This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
William D. Ristenpart
University of California, Davis
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Animal models are often used to assess the airborne transmissibility of various pathogens, which are typically assumed to be carried by expiratory droplets emitted directly from the respiratory tract of the infected animal. We recently established that influenza virus is also transmissible via “aerosolized fomites,” micron-scale dust particulates released from virus-contaminated surfaces (Asadi et al., Nature Communications, 2020). Here we expand on this observation, by counting and characterizing the particles emitted from guinea pig cages using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) and an Interferometric Mie Imaging (IMI) system. Of over 9,000 airborne particles emitted from guinea pig cages and directly imaged with IMI, none had an interference pattern indicative of a liquid droplet. Separate measurements of the particle count using the APS indicate that particle concentrations spike upwards immediately following animal motion, then decay exponentially with a time constant commensurate with the air exchange rate in the cage. Taken together, the results presented here raise the possibility that a non-negligible fraction of airborne influenza transmission events between guinea pigs occurs via aerosolized fomites rather than respiratory droplets, though the relative frequencies of these two routes have yet to be definitively determined.
Keywords
Animal models, aerosolized fomites, non-negligible fraction, Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS)
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
The full text of this article is available to read as a PDF.
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 24 Jun, 2021
Reviews received
Received 29 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 17 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 12 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 24 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
William D. Ristenpart
University of California, Davis
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 24 Jun, 2021
Reviews received
Received 29 May, 2021
Reviewers agreed
On 17 May, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 May, 2021
Editor assigned
On 10 May, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 12 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 24 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Animal models are often used to assess the airborne transmissibility of various pathogens, which are typically assumed to be carried by expiratory droplets emitted directly from the respiratory tract of the infected animal. We recently established that influenza virus is also transmissible via “aerosolized fomites,” micron-scale dust particulates released from virus-contaminated surfaces (Asadi et al., Nature Communications, 2020). Here we expand on this observation, by counting and characterizing the particles emitted from guinea pig cages using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) and an Interferometric Mie Imaging (IMI) system. Of over 9,000 airborne particles emitted from guinea pig cages and directly imaged with IMI, none had an interference pattern indicative of a liquid droplet. Separate measurements of the particle count using the APS indicate that particle concentrations spike upwards immediately following animal motion, then decay exponentially with a time constant commensurate with the air exchange rate in the cage. Taken together, the results presented here raise the possibility that a non-negligible fraction of airborne influenza transmission events between guinea pigs occurs via aerosolized fomites rather than respiratory droplets, though the relative frequencies of these two routes have yet to be definitively determined.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
The full text of this article is available to read as a PDF.
No competing interests reported.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...