Influenza is thought to be communicated from person to person by multiple pathways. However, the relative importance of different routes of influenza transmission is unclear. To better understand the potential for the airborne spread of influenza, we measured the amount and size of aerosol particles containing influenza virus that were produced by coughing. Subjects were recruited from patients presenting at a student health clinic with influenza-like symptoms. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the volunteers and they were asked to cough three times into a spirometer. After each cough, the cough-generated aerosol was collected using a NIOSH two-stage bioaerosol cyclone sampler or an SKC BioSampler. The amount of influenza viral RNA contained in the samplers was analyzed using quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR (qPCR) targeting the matrix gene M1. For half of the subjects, viral plaque assays were performed on the nasopharyngeal swabs and cough aerosol samples to determine if viable virus was present. Fifty-eight subjects were tested, of whom 47 were positive for influenza virus by qPCR. Influenza viral RNA was detected in coughs from 38 of these subjects (81%). Thirty-five percent of the influenza RNA was contained in particles >4 µm in aerodynamic diameter, while 23% was in particles 1 to 4 µm and 42% in particles <1 µm. Viable influenza virus was detected in the cough aerosols from 2 of 21 subjects with influenza. These results show that coughing by influenza patients emits aerosol particles containing influenza virus and that much of the viral RNA is contained within particles in the respirable size range. The results support the idea that the airborne route may be a pathway for influenza transmission, especially in the immediate vicinity of an influenza patient. Further research is needed on the viability of airborne influenza viruses and the risk of transmission.

Size-fractionated aerosol particles were collected in a hospital emergency department to test for airborne influenza virus. Using real-time polymeras

The question of whether influenza is transmitted to a significant degree by aerosols remains controversial, in part, because little is known about the quantity and size of potentially infectious airborne particles produced by people with influenza. In this study, the size and amount of aerosol particles produced by nine subjects during coughing were measured while they had influenza and after they had recovered, using a laser aerosol particle spectrometer with a size range of 0.35 to 10 μm. Individuals with influenza produce a significantly greater volume of aerosol when ill compared with afterward (p = 0.0143). When the patients had influenza, their average cough aerosol volume was 38.3 picoliters (pL) of particles per cough (SD 43.7); after patients recovered, the average volume was 26.4 pL per cough (SD 45.6). The number of particles produced per cough was also higher when subjects had influenza (average 75,400 particles/cough, SD 97,300) compared with afterward (average 52,200, SD 98,600), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.1042). The average number of particles expelled per cough varied widely from patient to patient, ranging from 900 to 302,200 particles/cough while subjects had influenza and 1100 to 308,600 particles/cough after recovery. When the subjects had influenza, an average of 63% of each subject's cough aerosol particle volume in the detection range was in the respirable size fraction (SD 22%), indicating that these particles could reach the alveolar region of the lungs if inhaled by another person. This enhancement in aerosol generation during illness may play an important role in influenza transmission and suggests that a better understanding of this phenomenon is needed to predict the production and dissemination of influenza-laden aerosols by people infected with this virus. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resources: a PDF file of demographic information, influenza test results, and volume and peak flow rate during each cough and a PDF file containing number and size of aerosol particles produced.]

Health care workers are exposed to potentially infectious airborne particles while providing routine care to coughing patients. However, much is not understood about the behavior of these aerosols and the risks they pose. We used a coughing patient simulator and a breathing worker simulator to investigate the exposure of health care workers to cough aerosol droplets, and to examine the efficacy of face shields in reducing this exposure. Our results showed that 0.9% of the initial burst of aerosol from a cough can be inhaled by a worker 46 cm (18 inches) from the patient. During testing of an influenza-laden cough aerosol with a volume median diameter (VMD) of 8.5 μm, wearing a face shield reduced the inhalational exposure of the worker by 96% in the period immediately after a cough. The face shield also reduced the surface contamination of a respirator by 97%. When a smaller cough aerosol was used (VMD = 3.4 μm), the face shield was less effective, blocking only 68% of the cough and 76% of the surface contamination. In the period from 1 to 30 minutes after a cough, during which the aerosol had dispersed throughout the room and larger particles had settled, the face shield reduced aerosol inhalation by only 23%. Increasing the distance between the patient and worker to 183 cm (72 inches) reduced the exposure to influenza that occurred immediately after a cough by 92%. Our results show that health care workers can inhale infectious airborne particles while treating a coughing patient. Face shields can substantially reduce the short-term exposure of health care workers to large infectious aerosol particles, but smaller particles can remain airborne longer and flow around the face shield more easily to be inhaled. Thus, face shields provide a useful adjunct to respiratory protection for workers caring for patients with respiratory infections. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for respiratory protection when it is needed. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: tables of the experiments performed, more detailed information about the aerosol measurement methods, photographs of the experimental setup, and summaries of the experimental data from the aerosol measurement devices, the qPCR analysis, and the VPA.]

The role of relative humidity in the aerosol transmission of influenza was examined in a simulated examination room containing coughing and breathing manikins. Nebulized influenza was coughed into the examination room and Bioaerosol samplers collected size-fractionated aerosols (4 µM aerodynamic diameters) adjacent to the breathing manikin’s mouth and also at other locations within the room. At constant temperature, the RH was varied from 7–73% and infectivity was assessed by the viral plaque assay. Total virus collected for 60 minutes retained 70.6–77.3% infectivity at relative humidity ≤23% but only 14.6–22.2% at relative humidity ≥43%. Analysis of the individual aerosol fractions showed a similar loss in infectivity among the fractions. Time interval analysis showed that most of the loss in infectivity within each aerosol fraction occurred 0–15 minutes after coughing. Thereafter, losses in infectivity continued up to 5 hours after coughing, however, the rate of decline at 45% relative humidity was not statistically different than that at 20% regardless of the aerosol fraction analyzed. At low relative humidity, influenza retains maximal infectivity and inactivation of the virus at higher relative humidity occurs rapidly after coughing. Although virus carried on aerosol particles 40% will significantly reduce the infectivity of aerosolized virus.