CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 453Infection Control and VentilationSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchDental Research and COVID-19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative dynamic aerosol efficiencies of three emergent coronaviruses and the unusual persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol suspensions

Open access
Fears, A.C., Klimstra, W.B., Duprex, P., Hartman, A., Weaver, S.C., Plante, K.C., Mirchandani, D., Plante, J.A., Aguilar, P.V., Fernández, D., Nalca, A., Totura, A., Dyer, D., Kearney, B., Lackemeyer, M., Bohannon, J.K., Johnson, R., Garry, R.F., Reed, D.S., Roy, C.J.·2020·Emerging infectious diseases
DOI 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784PMC PMC7454081

Preprint — published as 10.3201/eid2609.201806 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The emergent coronavirus, designated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a zoonotic pathogen that has demonstrated remarkable transmissibility in the human population and is the etiological agent of a current global pandemic called COVID-19 1 . We measured the dynamic (short-term) aerosol efficiencies of SARS-CoV-2 and compared the efficiencies with two other emerging coronaviruses, SARS-CoV (emerged in 2002) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome CoV (MERS-CoV; emerged starting in 2012). We also quantified the long-term persistence of SARS-CoV-2 and its ability to maintain infectivity when suspended in aerosols for up to 16 hours.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Figures

Figure 1 Aerosol efficiency of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 at different sites. Graph shows the spray factor (i.e., ratio of nebulizer concentration to aerosol concentration) for MERS-CoV (red), SARS-CoV (blue), and SARS-CoV2 (green). Aerosols were performed at 4 sites and with different nebulizers. AS, Aerogen Solo nebulizer; C3, Collison 3-jet nebulizer; C6, Collison 6-jet nebulizer; MERS-Cov, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus; S1, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA; S2, National Institutes of Health Integrated Research Facility, Fort Detrick, MD, USA; S3, US Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD, USA; S4, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
Figure 1 Aerosol efficiency of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 at different sites. Graph shows the spray factor (i.e., ratio of nebulizer concentration to aerosol concentration) for MERS-CoV (red), SARS-CoV (blue), and SARS-CoV2 (green). Aerosols were performed at 4 sites and with different nebulizers. AS, Aerogen Solo nebulizer; C3, Collison 3-jet nebulizer; C6, Collison 6-jet nebulizer; MERS-Cov, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus; S1, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA; S2, National Institutes of Health Integrated Research Facility, Fort Detrick, MD, USA; S3, US Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD, USA; S4, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Decay curves of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in aerosol suspension. A) Aerosol concentration of infectious SARS-CoV-2 as measured by plaque assay found in impinger samples collected at 5 time points of increased aging in aerosol suspension. B) Corresponding aerosol concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in time-matched impinger samples as a function of viral genome copies as measured by reverse transcription quantitative PCR. Both time point virus estimates were graphed, and nonlinear least-squares regression analysis single-order decay with no outlier detection was performed, resulting in a poor curve fit by either method of viral quantitation resulting from number and lack of iterative samples in this analysis.
Figure 2 Decay curves of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in aerosol suspension. A) Aerosol concentration of infectious SARS-CoV-2 as measured by plaque assay found in impinger samples collected at 5 time points of increased aging in aerosol suspension. B) Corresponding aerosol concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in time-matched impinger samples as a function of viral genome copies as measured by reverse transcription quantitative PCR. Both time point virus estimates were graphed, and nonlinear least-squares regression analysis single-order decay with no outlier detection was performed, resulting in a poor curve fit by either method of viral quantitation resulting from number and lack of iterative samples in this analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 453

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fears, A. C., Klimstra, W. B., Duprex, P., Hartman, A., Weaver, S. C., Plante, K. C., Mirchandani, D., Plante, J. A., Aguilar, P. V., Fernández, D., Nalca, A., Totura, A., Dyer, D., Kearney, B., Lackemeyer, M., Bohannon, J. K., Johnson, R., Garry, R. F., Reed, D. S., & Roy, C. J.
Affiliations
Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Roy, C.J.
ORCID
Venue
Emerging infectious diseases
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-04-18
Volume
26
Issue
9
Pages
2168-2171
ISSN
1080-6040 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1101/2020.04.13.20063784
PMC
PMC7454081
OpenAlex
W3036295571
Cited by
453
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 165 · 2020: 95
FWCI
56.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Emerging infectious diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN272201800013C)
  • Battelle (HHSN272200700016I)
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • National Institutes of Health (HHSN272201800013C, USA-WA1/2020, P51OD011104)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • U.S. Army
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R24AI120942, HHS N272200700016I, HHSN272201800013C, U19AI135995)
  • NHLBI Division of Intramural Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol stability, viral persistence, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, airborne transmission

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