles. The novel coronavirus infection is communicated not only via contact but also via airborne pathway [1]. This is also corroborated by the reported results Liu et al. [2]. Liu et al. detected a plenty of RNA fragments of the novel coronavirus inside Wuhan hospitals; moreover, not only were they detected in the wards with coronavirus-infected patients but also in other sections of the hospitals to which the virus should not get by any means. The genomic fragments of SARS-CoV-2 were found both in fine and coarse aerosols particles; however, they were mostly found in 0.25–0.5 μm droplets.

The same tendency was noticed for droplets carrying flu viruses [3]. It turned out that aerosol particles with a size below 5 μm contained 8.8. times more replicas than larger particles. This speaks of fine respiratory aerosol particles as being more dangerous in terms of potential contagion. Besides, fine aerosol particles may sustain in the air and penetrate deeper into the lungs, causing more severe progression of the disease [4, 5]. Perhaps the concentration of viral particles is not so high as to cause a danger of infection, but the very fact of the transfer of viral particles by small aerosol droplets far from the source of origin is interesting.

Knowing the propagation regularities of viral bioaerosols would help map out ways of preventing dangerous infections. Relatively large respiratory particles (above 15 μm in size) follow the ballistic trajectory and settle on the surface in close proximity to the source of infection. Ordinary medical masks, except for paper ones, can efficiently hold them up [69].

However, smaller droplets can be carried over even farther by the airflow [10], in which case small aerosol particles are potential virus-carriers and foster the pandemic spread because they are yet big enough to contain thousands of viral and bacterial pathogenic microorganisms [11]. Asadi et al. [12] assert that fine aerosols (with a particle size below 5 μm) exhaled with usual speech serve as a crucial medium for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

It should be noted that water particles less than 5 μm would have evaporated very fast (within a few seconds at a typical low-level air humidity indoors). But this is not the case for particles of saliva and mucus in which surfactants are contained. These surfactants diminish the evaporation rate of droplets by a factor of 2–10 (subject to the air humidity) [13]. On the other hand, these substances protect viruses inside a droplet, extending their survivability. van Doremalen N et al. [14] demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can stay alive as an aerosol for at least 3 h. However, high temperature (above tC ~ 30 ± 2.4 0C [15]) and humidity appear to reduce the viability and transmissibility of COVID-19 [16].

By now, it is thought for sure that bioaerosols resulting from coughing, sneezing, and talking are less dangerous in outdoor space than indoors [17]. The major bulk of dangerous aerosol particles settle down within the ‘social distance’ of 1–2 m if there is no wind or wind speed is at most 4 km/h. A finer fraction of bioaerosols scatters rapidly to safe concentrations in outdoor space.

The situation is different in indoor space, even if people keep the social distance from each other in indoor rooms and the source of infection persists over a long time (an infected or asymptomatic person). This source of infection when coughing, sneezing, or talking releases the tiniest virus-bearing saliva particles into the air that may hover in the air for a long time without settling and evaporating [18].

Without special air purification and disinfection tools, the particle concentration of a bioaerosol issued from the source of infection will only be growing if the infected person is inside the room. Tiny micron-sized particles can spread fast in a room in spite of obstacles. As the convincing 3D-model simulation demonstrated [19], most of the droplets of respiratory origin reside in the air for quite a long time and propagate rapidly and a long way from the source. The simulation also showed that usual ventilation does not reduce the particle concentration. The risk of accumulated critical viral exposure may persist for a few minutes after a cough at a distance of about up to 4 m from the source. Vuorinen et al. [19] place attention on the risks associated with crowded indoor spaces (offices, schools, public transport).

We investigated earlier the propagation of fine aerosols with a typical particle size below 15 μm in space and derived approximate equations that can estimate the diffusive propagation velocity of those aerosols in confined space [20]. Here we used and elaborated the earlier obtained results.

The present study aimed to describe the indoor propagation of a respiratory aerosol cloud as a potential virus-carrier. We are going demonstrate experimentally and theoretically that a lot of fine droplets released from an infected person’s coughing, sneezing, or talking propagate very fast and for large distances indoors, as well as bend around obstacles, lift up and down over staircases, and so on.

Materials and methods

Initial data for simulation

Chao et al. [21] measured the sizes of particles resulting from coughing, sneezing, and loud talking by using optical techniques based on the Mie scattering theory. The average geometric diameter of the particles was estimated to be 13.5–16.0 μm. Yang et al. [22] estimated the particle size at coughing to be between 0.62 and 15.9 μm, with the mean diameter being 8.35 μm. The initial ejection velocity of droplets at sneezing was measured by Scharfman et al. [23] and reached 35 m/s.

