World Health Organization report removes the aerosol/droplet dichotomy but does not move us forward in infection control strategies
Jonathan P. Reid Andrea R. Ferro Adam Finn James V. Lawler John A. Lednicky Jakob Löndahl Carl-Johan Fraenkel Joshua L. Santarpia Shanna A. Ratnesar-Shumate Chang-Yu Wu a School of Chemistry,Cantock's Close,University of Bristol,Bristol,United Kingdomb Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Clarkson University,Potsdam,New York,USAc Schools of Population Health Science and Cellular and Molecular Medicine,University of Bristol,Bristol,United Kingdomd Global Center for Health Security,University of Nebraska Medical Center,Omaha,Nebraska,USAe Department of Environmental and Global Health,College of Public Health and Health Professions,University of Florida,Gainesville,Florida,USAf Division of Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology,Lund University,Lund,Swedeng Department of Infection Control,Skåne University Hospital,SUS,Lund,Swedenh Department of Pathology,Microbiology and Immunology and Global Center for Health Security,University of Nebraska Medical Center,Omaha,Nebraska,USAi Department of Chemical,Environmental and Materials Engineering,University of Miami,Miami,Florida,USA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2024.2387985
2024-08-22
Aerosol Science and Technology
Abstract:Words, more specifically definitions, matter. This became all too apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when robust decisions over the most appropriate infection control measures were required. For many decades, a dichotomy has been established between respiratory droplets and aerosols (often equated to dried droplet nuclei) and the roles that these two offenders play in the transmission pathways of respiratory pathogens (Randall et al. Citation 2021 ). Epidemiological evidence that transmission preferentially occurs over short range was taken as confirming that ballistic droplets were nearly always the culprits and aerosol (or airborne transmission) could largely be ignored. This thinking arose from a fallacy: respiratory droplets were classified as everything larger than 5 μm in diameter, transmitting respiratory pathogens only over 1–2 m, while only particles smaller than 5 μm were designated as infectious aerosols, potentially leading to airborne transmission. Aerosol scientists challenged this dichotomy early during the pandemic, arguing that aerosol physics arrives at no such arbitrary demarcation of size when considering the transmission pathway and, if a size categorization was needed, a threshold of around 100 μm would be more appropriate and consistent with the pioneering work of Wells (Wang et al. Citation 2021 ). After 4 years of deliberation and mounting evidence that the inhalation of infectious particles was the dominant mode of transmission, a recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO, Citation 2024 ) has finally acknowledged that we must move on from this false dichotomy: particle size is not the only factor determining transmission of infections through the air.
environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences,engineering, chemical, mechanical