Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0245019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245019

Modeling the initial phase of SARS-CoV-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide

Heitor Evangelista 1,#, César Amaral 1,2,#, Luís Cristóvão Porto 3,‡, Sérgio J Gonçalves Junior 1,*, Eduardo Delfino Sodré 1,#, Juliana Nogueira 1,#, Angela M G dos Santos 3,‡, Marcio Cataldo 4,#, Daniel Junger 1,‡
Editor: Simone Lolli5
PMCID: PMC7808619  PMID: 33444356

Abstract

The knowledge on the deposition and retention of the viral particle of SARS-CoV-2 in the respiratory tract during the very initial intake from the ambient air is of prime importance to understand the infectious process and COVID-19 initial symptoms. We propose to use a modified version of a widely tested lung deposition model developed by the ICRP, in the context of the ICRP Publication 66, that provides deposition patterns of microparticles in different lung compartments. In the model, we mimicked the "environmental decay" of the virus, determined by controlled experiments related to normal speeches, by the radionuclide 11C that presents comparable decay rates. Our results confirm clinical observations on the high virus retentions observed in the extrathoracic region and the lesser fraction on the alveolar section (in the order of 5), which may shed light on physiopathology of clinical events as well on the minimal inoculum required to establish infection.

Introduction

Respiratory infections are relevant clinical conditions due to their diffusion, and potentially severe consequences, such as presently observed for the SARS-CoV spread all around the world. Declared as a "global pandemic" by the World Health Organization on March 11th, 2020, the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents one of the most significant public health challenges in recent decades [1]. Respiratory infections caused by viruses, mainly due to their high capacity of infection and spread, are a major cause of illness and death from a worldwide perspective. In 2003, with the global alert caused by the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), the coronaviruses joined this group, triggered by a newly identified coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Since then, several other pathogens associated with acute respiratory system disorders have been described, such as more aggressive strains of Influenza, MERS-CoV in the Middle East, and also new types of coronavirus NL63 and KHU1 [2, 3]. Therefore, recognizing the modes of transmission of these emerging infectious diseases is a vital factor for both the safety of health staff, who interact with infected individuals, and the public, who will be exposed sooner or later to areas where these agents are circulating.

Airborne transmission is a key issue for the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 spread out, and it is particularly important for the community of healthcare professionals since they are more exposed to infected patients. However, the potential through contagion for the overall population related to the high agglomeration of citizens, as observed in various modes of urban transport in large cities, especially in developing countries, is not yet fully clarified. In Italy (Bergamo city), a first study showed that RNA SARS-CoV-2 might be present in association with microparticles in the outdoor environment. Still, the detection of the virus itself was mostly inconclusive [4]. While in the free atmosphere, virus particles undergo natural denaturation or inactivation conditions due to solar radiation, relative humidity, and air temperature [5–9]. This condition leads to the dehydration of virus particles caused by speech, sneezing, or coughing. As a result, the virus particles agglutinate with other organic and inorganic molecules/particles suspended in the air, and this interaction causes their size distribution to change. Therefore, this will affect its diffusion/dispersion/deposition and residence time in the atmosphere. Unlike other stochastic models (that is, the fraction of deposition in the lung compartment is determined based on the aerodynamic properties of aerosols), we here provide a simulation of a model that takes into account the full biokinetics of the radionuclide 11C mimicking particles containing viruses. To perform that, we used a modified version of a widely tested lung deposition model developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in the context of the ICRP Publication 66 (Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection-66) from the ICRP Task Group on Internal Dosimetry.

Materials and methods

During the last decades, several studies have deeply investigated the dynamics of respiratory infections to gain information on effective treatment/prevention of these clinical events [10]. Many different models have been developed till then. A respiratory infection model is a system that emulates the complexities observed on the relationship between the infectious agents and the host’s defenses. Several in vivo and in vitro respiratory models for humans and other vertebrates are available and could be easily reproduced. Mathematical models are also available and were created to numerically describe the principles and evolution of respiratory infections and their diffusion. All of them require specific inputs and have complexities related to the condition they attempt to emulate, therefore presenting both advantages and limitations.

The ICRP model

The ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) has developed models for aerosol pulmonary deposition, given the intensive use of natural and artificial radionuclides in the nuclear industry. Such activities range from uranium mining, where workers are exposed to dust containing naturally occurring radioactive aerosols [11], to sectors where there is the handling of wastes from nuclear power plants and related facilities [12, 13]. Such models depend on the aerosol size distribution of the radioactive aerosols suspended in the air, their chemical form, and its solubility and the corresponding biokinetic processes associated [14]. In this context, extensive research on the biokinetics of radioactive aerosols has led to successful practical application and has been greatly improved in calculating the internal dose of workers and people, especially those living in regions with high levels of natural radioactivity [15].