Methods

We applied physical simulation of the propagation of a fine aerosol ejected in confined space of different configurations. Two pulsed generators were employed as the source of aerosol [20]. The representative sizes of droplets were approximately within the range of interest. The particle diameter ranged from 0.5 to 20 μm with a distribution mode of 10 μm. The generation and ejection velocities of the droplets were an order of magnitude greater than those at coughing and sneezing. But, as is shown hereinafter, the initial ejection velocity of the droplets does not affect the final travel velocity and distance of the particles due to air drag. The liquid to be atomized in the experiment weighed 6 mL (3 mL per each generator).

Materials

We used a 20 wt.% aqueous solution of glycerol as the model liquid. Water droplets of micron sizes at typical air humidity and temperature would evaporate indoors within a few seconds, whereas the model solution droplets would not evaporate completely for a long time. Bioaerosol droplets containing saliva, mucus, and epithelium particles would behave the same. The evaporation time of these particles, is 2–10 times greater than that of water, as reported Vejerano et al. [13]. Furthermore, once evaporated, the liquid leaves a dry residue. For our model solution, the dry residue is imitated by an almost non-vaporizable proportion of glycerol.

By setting the problem, we did not consider the evaporation stage of the volatile fraction of particle matter, which decreases the sizes of the particles. Under low humidity conditions typical of indoor environments, the evaporation stage ends rapidly. This is followed by a slower stage of the diffusive propagation of non-volatile residues of droplets. It is the sizes of these droplets that we measured by instruments, and it is the propagation of those droplets in confined space that we investigated herein.

The concentration and size of aerosol particles were measured by the small-angle scattering method using a stand-off laser unit [24]. Measurements are available in S1 Table.

We simulated the aerosol propagation in space of complex configurations. In the first option, a test box in two configurations was positioned horizontally at the same level. The space configurations and the location of aerosol generators and instruments are illustrated in Fig 1.

Fig 1. The horizontal configuration and location of generators in the experiment.

Fig 1

(1) atomizers, (2) box walls, (3) laser, (4) mirror, (5) laser beam, and (6) photodetectors. (A) L-shaped configuration, atomization at one spot. (B) L-shaped configuration, atomization at two spots.

In the second option, an experimental space in two configurations imitated a staircase. In this case, the boxes were oriented vertically, while the generators were positioned either on the bottom or on the top (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Schematics of experimental configurations imitating a staircase.

Fig 2

(A) generators on the bottom and (B) generators on the top. (1) atomizers, (2) box walls, (3) laser, (4) laser beam, and (5) photodetectors.

Mathematical model

Consider the propagation of a cloud of particles with representative diameter d in confined space in the air at rest. The particles are ejected from the point source with initial velocity u0. In this case, they get retarded while traveling in the air and come to a stop at some distance R during time t0. A spherical cloud with radius R is formed. Further propagation of the particles is due to diffusion.

The whole process can be classified into two phases: a short-term phase when particles scatter to generate a cloud with radius R, and a long-term phase of diffusive propagation. In the second phase, some largest particles will settle down due to gravity.

Primary scatter and formation time of fine aerosol cloud

The equation for particle travel is written as:

πρpd33dudt=πd2CDρu24, (1)

where ρp, ρ are the densities of the droplet and air, respectively; u is the particle velocity; СD = 24/Re is the dimensionless drag coefficient; and Re=dρuμ is the Reynolds number. The integral of Eq (1):

u=u0exp(18μd2ρpt), (2)

where u0 is the initial particle velocity.

Distance r(t) the particle has passed in the air is defined by the integration of Eq (2). The particle gets retarded in the air, reaching asymptotically maximum distance R within a time t0 (Fig 3). In our model case, the initial particle velocity was u0 = 300 m s-1, the cloud radius was R = 21 cm, and the cloud formation time was t0 = 2.6 ms.

Fig 3. Distance passed by a water droplet of 15 μm in diameter when it gets retarded in the air. Initial velocity u = 300 m/s.

Fig 3

Experimental dots were obtained by high-speed video recording; the curve stands for calculation.

Maximum distance R is linearly dependent on initial velocity u (Fig 4). The time, over which the maximum distance is covered, is estimated at several milliseconds.

Fig 4. Distance of retardation of a water droplet with different diameters plotted against initial velocity.

Fig 4

At an ejection velocity consistent with the data [23] for coughing, small particles will stop at a distance less than 3 cm from the source. At an ejection velocity of u = 300 m/s small particles will stop at a distance about 20 cm from the source. Thus, that difference in initial velocity is not important for describing the propagation of particles over distances of several meters.

Diffusive propagation of particles in space

In spherical approximation, the problem of diffusion of aerosol particles can be written as follows:

ct=Dr2r(r2cr), (3)

with initial and boundary conditions:

t = 0, с = с0 at r < R; с = 0 at r > R,

r=0:cr=0;r:cr=0,

where c is the mass concentration of particles; c0 is the mass concentration in the primary cloud having radius R which is calculated by solving the problem of initial scatter of droplets; c0=3m04πR3, r is the radial coordinate; t is the time; D is the effective coefficient of diffusion; and m0 is the total weight of the liquid.

The solution to the diffusion equation is written as:

C=12{erfc(rR2Dt)2rDtπexp[(rR)24Dt]erfc(r+R2Dt)+2rDtπexp[(r+R)24Dt]}, (4)

where C(r,t) = с/с0 is the dimensionless concentration.

On the effective coefficient of diffusion

For particles with d = 10 μm, the Brownian diffusion coefficient is Db ~ 10−12 m2 s-1. At this diffusion coefficient value, the aerosol cloud would have not spread noticeably from the source within about a few hours. This contradicts the results from numerous studies. Fine particles propagate much faster and farther from the source than the Brownian diffusion would have allowed, even if there is no forced ventilation. Air microflows caused by convection are always present in a room. They entrain fine aerosol particles easily.

The effective diffusion coefficient of particles having d = 10 μm was experimentally determined by comparing calculated and measured particle concentrations at different distances from the pulsed aerosol generator [20]. The calculated effective diffusion coefficient was D = 1.6·10−3 m2 s-1. This is roughly 106 times as great as the Brownian diffusion coefficient for particles of the same sizes. In this study, we used that value of the diffusion coefficient.

Results

Experiment with aerosol propagation in a box of complex configuration

The experimental results for the box of horizontal configurations (Fig 1) are illustrated in Fig 5. The aerosol distribution rapidly became almost uniform within 3–5 min in small space (typical dimensions of 1–2 m), as demonstrated by both the calculations and the experiment. The aerosol particle concentration was lower than expected (6 g was atomized in a 3 m3 volume; expected uniform concentration was 2 g m-3): 0.2–0.3 g m-3. This was due to the droplets evaporating and depositing on the walls.

Fig 5. A time course of aerosol particle concentration for the test box of horizontal configuration (Fig 1).

Fig 5

(A) L-shaped configuration, atomization at one spot; (B) L-shaped configuration, atomization at two spots.

Immediately 3–5 min after atomization, all the experimental dots lay in the same region of values (within a measurement error). For the configuration with two atomizers located at the same spot (Fig 1A), the initial particle concentration above the atomizers (0.2 cm away from the source) was higher than that for the configuration with two atomizers located at different spots (Fig 1B). In the most distant corner (1.5 m away from the source), the aerosol particle concentration was leveling off somewhat longer, but in 5 min, it also became approximately equal to 0.2 g m-3. The uniform concentration then remained almost unchanged for a few hours.

Fig 6 displays the variation in aerosol particle concentration when the aerosol propagated vertically (staircase imitation, Fig 2). When the aerosol propagated vertically, the concentration was leveling off for 3–5 min, as was in the case of horizontal propagation. This suggests that the assumption of the same diffusion coefficient value, irrespective of the gravitational vector, was valid. Fig 6B depicts the calculated variation in aerosol particle concentration above the atomizer (0.2 m away from the source) at distances of 1 and 1.5 m from the source when 6 g of aerosol was atomized. The calculated curves also demonstrate that the aerosol concentration in space levels off for a few minutes.

Fig 6. A time course of aerosol particle concentration.

Fig 6

(A) the experiment in the test box of vertical configuration (Fig 2) and (B) calculation for distances of 0.2, 1, and 1.5 m from the source, independent of configuration.

Assessment of characteristic velocities of processes

According to Einstein's law, squared particle displacement h due to diffusion is proportional to the observation time:

h2=2Dt, (5)

hence, knowing the diffusion coefficient value, one can estimate the time of particle displacement to a specified distance:

td=h22D. (6)

The diffusion velocity depends on the distance from the source but does not on the particle sizes:

ud=htd=2Dh. (7)

In most countries, the common social distance is 1–2 m. As per Eq (6), the time of propagation of a fine aerosol particle to that distance will hence be 5–20 min. Within that time, some largest particles will disappear from the aerosol due to gravitational sedimentation. Fig 7 shows the gravitational sedimentation rate of water droplets plotted against droplet sizes and shows the diffusive propagation rate for three different distances. At a distance of 0.5 m, all the aerosol particles having a diameter below 15 μm will remain in the air. Only the particles having a diameter below 7 μm will cover the 2-m distance.

Fig 7. Diffusive propagation rate and gravitational sedimentation rate plotted against particle diameter at different distances from the source.

Fig 7

By equaling diffusive propagation rate ud (Eq (7)) to the gravitational sedimentation rate, one can obtain the upper particle size limit of the aerosol which will reach distance h without precipitating:

dmax=6μDhgρp, (8)

where g is the free-fall acceleration.

Fig 8 displays maximum diameters of aerosol particles plotted against the distance from the source at two different effective coefficients of diffusion (earlier measured, D = 1.6·10−3 m2 s-1, and D = 10−2 m2 s-1). The greater effective diffusion coefficient value is probably achieved when convection is more intensive in the room. Anyway, for the 2-m distance from the source, only particles having a diameter below 7 μm hover in the air. Meanwhile, according to the review by Vuorinen et al. [19] and literature cited therein, the aerosol secretions released by a human when coughing, sneezing, or talking may contain up to 87% of particles with sizes below 1 μm. Hence, even though some particles precipitate at a distance of 2 m, their major quantity will yet be hoving in the air and potentially carrying viruses.

Fig 8. Maximum aerosol particle diameter plotted against the distance from the source.

Fig 8

Discussion

As our studies demonstrate, fine aerosols propagate fast in the still air of indoor space of even complex configurations. In the case of outdoor space, this would result in a rapid decrement of aerosol concentration to safe values, whereas the particles would not disappear anywhere in indoor space and continue hoving in the air for dozens of minutes. This poses danger to the health of people around them. If an infected person as the source of bioaerosol keeps staying in the room, every subsequent act of sneezing/talking/coughing releases new portions of dangerous particles, and thereby their concentration rises. Probably, an ordinary medical face mask would not be able to diminish considerably this stream of fine particles because its mesh size is larger than that of fine particles (although such a mask is an effective means of protecting against the bulk of the larger particles of respiratory aerosol).

The intuitively unobvious deduction made from simple aerodynamic calculations suggests that the ejection velocity has no bearing on the particle propagation rate and range. The particles scatter due to diffusion processes. If that is the case (as we showed above), the propagation rate is then proportional to the effective coefficient of diffusion. In its turn, the diffusion coefficient depends on the intensity of air flows in the air. Therefore, ventilation, airing, and a running air conditioner will only increase the travel rate and range of particles.

Morawska L. et al. [25] proposes several ways to minimize the airborne transmission of Covid-19 indoors. In particular, it is necessary to enhance the efficiency of existing ventilation systems by increasing the existing ventilation rates (outdoor air change rate); to eliminate any air-recirculation within the ventilation system (just supply fresh outdoor air).

On the other hand, there is a lot of indoor air purification technologies based on air filtration and disinfection. These are mechanical HEPA filters, UV air purifiers [25] (coronavirus aerosols are 7–10 times more susceptible to ultraviolet than other viruses) [26], air extraction systems, corona discharge-generated air ions [27], household electrofilters, and adsorption technologies. We previously demonstrated [28] that electrofilters are the most efficient exactly for collecting particles less than 5 μm in size. The purification technologies are being upgraded and such appliances are getting cheaper.

Hopefully, understanding the propagation features of viral aerosols indoors will foster the advancement and application of those technologies.

Conclusions

Here we examined the propagation processes of fine aerosols in the still air indoors. The novel Covid-19 has been found to spread via airborne and air-dust pathways. It is also known that most of the droplets resulting from sneezing, coughing, and talking have a small size (up to 16 μm). Every single sneeze or cough may release dozens of thousands of those droplets. If an infected person sneezes, coughs, or just talks, he is a steady source of the dangerous aerosol that carries viruses. We call attention to the fact that tiny particles may stay in the air, not settling on the surface for a long time. We have simulated the propagation of fine aerosols in space physically by using a pulsed aerosol generator and a model space of complex configurations. It turned out that most of the fine droplets propagate rapidly in space even in the still air and in complex geometric configurations of space. In the 3-m3 test box, the particle concentration became uniform in about 3–5 min. The 1–2 m distance (a common social distance in many countries) will be covered by the aerosol particles in 5–20 min. In this case, some of them will precipitate, but most of the dangerous droplets (87%) will remain in the air. We thus suggested equations to evaluate the concentration of diffusively propagating fine particles as a function of time and distance from the source. The rates of diffusive propagation and gravitational sedimentation of different-size particles were estimated. If ventilation, air-conditioning, airing or anything else that helps the air masses intermix intensively is used in a room, the dangerous particles will propagate faster only. The aerosol particles should be removed from the air; for that, there exist a lot of techniques that have already proved to be efficient and show prospects of further advancement.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Mean aerosol particles concentration vs. time.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

This work was performed using equipment of the Biysk Regional Center of Shared Use of Scientific Equipment of the SB RAS (IPCET SB RAS, Biysk city).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The work was supported by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (mon.gov.ru) grant (state task). The funder had no role in study design, data col-lection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hadei M, Hopke PK, Jonidi A, Shahsavani A. A Letter about the Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Based on the Current Evidence. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020;20(5):911–914. Available from: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.04.0158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Liu Y, Ning Z, Chen Y, Guo M, Liu Y, Gali NK, et al. Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two Wuhan hospitals. Nature. 2020;582(7813):557–560. 10.1038/s41586-020-2271-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Milton DK, Fabian MP, Cowling BJ, Grantham ML, McDevitt JJ. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(3):e1003205 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tellier R. Aerosol transmission of influenza A virus: a review of new studies. J R Soc Interface. 2010;6:S783–S790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tian G, Wang J, Lu Z, Wang H, Zhang W, Ding W, et al. Indirect effect of PM1 on endothelial cells via inducing the release of respiratory inflammatory cytokines. Toxicol. in Vitro, 2019;57: 203–210. Available from: 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hsiao TC, Chuang HC, Griffith SM, Chen SJ, Young LH. COVID-19: An Aerosol's Point of View from Expiration to Transmission to Viral-mechanism. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020;20:905–910. Available from: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.04.0154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li T, Liu Y, Li M, Qian X, Dai SY. Mask or no mask for COVID-19: a public health and market study. PLoS one. 2020;15(8):е0237691 Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gierthmuehlen M, Kuhlenkoetter B, Parpaley Y, Gierthmuehlen S, Köhler D, Dellweg D. Evaluation and discussion of handmade face-masks and commercial diving-equipment as personal protection in pandemic scenarios. PLoS one. 2020; 15(8): e0237899 Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Seto WH, Tsang D, Yung RWH, Ching TY, Ng TK, Ho M et al. Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The Lancet, 2003;361(9368):1519–1520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lindsley WG, Reynolds JS, Szalajda JV, Noti JD, Beezhold, DH. A cough aerosol simulator for the study of disease transmission by human cough-generated aerosols. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2013;47:937–944. 10.1080/02786826.2013.803019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Macher J. Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control. ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 1999.
  • 12.Asad S, Bouvier N, Wexler AS, Ristenpart WD. The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: Does covid-19 transmit via expiratory particles? Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020;54, 635–638. 10.1080/02786826.2020.1749229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vejerano EP, Marr LC, Physico-chemical characteristics of evaporating respiratory fluid droplets. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2018;15:20170939 10.1098/rsif.2017.0939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, et al. Aerosol and surface stability of sars-cov-2 as compared with sars-cov-1. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382:1564–1567. 10.1056/NEJMc2004973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Livadiotis G. Statistical analysis of the impact of environmental temperature on the exponential growth rate of cases infected by COVID-19. PLoS one. 2020; 15(5): e0233875. 10.1371/journal.pone.0233875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mecenas P, Bastos RTdRM, Vallinoto ACR, Normando D. Effects of temperature and humidity on the spread of COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS one. 2020; 15(9): e0238339 Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dbouk T, Drikakis D. On coughing and airborne droplet transmission to humans. Phys. Fluids. 2020; 32(5), 053310 10.1063/5.0011960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Baron P. Generation and behavior of airborne particles (Aerosols). Division of Applied Technology. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010.
  • 19.Vuorinen V, Aarnio M, Alava M, Alopaeus V, Atanasova N, Auvinen M et al. Modelling aerosol transport and virus exposure with numerical simulations in relation to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by inhalation indoors. Safety Science. 2020;130: 104866 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kudryashova OB, Korovina NV, Pavlenko AA, Arkhipov VA, Goldin VD, Muravlev EV. Aerosol cloud propagation in a closed space. Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics. 2015; 88(3): 568–574. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chao C, Wan M, Morawska L, Johnson G, Ristovski Z, Hargreaves M, et al. Characterization of expiration air jets and droplet size distributions immediately at the mouth opening. J. Aerosol Sci. 2009; 40: 122–133. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang S, Lee GW, Chen CM, Wu CC, Yu KP. The size and concentration of droplets generated by coughing in human subjects. J. Aerosol Med. 2007;20(4): 484–494. 10.1089/jam.2007.0610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Scharfman BE, Techet AH, Bush JWM et al. Visualization of sneeze ejecta: steps of fluid fragmentation leading to respiratory droplets. Exp Fluids. 2016;57(2):24 Available from: 10.1007/s00348-015-2078-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kudryashova OB, Akhmadeev IR, Pavlenko AA, Arkhipov VA, Bondarchuk SS. A method for laser measurement of disperses composition and concentration of aerosol particles. Key Eng. Mat. 2010;437: 179–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Morawska L, Tang JW, Bahnfleth W, Bluyssen PM, Boerstra A, Buonanno G et al. How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised? Environ. Int. 2020;142:105832 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Walker CM, Ko G. Effect of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation on viral aerosols. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007;41(15):5460–5465. 10.1021/es070056u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hyun J, Lee SG, Hwang J. Application of corona discharge-generated air ions for filtration of aerosolized virus and inactivation of filtered virus. J. Aerosol Sci. 2017;107:31–40. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kudryashova O, Stepkina M, Antonnikova A. New Ways to Use Charged Particles In: Advances in Chemistry Research. Volume 61 NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2019. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amitava Mukherjee

9 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-30533

Propagation of viral bioaerosols indoors

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kudryashova,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[This work was performed using equipment of the Biysk Regional Center of Shared

Use of Scientific Equipment of the SB RAS (IPCET SB RAS, Biysk city).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors have aimed to assess how virus particles may propagate in the indoor aerosol, using a model experiment and established mathematical equations. Although the experiment has correctly been designed, a reader cannot find any statistical data. It looks like a single model experiment; hence, it is not clear whether the data can be treated as valid. Nevertheless, the results are original and the simulation of virus propagation via aerosol is creative. Besides, some improvements are required in the text. Firstly, the study aims might be based on hypotheses that are verified by the experimental data. It might be clear what they have wanted to test using the model proposed in the study. Secondly, the authors should provide proves (references) for some statements to avoid speculation (l. 16-17, p.3; l. 1-2, p. 4). Thirdly, they are advised to use degrees Celsius for temperature data (p. 3). Fourthly, COVID-19 is the name of a pandemic; the name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2 (abstract). Fourthly, the reader can question the statement that plenty of RNA fragments of the coronavirus was detected in Wuhan hospitals. Can be regarded 4, 24, 30 copies per cubic meter of the indoor air as plenty of viruses? Maybe the increased numbers of virus particles would be a better statement. You do not know any limits of the SARS-CoV-2 in the indoor air that can be treated as low, medium or high. Finally, the statement that an ordinary medical mask would not be able to diminish considerably the stream of fine virus particles because of its mesh size can be questioned by the reader (p. 13). Several authors have published articles showing 80% effectiveness of the surgical masks in blocking the transmission of expelled virus particles by man. Even simple cotton masks have shown approx. 60% efficacy (e.g., Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 7(4):313-218 DOI:10.1017/dmp.2013.43). The authors can check information included in the portal https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog and cited references there. Furthermore, the sentence on page 14 might be corrected for better style (i.e. “Morawska et al. [23] proposed several ways to minimize…”).

Reviewer #2: Review comments

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to review the article titled “Propagation of viral bioaerosols indoors”. The manuscript deals with the spread of aerosols indoors that carry viruses. Overall, the manuscript conveys an important viewpoint and have conveyed that to an extent. The comments and suggestion mentioned below can improve the scientific value of the manuscript and prepare it for publication.

General comments:

First of all, the authors did not include line numbering in the manuscript which creates difficulties for reviewers to comment. The authors are recommended to check the guide for authors.

The manuscript is well written in most of the areas, however a thorough check for language errors by native speakers can improve the readability in some areas.

For example:

• Rewrite the first sentence in introduction section (The coronavirus pandemic…);

• Rewrite the second sentence in 2nd paragraph of Materials section (Under low humidity…);

• Check the spellings of the words in the 2nd paragraph of the Primary scatter and formation time of fine aerosol cloud section (maxium, miliseconds);

• Check the spellings of the words in the 3rd paragraph of Assessment of characteristic velocities of processes (dissapear; dimeter; dimateer; esarlier);

• Check the word order in the sentence in the Conclusion section (We simulated physically…).

Check similar errors in each section and try to minimize them.

Specific comments:

The authors used different ways of expressing numbers in their manuscript. For example, in the section of On the effective coefficient of diffusion, Db = 10-12 m2s-1 (scientific notation) and D = 0.0016 m2s-1 (decimal notation). Try to use the same format in the manuscript.

In the introduction section, the authors stated that viruses were found mostly in particles less than 5µm in diameter. However, is it logical to conduct a physical simulation using particles up to 20 µm. Studies found that aerosols less than 1µm (PM1) can carry viruses (Baron, P. (2010). Generation and behavior of airborne particles (aerosols)). This part needs more clarity.

In the section of Initial data for simulation, the authors mentioned the initial ejection velocity of droplets as 35m/s. However, in the section of Primary scatter and formation time of fine aerosol cloud, 300 m/s was mentioned as an initial particle velocity. These parts need more clarity.

Include some references related to particles settlement and toxicity of finer particles to support your point. Check these articles:

Baron, P. (2010). Generation and behavior of airborne particles (aerosols)

Tian, G., Wang, J., Lu, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, W., Ding, W., & Zhang, F. (2019). Indirect effect of PM1 on endothelial cells via inducing the release of respiratory inflammatory cytokines. Toxicology in Vitro, 57, 203-210.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 5;16(1):e0244983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244983.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Nov 2020

The authors are grateful to the Reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments. We hope that the manuscript will get better thanks to these comments.

Reviewer #1

1. In this study, the authors have aimed to assess how virus particles may propagate in the indoor aerosol, using a model experiment and established mathematical equations. Although the experiment has correctly been designed, a reader cannot find any statistical data. It looks like a single model experiment; hence, it is not clear whether the data can be treated as valid. Nevertheless, the results are original and the simulation of virus propagation via aerosol is creative. Besides, some improvements are required in the text.

We have added S1.Table (Supplementary Materials), which contains the results and statistics of all experiments presented in the manuscript. The confidence interval does not exceed 8%.

2. Firstly, the study aims might be based on hypotheses that are verified by the experimental data. It might be clear what they have wanted to test using the model proposed in the study.

At the end of the Introduction, we added the phrase:

“We are going demonstrate experimentally and theoretically that a lot of fine droplets released from an infected person’s coughing, sneezing, or talking propagate very fast and for large distances indoors, as well as bend around obstacles, lift up and down over staircases, and so on.”

3. Secondly, the authors should provide proves (references) for some statements to avoid speculation (l. 16-17, p.3; l. 1-2, p. 4).

We've added a reference:

5. Tian G, Wang J, Lu Z, Wang H, Zhang W, Ding W, Zhang F. Indirect effect of PM1 on endothelial cells via inducing the release of respiratory inflammatory cytokines. Toxicol. in Vitro, 2019;57: 203–210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2019.03.013

18. Baron P. Generation and behavior of airborne particles (Aerosols). Division of Applied Technology. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010.

4. Thirdly, they are advised to use degrees Celsius for temperature data (p. 3).

Corrected.

5. Fourthly, COVID-19 is the name of a pandemic; the name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2 (abstract).

Corrected.

6. Fourthly, the reader can question the statement that plenty of RNA fragments of the coronavirus was detected in Wuhan hospitals. Can be regarded 4, 24, 30 copies per cubic meter of the indoor air as plenty of viruses? Maybe the increased numbers of virus particles would be a better statement. You do not know any limits of the SARS-CoV-2 in the indoor air that can be treated as low, medium or high.

Yes, this is true, we do not know whether these are many viruses or not. We supplemented the second paragraph of the Introduction with a sentence:

“Perhaps the concentration of viral particles is not so high as to cause a danger of infection, but the very fact of the transfer of viral particles by small aerosol droplets far from the source of origin is interesting.”

7. Finally, the statement that an ordinary medical mask would not be able to diminish considerably the stream of fine virus particles because of its mesh size can be questioned by the reader (p. 13). Several authors have published articles showing 80% effectiveness of the surgical masks in blocking the transmission of expelled virus particles by man. Even simple cotton masks have shown approx. 60% efficacy (e.g., Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 7(4):313-218 DOI:10.1017/dmp.2013.43). The authors can check information included in the portal https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog and cited references there.

Yes, we are not arguing about the effectiveness of medical masks. They actually reduce the flow of aerosol particles by up to 90% by weight. However, they do not retain up to 90% of the number of small aerosol particles that carry viruses. Probably, such particles are not dangerous in low concentrations, so masks are indeed an effective means of protection (for example, when shopping). But with a long stay in a room with a sick person, even if you and he are wearing a mask, it can be dangerous, since the concentration of small particles constantly increases and at some point can reach a critical value (which we do not know, this is the subject of separate studies ). Actually, this is what the article is about.

The proposal now looks like this:

“Probably, an ordinary medical face mask would not be able to diminish considerably this stream of fine particles because its mesh size is larger than that of fine particles (although such a mask is an effective means of protecting against the bulk of the larger particles of respiratory aerosol).”

8. Furthermore, the sentence on page 14 might be corrected for better style (i.e. “Morawska et al. [23] proposed several ways to minimize…”).

Corrected.

Reviewer #2

1. First of all, the authors did not include line numbering in the manuscript which creates difficulties for reviewers to comment. The authors are recommended to check the guide for authors.

We numbered the lines

2. The manuscript is well written in most of the areas, however a thorough check for language errors by native speakers can improve the readability in some areas.

For example:

• Rewrite the first sentence in introduction section (The coronavirus pandemic…);

It was: “The coronavirus pandemic that stroke the world in 2019 has raised many concerns before human kind, which have to be addressed.”

Now is: “The coronavirus pandemic that stroke the world in 2020 has posed a series of questions for humanity that need to be solved.”

• Rewrite the second sentence in 2nd paragraph of Materials section (Under low humidity…);

It was: “Under low humidity conditions typical of rooms, the said process ends rapidly, and only non-volatile residues of droplets are now involved in a slower diffusive propagation stage.”

Now is: “Under low humidity conditions typical of indoor environments, the evaporation stage ends rapidly. This is followed by a slower stage of the diffusive propagation of non-volatile residues of droplets.”

• Check the spellings of the words in the 2nd paragraph of the Primary scatter and formation time of fine aerosol cloud section (maxium, miliseconds);

Corrected: “Maximum distance R is linearly dependent on initial velocity u (Fig 4). The time, over which the maximum distance is covered, is estimated at several milliseconds.”

• Check the spellings of the words in the 3rd paragraph of Assessment of characteristic velocities of processes (dissapear; dimeter; dimateer; esarlier);

Corrected: “disappear, diameter, earlier”

• Check the word order in the sentence in the Conclusion section (We simulated physically…).

Corrected. It was: “We simulated physically the propagation of fine aerosols in space by using a pulsed aerosol generator and a model space of complex configurations.”

Now is: “We have simulated the propagation of fine aerosols in space physically by using a pulsed aerosol generator and a model space of complex configurations.”

3. Check similar errors in each section and try to minimize them.

We've fixed a lot of minor bugs like missing letter in a word or comma.

Specific comments:

4. The authors used different ways of expressing numbers in their manuscript. For example, in the section of On the effective coefficient of diffusion, Db = 10-12 m2s-1 (scientific notation) and D = 0.0016 m2s-1 (decimal notation). Try to use the same format in the manuscript.

Fixed. For instance: D = 1.6•10-3 m2 s-1, and D = 10-2 m2 s-1

5. In the introduction section, the authors stated that viruses were found mostly in particles less than 5µm in diameter. However, is it logical to conduct a physical simulation using particles up to 20 µm. Studies found that aerosols less than 1µm (PM1) can carry viruses (Baron, P. (2010). Generation and behavior of airborne particles (aerosols)). This part needs more clarity.

In the introductory part, we referred to works that indicate the typical droplet size for sneezing and coughing (up to about 16 microns). The relatively large droplets are likely to be trapped by the mask, or settle under the influence of gravity at a "social" distance. On the other hand, particles less than 5 microns in diameter still carry dangerous portions of viruses. And it is they who fly away from the source. But it is nevertheless necessary to simulate an aerosol with a full spectrum of particle sizes, approximately corresponding to a cough-sneeze. Which is what we did. Thanks for the reference, we added it!

6. In the section of Initial data for simulation, the authors mentioned the initial ejection velocity of droplets as 35m/s. However, in the section of Primary scatter and formation time of fine aerosol cloud, 300 m/s was mentioned as an initial particle velocity. These parts need more clarity.

As follows from Figures 3 and 4, particles at an initial velocity of 35 m/s and at 300 m/s will stop near the source (3 cm and 20 cm, respectively). And their further propagation will be determined by the diffusion mechanism. Therefore, for the problem of describing the propagation of particles over distances of several meters, the difference in the initial velocity is not important. We added the phrase:

“At an ejection velocity of u = 300 m/s small particles will stop at a distance about 20 cm from the source. Thus, that difference in initial velocity is not important for describing the propagation of particles over distances of several meters.”

7. Include some references related to particles settlement and toxicity of finer particles to support your point.

Thank you, we’ve added them ([5, 18]). (Baron's presentation is impressive).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Amitava Mukherjee

21 Dec 2020

Propagation of viral bioaerosols indoors

PONE-D-20-30533R1

Dear Dr. Kudryashova,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been revised according to my comments. I do not require further improvements in the text.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Amitava Mukherjee

23 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-30533R1

Propagation of viral bioaerosols indoors

Dear Dr. Kudryashova:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Mean aerosol particles concentration vs. time.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES