During the rapid rise in COVID-19 illnesses and deaths globally, and notwithstanding recommended precautions, questions are voiced about routes of transmission for this pandemic disease. Inhaling small airborne droplets is probable as a third route of infection, in addition to more widely recognized transmission via larger respiratory droplets and direct contact with infected people or contaminated surfaces. While uncertainties remain regarding the relative contributions of the different transmission pathways, we argue that existing evidence is sufficiently strong to warrant engineering controls targeting airborne transmission as part of an overall strategy to limit infection risk indoors. Appropriate building engineering controls include sufficient and effective ventilation, possibly enhanced by particle filtration and air disinfection, avoiding air recirculation and avoiding overcrowding. Often, such measures can be easily implemented and without much cost, but if only they are recognised as significant in contributing to infection control goals. We believe that the use of engineering controls in public buildings, including hospitals, shops, offices, schools, kindergartens, libraries, restaurants, cruise ships, elevators, conference rooms or public transport, in parallel with effective application of other controls (including isolation and quarantine, social distancing and hand hygiene), would be an additional important measure globally to reduce the likelihood of transmission and thereby protect healthcare workers, patients and the general public.

Motivated by growing considerations of the scale, severity, and risks associated with human exposure to indoor particulate matter, this work reviewed existing literature to: (i) identify state‐of‐the‐art experimental techniques used for personal exposure assessment; (ii) compare exposure levels reported for domestic/school settings in different countries (excluding exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and particulate matter from biomass cooking in developing countries); (iii) assess the contribution of outdoor background vs indoor sources to personal exposure; and (iv) examine scientific understanding of the risks posed by personal exposure to indoor aerosols. Limited studies assessing integrated daily residential exposure to just one particle size fraction, ultrafine particles, show that the contribution of indoor sources ranged from 19% to 76%. This indicates a strong dependence on resident activities, source events and site specificity, and highlights the importance of indoor sources for total personal exposure. Further, it was assessed that 10–30% of the total burden of disease from particulate matter exposure was due to indoor‐generated particles, signifying that indoor environments are likely to be a dominant environmental factor affecting human health. However, due to challenges associated with conducting epidemiological assessments, the role of indoor‐generated particles has not been fully acknowledged, and improved exposure/risk assessment methods are still needed, together with a serious focus on exposure control.

It has been shown that the exposure to airborne particulate matter is one of the most significant environmental risks people face. Since indoor environment is where people spend the majority of time, in order to protect against this risk, the origin of the particles needs to be understood: do they come from indoor, outdoor sources or both? Further, this question needs to be answered separately for each of the PM mass/number size fractions, as they originate from different sources. Numerous studies have been conducted for specific indoor environments or under specific setting. Here our aim was to go beyond the specifics of individual studies, and to explore, based on pooled data from the literature, whether there are generalizable trends in routes of exposure at homes, schools and day cares, offices and aged care facilities. To do this, we quantified the overall 24h and occupancy weighted means of PM10, PM2.5 and PN - particle number concentration. Based on this, we developed a summary of the indoor versus outdoor origin of indoor particles and compared the means to the WHO guidelines (for PM10 and PM2.5) and to the typical levels reported for urban environments (PN). We showed that the main origins of particle metrics differ from one type of indoor environment to another. For homes, outdoor air is the main origin of PM10 and PM2.5 but PN originate from indoor sources; for schools and day cares, outdoor air is the source of PN while PM10 and PM2.5 have indoor sources; and for offices, outdoor air is the source of all three particle size fractions. While each individual building is different, leading to differences in exposure and ideally necessitating its own assessment (which is very rarely done), our findings point to the existence of generalizable trends for the main types of indoor environments where people spend time, and therefore to the type of prevention measures which need to be considered in general for these environments.

In urban environments, airborne particles are continuously emitted, followed by atmospheric aging. Also, particles emitted elsewhere, transported by winds, contribute to the urban aerosol. We studied the effective density (mass-mobility relationship) and mixing state with respect to the density of particles in central Copenhagen, in wintertime. The results are related to particle origin, morphology, and aging. Using a differential mobility analyzer-aerosol particle mass analyzer (DMA-APM), we determined that particles in the diameter range of 50–400 nm were of two groups: porous soot aggregates and more dense particles. Both groups were present at each size in varying proportions. Two types of temporal variability in the relative number fraction of the two groups were found: soot correlated with intense traffic in a diel pattern and dense particles increased during episodes with long-range transport from polluted continental areas. The effective density of each group was relatively stable over time, especially of the soot aggregates, which had effective densities similar to those observed in laboratory studies of fresh diesel exhaust emissions. When heated to 300 °C, the soot aggregate volatile mass fraction was ∼10%. For the dense particles, the volatile mass fraction varied from ∼80% to nearly 100%.