Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 513

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019?

Open access
Bahl, Prateek, Doolan, Con, de Silva, Charitha, Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad, Bourouiba, Lydia, MacIntyre, C Raina·2022·The Journal of Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in more than 200 countries. Thousands of health workers have been infected, and outbreaks have occurred in hospitals, aged care facilities, and prisons. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued guidelines for contact and droplet precautions for healthcare workers caring for suspected COVID-19 patients, whereas the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has initially recommended airborne precautions. The 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation is central to droplet precautions and assumes that large droplets do not travel further than 2 meters (≈6 feet). We aimed to review the evidence for horizontal distance traveled by droplets and the guidelines issued by the WHO, CDC, and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control on respiratory protection for COVID-19. We found that the evidence base for current guidelines is sparse, and the available data do not support the 1- to 2-meter (≈3–6 feet) rule of spatial separation. Of 10 studies on horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed droplets travel more than 2 meters (≈6 feet), in some cases up to 8 meters (≈26 feet). Several studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) support aerosol transmission, and 1 study documented virus at a distance of 4 meters (≈13 feet) from the patient. Moreover, evidence suggests that infections cannot neatly be separated into the dichotomy of droplet versus airborne transmission routes. Available studies also show that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the air, and remain viable 3 hours after aerosolization. The weight of combined evidence supports airborne precautions for the occupational health and safety of health workers treating patients with COVID-19.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jennison, 1942, Atomizing of mouth and nose secretions into the air as revealed by high-speed photography, 106
  2. Wells, 1934, On air-borne infection. II. Droplets and droplet nuclei, Am J Hyg, 20, 611
  3. MacIntyre, 2015, Uncertainty, risk analysis and change for Ebola personal protective equipment guidelines, Int J Nurs Stud, 52, 899, 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.12.001 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.12.001

Cited by

See all 513

Metadata

Authors
Bahl, P., Doolan, C., de Silva, C., Chughtai, A. A., Bourouiba, L., & MacIntyre, C. R.
Venue
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
Published
2022-05-01
Volume
225
Issue
9
Pages
1561-1568
ISSN
  • 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6613
OpenAlex
W3016849874
Cited by
513
References
35
FWCI
55.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Funders
  • NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence (APP1107393)
  • Integrated Systems for Epidemic Response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189
The paper
Bahl, P., Doolan, C., de Silva, C., Chughtai, A. A., Bourouiba, L., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2022). Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating Coronavirus Disease 2019? The Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.