Herein we use a radionuclide-based model starting with the premise that once in the air the virus particles have an “equivalent” environmental half-life arising from their settling properties and interactions. Despite the human physiology and the biokinetics inherent in the ICRP model, one of its main parametrizations is related to the choice of the radioisotope to be used. From the experimental work performed by Stadnytskyi et al. [16], we draw an analogy between the exponential decrease of droplets nuclei in the air and a radionuclide decay by the following way: Assuming that each speech droplet nuclei have a viral load, the number of droplets caring virus particles vanish in the air, by gravimetric action, with half-life of 14 min, that is comparable to the disintegration rate of the nuclide 11C (half-life of 20.33 min). Droplets sedimentations half-life inferred by Stadnytskyi et al. [16], which used a highly sensitive laser light scattering system to track the dynamics of airborne speech droplets, is consistent with early studies of Knight (1973) [17] that estimated a value of 17 min. Thus, we can attribute to the virus an analog "constant of disintegration" related to the outdoor environment. Droplets were produced during the normal speech in indoor condition. Cough aerosols and of exhaled breath from patients or positive individuals tend to be similar in size distribution [18], with a predominance of pathogens in small particles, this is < 4–5 μm, with a median between 0.7 and 1.0 μm [19]. Since droplets nuclei have low densities, they may remain airborne for long time under most indoor conditions, unless there is removal due to natural or forced air currents [20]. Nevertheless, the virus load containing in aerosols will change in time since SARS-CoV viability decay significantly over a 3-h period, on basis of experimental aerosol generated in laboratory [21]. This provides enough condition to potential airborne source of virus transmission in low disturbed places. Also, the indoor environment is typically of lower relative humidity and viral particles tend to be most stable in such conditions. This in part explain why infections with lipid-enveloped viruses occurs most frequently during the winter season [22].

In order to evaluate the consistency of using the speech droplets vanishing pattern in time, as an analog to the 11C decay (Fig 1a), we have conducted the Chi-Squared test using corresponding data for each 5 minutes interval. The result, with degree of freedom 16, was Chi-squared value 5.74 and p-value 0.0094, which means that no statistical difference exists between the two set of data at 0.05 confidence level.11C is one of the most useful radionuclides employed for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) radiochemistry because its attachment to a biologically active molecule does not modify the biochemical properties of the inoculated compound [23]. From the above, we elected the 11C to mimic the virus intake and deposition in the respiratory tract. Another reason relies on the fact that carbon molecules are one of the base constituents of cells and tissues; this allows very precise information on metabolism processes, receptor/enzyme function, and biochemical mechanisms. As a complementary input to the model, we used airborne SARS-CoV-2 size distribution data, by Liu et al. [24], in a stand of theoretical curves or data derived from other virus types as influenza, Fig 1b. On that study, the size distribution of viral particles from a sequence of speeches in pre-sterilized gelatin filters installed inside a miniature cascade impactor during an air monitoring in the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University—China, in February-March 2020 was obtained. As a result, they found that the aerodynamical diameter of particles varied from 5.0 to 5.5 μm. Other studies of droplets produced during speeches with sustained vocalization found modes from 1.8 to 5.5 μm [25].

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Basic inputs for the lung deposition model: (a) disintegration curve of the radionuclide 11C (in bold) and speech droplet nuclei vanishing (dotted line) and variance (gray shaded area). See the data at the S1 Material; (b) size distribution of SARS-Cov-2 obtained by Liu et al., (2020) [24]; (c) respiratory tract compartments investigated by the model: AI (alveolar), bb (bronchioles), BB (bronchi), ET1 (extrathoracic region 1—retention of material deposited in the anterior nose) and ET2 (extrathoracic region 2 –retention of material deposited in the posterior nasal passage, larynx, pharynx, and mouth).

The imperative assumption to allow the use of the ICRP model, which is specially designed for use by radionuclides, is to attribute a "decay property" to the virus. However, since the virus is no longer subject to any "decay" after it has been absorbed by the human organism, the assumption of mimicry by 11C stops at that stage. The concentration of active virus particles inoculated in the body remains the same until physiological reactions begin, and virus elimination/cell infections and replication occur. It, therefore, means that our estimates refer only to the initial deposition of the virus and that the deposition fractions presented here have been calculated for the first 1 minute after deposition.

The model used subdivides the respiratory system into two basic compartments: the extrathoracic region (composed of nose and trachea) and the thoracic region (composed of the bronchi to the alveolar sacs). The compartments AI, bb, BB, ET1, and ET2 represent the alveolar, bronchioles, bronchi, and extrathoracic regions, respectively, Fig 1c. The lung is considered to have 16 generations where bifurcations occur in the bronchial and bronchioles tree. The BB region comprises the generations from 0 to 8 and the bb from 9 to 15. The rates of mechanical removal of a compartment are expressed in 1/time. Ciliary transport and retention time in the tissues migrating to the pulmonary lymph nodes are also considered in the model, as well as blood absorption from these compartments, causing then a dispute between mechanical removal and blood absorption. The compartments above act as source compartments in the infection of the lung tissues. All the calculations were performed by the AIDE (Activity and Internal Dose Estimates) software [26]. The basic inputs of the model are presented in Table 1, where AMAD means "aerosol containing the viral load" median aerodynamic diameter, which implies that 50% of the viral load in the aerosol is associated with particles of aerodynamic diameter greater than the AMAD (used when deposition depends mainly on inertial impaction and sedimentation). At the same time, a compound refers to a material classified according to its rate of absorption from the respiratory tract to body fluids. In this case, deposited Type F materials are those that are readily absorbed into body fluids from the respiratory tract (Fast absorption), and f1 is the fractional absorption in the gastrointestinal tract.

Table 1. Specifications of model parameters and inputs.

AIDE model parameters AIDE model inputs
Model C, Isotope: C-11
Data source Carbon according to ICRP-67*
Subject Reference Worker (breathing rate of 1.2 m3 h-1)
Intake type Inhalation, Single
Initial or Daily Activity 1.000E+00 Bq
Inhalation type Respiratory Tract model: ICRP-66
Compound Type F
GI Tract Absorption Factor f1 = 1.000E+00
AMAD (μm) 5.000E+00**
Open in a new tab

* ICRP, 1993. Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides–Part 2 Ingestion Dose Coefficients. ICRP Publication 67. Ann. ICRP 23 (3–4)

** Based on the geometric mean of Fig 1b.

SARS-CoV-2 field data

Considering the fact that COVID-19 is highly associated through the respiratory airways, we also present data of nasopharyngeal swabs (1490) and bronco-tracheal aspirate (4) COVID-19 RT-PCR tests performed at Pedro Ernesto University Hospital (HUPE), one of the specialized units for COVID-19 treatment in the Rio de Janeiro City/Brazil. We used the data to observe the evolution of the pandemics moments just before and after the mandatory use of personal safety equipment (masks) has been implemented by the local government. The database for patients with COVID-19 started on March 29th (13th epidemiological week) up to July 12th (28th epidemiological week), when 939 patients were hospitalized, and a total of 1,494 individuals were tested at the HUPE. Among the realized tests, all the four bronco-tracheal aspirates resulted in negative for SARS-CoV-2. The remaining test results were presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The number of detected new and total tests at Pedro Ernesto University Hospital from epidemiological week 13 to 28.

Hospitalizations Total
Epidemiological Week Date Tests Detected (%) Tests Detected (%)
13 29-mar 11 2 18.2 11 2 18.2
14 5-abr 22 7 31.8 24 8 33.3
15 12-abr 40 16 40.0 48 19 39.6
16 19-abr 46 40 87.0 58 50 86.2
17 26-abr 42 36 85.7 47 40 85.1
18 3-mai 86 52 60.5 112 63 56.3
19 10-mai 93 55 59.1 142 74 52.1
20 17-mai 56 31 55.4 108 57 52.8
21 24-mai 53 27 50.9 91 35 38.5
22 31-mai 106 46 43.4 179 74 41.3
23 7-jun 74 21 28.4 117 29 24.8
24 14-jun 72 19 26.4 119 30 25.2
25 21-jun 54 8 14.8 117 17 14.5
26 28-jun 59 10 16.9 126 26 20.6
27 5-jul 55 4 7.3 91 7 7.7
28 12-jul 70 5 7.1 104 9 8.7
Open in a new tab

Ethics statement

The use of COVID-19 data was approved by the Ethics in Research Committee of the Pedro Ernesto University Hospital under the project “Epidemiological, laboratorial, and clinical profile of the COVID-19 pandemic of patients treated at Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ)” (CAAE: 30135320.0.0000.5259). All COVID-19 typing data were de-identified prior to the analysis and available for the authors uniquely as totals, as presented on Table 2.

Results

Our results point to a far more relevant deposition fraction at the extrathoracic compartments of ET1 accounting to 47.4 and ET2 to 48.78 for the virus intake after 1 minute. In contrast, the sum for the bronchial and bronchioles compartments corresponded to 3.75 (Fig 2). All the data are available at S2 Material.

Fig 2. Time-dependent particle transport from each respiratory tract region in the compartments of the model for SARS-Cov-2 (after 1 minute of exposure): (a) and (b) time response curves; (c) and (d) fractions of the initial intake of the virus by ET1 pathway.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Discussions

For a comparison with a Stochastic Lung Deposition Model, as proposed by Madas et al. [27], they found 61.8% of the total inhaled mass fraction to be at the upper airways, ~8.5% for the acinar airways and ~5.5% for the bronchial compartment corresponding to a single inhalation. The differences between the two models can be attributed to the fact that Madas et al. [27] have used a mass size distribution of particles from influenza with modal values between 2–3 μm, derived from coughing of patients, while we used a SARS-Cov-2 data in conditions of speeches with AMAD ~ 5 μm. Our results stress the impact of the upper airways in the initial airborne virus retention in the respiratory tract since the total extrathoracic compartment may retain more than 96% of the virus load. Both models point to at least ~4% of contribution to the most inner parts of the lung (bronchial and bronchioles). In the SARS-Cov-2 size distribution we have used, it is evident an existing viral load in the ultrafine particle size range (< 0.1 mm diameter). Their behavior differs from other groups of particles as the fine and coarse modes, since the virus attached to ultrafine particles may be deposit in the inner lung compartments by diffusion mechanisms. From controlled experiments, it is known that ultrafine particles peak deposition occurs in lung regions that encompass the transition zone between the conducting airways and the alveolar region [28]. Therefore, as our model predicts a small fraction of virus-containing particles reaching directly to the alveolar region, its significance in disease development should be considered. The SARS-Cov-2 can bind to the cells in that compartment via ACE2 (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2), which are the host cell receptor responsible for mediating SARS-CoV-2 infection [29]. ACE2 plays an important role in the lungs protecting it from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by breaking down Angiotensin II, which has inflammatory effects [30, 31]. Binding of the SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2 inhibits it and thus weakens its protective action on the organ [32].

The pathogenesis and virus transmission pathways are still being investigated, and the already published results are, in fact, even under intense debate. That is the case for the airborne transmission of the virus. The analyses of the temporal dynamics of the SARS-Cov-2 infection indicates that the viral shedding begins after 2–3 days of the first symptoms, thereby promoting pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic transmission of the virus [33]. In this sense, understanding the first phases of the virus infection is paramount. Our results were derived from normal speech conditions as viral source-term and indoor environments. In this specific case, we observed extrathoracic percentage infection levels in good agreement with clinical observations of patients that initially presented mild COVID-19 symptoms evolving to a more deteriorated health board [34]. Though COVID-19 manifestation linked to a minimal infectious dosage, as expected in the alveolar compartment, is not yet clear, given that: (1) no masks have a 100% retention efficiency; (2) SARS-CoV-2 viral particles are found in aerodynamic diameters shorter than 0.1 μm in surveys; (3) the model predicts around 5% direct penetration of viruses in the alveolar compartments. These facts, when combined, may explain why a fraction of the population, even using masks, get contaminated with "no apparent reason." Respiratory tract models developed by the ICRP Task Groups have been largely used for safety and protection in nuclear activities in several countries, reaching excellent performance and being validated by internal measurements. Their use for non-radioactive aerosols of biological and mineral origin and pollutants is an emerging topic and a potential to be explored.

Since ET1 and ET2 are key-compartments in the initial phase of SARS-Cov-2 deposition, we investigated the impact of the use of individual protection such as masks and face shields on the epidemiological data related to the COVID-19. Table 2 shows a survey developed by our working group from nasopharyngeal swabs and bronco-tracheal aspirate tests for COVID-19 by RT-PCR performed at Pedro Ernesto University Hospital (HUPE), in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The city of Rio de Janeiro in no time had adopted a full lockdown strategy, but just recommendations of social distance and personal care such as hands washing and alcohol use for individual and items/objects disinfection. However, COVID-19 data showed continuous prevalence forcing the local authorities to carry out a mandatory use of masks on April 23rd.

Our results suggest that the fraction of both hospitalized and total tested patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected from the RT-PCR tests exhibited a significant decrease when we observed an immediate drop in percentage from 85% to 60% (Fig 3). We do believe that the analyzed sample is representative of the city population since the HUPE receives patients from several health units spread all over the urban domain. We should also note that due to socio-economic reasons and also difficulties in the acquisition of high-quality safety equipment, most of the population made use of simple, cheap, and home-made masks and face shields. However, despite these circumstances, effective response against the pandemic was achieved.

Fig 3. SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharynx COVID-19 RT-PCR tests performed at Pedro Ernesto University Hospital (HUPE) in Rio de Janeiro/Brazil.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

A measure of the viral load that is initially concentrated at the extrathoracic compartments ET1 and ET2 is provided by the nasopharyngeal swab/culture method, a clinical test sample of nasal secretions from the back of the nose and throat. Ct (Cycle threshold) values in a real time PCR assay display the viral load, in a way that Ct levels are inversely proportional to the amount of target nucleic acid in the sample. Our observation, in the same Hospital complex, on the temporal evolution of the Ct values, since the very start of the pandemic in Rio de Janeiro City, depicted a very surprising picture, in which the Ct values tended to higher values from March to September 2020 (Fig 4). In average it changed from 28 to 35 that represents a considerable increase.

Fig 4. Seasonal behavior of Ct in a hospital of Rio de Janeiro City and Covid-19 daily mortality for the city population.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

(n = 15251, S2 Material).

Previous studies using chest computed tomography (CT) of SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR positive patients showed that a statistically correlation exist between Ct values and the total severity score (TSS) of acute lung inflammation derived from CT [35]. Ct values are normally categorized as high <20, 20 < Ct < 29 are strong positive, 30 < Ct < 37 are moderate positive, 38 < Ct < 40 are indicative of minimal amounts of target nucleic acid, and very low loads range between 40 and 45. According to our Ct data trend and the TSS categorizations, our Ct varied from strong positive to moderate positive while TSS corresponded to moderate/severe to mild lung inflammation. The running average of Covid-19 death per day in the city population followed that trend of lowering fatalities from autumn to winter season (Fig 4). We believe that the nature of this behavior could be related with several causes such as changes in aerosol dynamics between summer/autumn to winter season, the more extensive use of masks, the late notification of the disease since in Brazil there is no effective politics for massive Covid-19 testing, and also the prevalence of other infectious SARS-CoV-2 strains, as pointed by Korber et al. (2020) [36]. For a Covid-19 second wave to come (predicted to austral summer of 2020/2021), it is still inconclusive if Ct values does represent a linear trend of lowering or it represents a seasonal aspect of Covid-19 considering the environmental factors involved and the local social behaviors.

In summary, the respiratory tract models produced by IAEA Task Group have been widely used in many countries for health and defense in nuclear activities, reaching excellent performance and being validated by in locus measurements. Their use for non-radioactive aerosols and microparticles of biological and mineral origin and pollutants is an emerging topic and a potential to be explored. It may also be useful as a tool to design strategies based on risk stratification considering the global public health emergency by COVID-19 pandemics.

Supporting information

S1 Material. Data for Fig 1, 11C Decay and droplets decay.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (426KB, xlsx)
S2 Material. Data for Fig 2, deposition fraction at the lung’s compartments.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (83.9KB, xlsx)
S3 Material. Epidemiological data for Fig 4.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xls)

Acknowledgments

We greatly thank Dr. Luiz Bertelli for the availability of AIDE (Activity and Internal Dose Estimates) software and important comments on the numeric model and Roberta Priori for draw designs.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no funding for this research.

References

  • 1.Santarpia JL, Rivera DN, Herrera V, Morwitzer MJ, Creager H, Santarpia GW, et al. Aerosol and Surface Transmission Potential of SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv. 2020; 10.1101/2020.03.23.20039446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Van Der Hoek L, Pyrc K, Jebbink MF, Vermeulen-Oost W, Berkhout RJ, Wolthers KC, et al. Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nature medicine. 2004;10(4):368–73. 10.1038/nm1024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Woo PC, Lau SK, Chu C-m, Chan K-h, Tsoi H-w, Huang Y, et al. Characterization and complete genome sequence of a novel coronavirus, coronavirus HKU1, from patients with pneumonia. Journal of virology. 2005; 79(2):884–95. 10.1128/JVI.79.2.884-895.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Setti L, Passarini F, De Gennaro G, Barbieri P, et al. SARS-Cov-2 RNA Found on Particulate Matter of Bergamo in Northern Italy: First Preliminary Evidence medRxiv preprint. 2020; 10.1101/2020.04.15.20065995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chan KH, Peiris JSM, Lam SY, et al. The effects of temperature and relative humidity on the viability of the SARS coronavirus. Advances in Virology. 2011; 10.1155/2011/734690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ratnesar-Shumate S, Williams G, Green B, et al. Simulated Sunlight Rapidly Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020; Volume 222, Issue 2, 214–222; 10.1093/infdis/jiaa274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Casanova LM, Rutala JS, Weber WA, Sobsey MD. Effects of air temperature and relative humidity on coronavirus survival on surfaces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020; 76, 2712–2717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lolli S, Ying-Chieh C, Sheng-Hsiang W, Gemine V. Impact of meteorological conditions and air pollution on COVID-19 pandemic transmission in Italy. Scientific reports. 2020; 10, no. 1: 1–15. 10.1038/s41598-020-73197-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sobral MFF, Duarte GB, Sobral AIGDP, Marinho MLM, Melo ADS. Association between climate variables and global transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saturni S, Contoli M, Spanevello A, Papi A. Models of Respiratory Infections: Virus-Induced Asthma Exacerbations and Beyond. Allergy, asthma & immunology research. 2015; 7:525–533. 10.4168/aair.2015.7.6.525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Otahal P, Burian I. The airborne natural radioactivity in the uranium mine Rožná I. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2011; 145(2–3):150–4. 10.1093/rpd/ncr046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Breustedt B, Giussani A, Noßke D. Internal dose assessments–Concepts, models and uncertainties. Radiation Measurements. 2018; 115:49–54. 10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.06.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oberdörster G. Airborne cadmium and carcinogenesis of the respiratory tract. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 1986; 523–37. 10.5271/sjweh.2104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cuddihy R, McClellan R, Griffith W. Variability in target organ deposition among individuals exposed to toxic substances. Toxicology and applied pharmacology. 1979; 49(2):179–87. 10.1016/0041-008x(79)90240-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Henricsson F, Persson BR. Polonium-210 in the biosphere: biokinetics and biological effects. In Radionuclides: sources, properties and hazards. Nova Science, Hauppauge. 2012.
  • 16.Stadnytskyi V, Bax CE, Bax A, Anfinrud P. The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020; 117(22):11875–7. 10.1073/pnas.2006874117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Knight, V. Airborne transmission and pulmonary deposition of respiratory viruses. In Viral and Mycoplasmal Infections of the Respiratory Tract. V. Knight. 1973; Ed.: 1–9. Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia.”
  • 18.Fennelly KP. Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020; 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30323-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bake B, Larsson P, Ljungkvist G, Ljungström E, Olin AC. Exhaled particles and small airways. Respir Res. 2019; 20: 8 10.1186/s12931-019-0970-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wells WF. Aerodynamics of droplet nuclei. In: Airborne contagion and air hygiene: an ecological study of droplet infections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1955; 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 1564–67 10.1056/NEJMc2004973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Knight V. Virus as agentes of airborne contagion. Annals New York Academy of Sciences. 1980; Part V: 147–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yang L, Scott PLH, Shao X. [11-C] Carbon Dioxide: Starting Point for Labeling PET Radiopharmaceuticals. Carbon Dioxide Chemistry, Capture and Oil Recovery. Chapter 7 2018; 123–138. 10.5772/intechopen.72313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.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):557–60. 10.1038/s41586-020-2271-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Morawska L, Johnson G, Ristovski Z, Hargreaves M, Mengersen K, Corbett S, et al. Size distribution and sites of origin of droplets expelled from the human respiratory tract during expiratory activities. Journal of Aerosol Science. 2009; 40(3):256–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bertelli L, Melo D, Lipsztein J, Cruz-Suarez R. AIDE: internal dosimetry software. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2008; 130(3):358–67. 10.1093/rpd/ncn059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Madas BG, Füri P, Farkas A, Nagy A, Czitrovszky A, Balásházy I, et al. Deposition distribution of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in the human airways upon exposure to cough-generated aerossol. medRxiv; 2020. 10.1101/2020.05.13.20100057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kim CS, Jaques PA. Respiratory dose of inhaled ultrafine particles in healthy adults. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2000; 358(1775):2693–705. 10.1098/rsta.2000.0678 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li WH, Moore MJ, Vasilieva NY, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a functional receptor for the SARS coronavirus. Nature. 2003; 426: 450–454. 10.1038/nature02145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Imai Y, Kuba K, Penninger JM. The discovery of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and its role in acute lung injury in mice. Experimental Physiology. 2008; 93(5), 543–548. 10.1113/expphysiol.2007.040048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jia H. Pulmonary Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) and Inflammatory Lung Disease. Shock. Augusta, Ga.2016. 46(3): 239 48 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kuba K, Imai Y, Rao S, et al. A crucial role of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in SARS coronavirus–induced lung injury. Nat Med. 2005. 11 875–879 (2005). 10.1038/nm1267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.He X, Lau EHY, Wu P, Deng X, Wang J, Hao X, et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nature Medicine. 2020; 26(5):672–5. 10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Xia Ja, Zhou X, Xu S, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2020;180(7):934–43. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yagci AK, Sarinoglu RC, Bilgin H, Yanılmaz Ö, et al. Relationship of the cycle threshold values of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction and total severity score of computerized tomography in patients with COVID 19. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020; 101, 160–166. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S, et al. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cel. 2020. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Simone Lolli

23 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-25540

Modeling the initial phase of SARS-CoV-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goncalves Jr.,

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 06 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,

Simone Lolli

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. Please amend the Methods section of your manuscript to include the information about ethics approval, and data de-identification that you provided in the Ethics Statement.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'The authors received no funding for this research.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Draxos Consultoria e Gestão Ambiental Ltda.

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

c. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: The paper is well written and its topic is proper to the journal scope. My only concern regrads the clinical implication of the reported finding in clinical setting. I suggest to clearly discuss this critical issue at least in the discussion section of the manuscript

Reviewer #2: Review of PONE-D-20-25540 Modeling the initial phase of SARS-CoV-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide by Dr. Sérgio José Goncalves Jr. The manuscript studies the initial phase deposition of SARS-Cov-2 in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11 C radionuclide. The paper itself could make sense, but the part concerning the considered assumption should be explained much more in detail.

My main concern regards indeed the main assumption. Really the 11 C radionuclide behavior can be considered "similar" to a virus particle? To which extent? The narrative should be broaden and more convincing.

Some references were suggested (maybe the manuscript was submitted earlier)

The specific comments can be found in the attached manuscript

Reviewer #3: Very interesting study which may help in better understand pathogenesis of the disease and maybe why positif but asympthomatic covid patients can be contagious: a so high distribution of the virus in extrathoracic airways can explain how easy can be the spreading of droplets just by talking, breathing or touching the nose even in absence of cough.

**********

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: Yes: Giulia Maria Stella

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Claudia Collu

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25540_.pdf

Click here for additional data file. (1.1MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0245019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245019.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Dec 2020

Dear Simone Lolli,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

We would like to thank the reviewers for the careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help improve this manuscript's quality. All comments and suggestions have been appropriately addressed. The requested modifications/corrections were inserted directly into the manuscript (significant changes are highlighted in red). The answers to reviewers’ point-by-point are described below (the modifications are indicated by page and line number of Manuscript with changes marked in red). Also, we would like to add to our list of authors Dr. Daniel Junger because he contributed at medical survey and discussion, being an essential component for this work. We attached the form “request for change to authorship” properly filled.

Yours sincerely,

Sérgio J. Gonçalves Jr (Corresponding author) on behalf Heitor Evangelista and co-authors

Reviewer #1: The paper is well written and its topic is proper to the journal scope. My only concern regards the clinical implication of the reported finding in clinical setting. I suggest to clearly discuss this critical issue at least in the discussion section of the manuscript

Authors answers: We have added the following paragraph in the discussion section in Pag 7/Line 252:

“A measure of the viral load that is initially concentrated at the extrathoracic compartments ET1 and ET2 is provided by the nasopharyngeal swab/culture method, a clinical test sample of nasal secretions from the back of the nose and throat. Ct (Cycle threshold) values in a real time PCR assay display the viral load, in a way that Ct levels are inversely proportional to the amount of target nucleic acid in the sample. Our observation, in the same Hospital complex, on the temporal evolution of the Ct values, since the very start of the pandemic in Rio de Janeiro City, depicted a very surprising picture, in which the Ct values tended to higher values from March to September 2020 (Figure 4). In average it changed from 28 to 35 that represents a considerable increase. Previous studies using chest computed tomography (CT) of SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR positive patients showed that a statistically correlation exist between Ct values and the total severity score (TSS) of acute lung inflammation derived from CT (Yagcia et al., 2020). Ct values are normally categorized as high <20, 20 < Ct < 29 are strong positive, 30 < Ct < 37 are moderate positive, 38 < Ct < 40 are indicative of minimal amounts of target nucleic acid, and very low loads range between 40 and 45. According to our Ct data trend and the TSS categorizations, our Ct varied from strong positive to moderate positive while TSS corresponded to moderate/severe to mild lung inflammation. The running average of Covid-19 death per day in the city population followed that trend of lowering fatalities from autumn to winter season (Figure 4). We believe that the nature of this behavior could be related with several causes such as changes in aerosol dynamics between summer/autumn to winter season, the more extensive use of masks, the late notification of the disease since in Brazil there is no effective politics for massive Covid-19 testing, and also the prevalence of other infectious SARS-CoV-2 strains, as pointed by Korber et al. (2020). For a Covid-19 second wave to come (predicted to austral summer of 2020/2021), it is still inconclusive if Ct values does represent a linear trend of lowering or it represents a seasonal aspect of Covid-19 considering the environmental factors involved and the local social behaviors.”

Fig 4. Seasonal behavior of Ct in a hospital of Rio de Janeiro City and Covid-19 daily mortality for the city population.

Also, we add some new references:

Yagci, A. K., Sarinoglu, R. C., Bilgin, H., Yanılmaz, Ö., Sayın, E., Deniz, G., Guncu, M.M., Doyuk, Z., Can, B., Kuzan, B.N., Aslan, B., Korten, V., Cimsit, C. (2020). Relationship of the cycle threshold values of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction and total severity score of computerized tomography in patients with COVID 19. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 101, 160-166. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1449

Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S et al. (2020) Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043

Reviewer #2: Review of PONE-D-20-25540 Modeling the initial phase of SARS-CoV-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide by Dr. Sérgio José Goncalves Jr. The manuscript studies the initial phase deposition of SARS-Cov-2 in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide. The paper itself could make sense, but the part concerning the considered assumption should be explained much more in detail.

My main concern regards indeed the main assumption. Really the 11C radionuclide behavior can be considered "similar" to a virus particle? To which extent? The narrative should be broaden and more convincing.

Some references were suggested (maybe the manuscript was submitted earlier). The specific comments can be found in the attached manuscript

Authors answers:

Pag 1/Line 19: We have removed the “To give some light on that, ...”.

Pag 2/Line 50: We have added the recommended references to the list:

Casanova, L. M., Rutala, J. S., Weber, W. A. & Sobsey, M. D. Effects of air temperature and relative humidity on coronavirus survival on surfaces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 2712–2717 (2020).

Lolli, Simone, Ying-Chieh Chen, Sheng-Hsiang Wang, and Gemine Vivone. "Impact of meteorological conditions and air pollution on COVID-19 pandemic transmission in Italy." Scientific reports 10, no. 1 (2020): 1-15.

Sobral, M. F. F., Duarte, G. B., Sobral, A. I. G. D. P., Marinho, M. L. M. & Melo, A. D. S. Association between climate variables and global transmission oF SARS-CoV-2. Sci. Total Environ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138997 (2020).

Pag 2/Line 72: We changed “ICRP” to “ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection)”.

Pag 3/Lines 82-84: We better explained our assumption by changing the sentence:

Original: “Herein we use a radionuclide-based model starting with the premise that the virus (SARS-Cov-2) has an "environmental half-life" due to its degradation process in the environment before the deposition in the respiratory tract. From this assumption, we draw an analogy with the half-life of a radionuclide”

to

Revised:

Pag 3/Line 85-95: “Herein we use a radionuclide-based model starting with the premise that once in the air the virus particles have an “equivalent” environmental half-life arising from their settling properties and interactions. Despite the human physiology and the biokinetics inherent in the ICRP model, one of its main parametrizations is related to the choice of the radioisotope to be used. From the experimental work performed by Stadnytskyi et al. [13], we draw an analogy between the exponential decrease of droplets nuclei in the air and a radionuclide decay by the following way: Assuming that each speech droplet nuclei have a viral load, the number of droplets caring virus particles vanish in the air, by gravimetric action, with half-life of 14 min, that is comparable to the disintegration rate of the nuclide 11C (half-life of 20.33 min). Droplets sedimentations half-life inferred by Stadnytskyi et al. [13], which used a highly sensitive laser light scattering system to track the dynamics of airborne speech droplets, is consistent with early studies of Knight (1973) that estimated a value of 17 min.”

From the above, we removed the sentence: “The choice of the radionuclide was made based on studies by Stadnytskyi et al. [13], which used a highly sensitive laser light scattering system to track the dynamics of airborne speech droplets generated by carriers with SARS-CoV-2” in Pag 3/Lines 97-99.

In Pag 3/Line 114 We have included the following sentence:

“In order to evaluate the consistency of using the speech droplets vanishing pattern in time, as an analog to the 11C decay, we have conducted the Chi-Squared test using corresponding data for each 5 minutes interval. The result, with degree of freedom 16, was Chi-squared value 5.74 and p-value 0.0094, which means that no statistical difference exists between the two set of data at 0.05 confidence level.”

New references:

Knight, V. 1973. Airborne transmission and pulmonary deposition of respiratory viruses. In Viral and Mycoplasma Infections of the Respiratory Tract. V. Knight, Ed.: 1-9. Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia.”

Pag 3/Lines 99-101: We have specified better the following sentence: ‘’Droplets were produced during the normal speaking condition, and can be suspended in the air for a tenth of minutes and, therefore, can be a potential source of airborne virus transmission in low disturbed places”

Revised:

Pag 3/Lines 101-111: “Droplets were produced during the normal speech in indoor condition. Cough aerosols and of exhaled breath from patients or positive individuals tend to be similar in size distributions (Fennelly, 2020), with a predominance of pathogens in small particles, this is < 4-5 µm, with a median between 0.7 and 1.0 µm (Bake et al., 2019). Since droplets nuclei have low densities, they may remain airborne for long time under most indoor conditions, unless there is removal due to natural or forced air currents (Wells, 1955). Nevertheless, the virus load containing in aerosols will change in time since SARS-CoV viability decay significantly over a 3-h period, on basis of experimental aerosol generated in laboratory (Van Doremalen et al., 2020). This provides enough condition to potential airborne source of virus transmission in low disturbed places. Also, the indoor environment is typically of lower relative humidity and viral particles tend to be most stable in such conditions. This in part explain why infections with lipid-enveloped viruses occurs most frequently during the winter season (Knight, 1980).

New references:

Fennelly, K. P. (2020). Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30323-4

Wells WF. Aerodynamics of droplet nuclei. In: Airborne contagion and air hygiene: an ecological study of droplet infections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955: 13–19.

Bake B, Larsson P, Ljungkvist G, Ljungström E, Olin AC. Exhaled particles and small airways. Respir Res 2019; 20: 8

Van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1564–67

Knight, V. (1980). Virus as agents of airborne contagion. Annals New York Academy of Sciences. Part V: 147-156.

From the above, we have removed the following sentence in Pag 3/Lines: 112-114:

“The settling down (vanishing) time-scale of droplets before dehydration and attachment to other existing microparticles in the atmosphere describes a behavior similar to the artificial radioisotope 11C disintegration curve, which is 20.33 minutes in half-life (Fig.1a)”

Pag 3/Lines 130-131: “Other studies of droplets produced during speeches with sustained vocalization found modes from 1.8 to 5.5 �m [16].”

Authors answers: We have included more details above.

Reviewer #3: Very interesting study which may help in better understand pathogenesis of the disease and maybe why positif but asympthomatic covid patients can be contagious: a so high distribution of the virus in extrathoracic airways can explain how easy can be the spreading of droplets just by talking, breathing or touching the nose even in absence of cough.

Authors answers: Nothing to reply.

#Additional minor changes by the authors:

Pag 1/Lines 25-27: We have changed the sentence in the Abstract: “which relevance is a subject to be investigated” to “which may shed light on physiopathology of clinical events as well on the minimal inoculum required to establish infection.”

Pag 7/Line 281-283: We have added the sentence: “It may also be useful as a tool to design strategies based on risk stratification considering the global public health emergency by COVID-19 pandemics.”

Pag 6/Line 184: We amend the Methods section to include the information about ethics approval and data de-identification that we provided in the Ethics Statement.

Pag 4/Line 133: We add the Supplementary Information for Fig 1.

Pag 6/Line 183: We add the Supplementary Information for Fig 2.

Pag 8/Line 284: We add the Supplementary Information for Fig 4.

Pag 12/Line 410: We add the Supplementary Information captions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers _ PLOS.docx

Click here for additional data file. (264.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Simone Lolli

21 Dec 2020

Modeling the initial phase of SARS-CoV-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide

PONE-D-20-25540R1

Dear Dr. Goncalves Jr.,

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,

Simone Lolli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors resolved all the previously raised issues and now the manuscript is ready for publication.

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: The authors addressed all my previously raised issues and the manuscript is ready for publication after the correction of some typos.

**********

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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Simone Lolli

28 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-25540R1

Modeling the initial phase of SARS-COv-2 deposition in the respiratory tract mimicked by the 11C radionuclide

Dear Dr. Gonçalves Junior:

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

Dr. Simone Lolli

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 Material. Data for Fig 1, 11C Decay and droplets decay.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (426KB, xlsx)
    S2 Material. Data for Fig 2, deposition fraction at the lung’s compartments.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (83.9KB, xlsx)
    S3 Material. Epidemiological data for Fig 4.

    (XLS)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.4MB, xls)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-25540_.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (1.1MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to the reviewers _ PLOS.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (264.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES