Survival and transmission fitness of SARS-CoV-2 over the time-of-flight in an aerosolization chamber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of various environmental factors on SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains debated, partly due to limited physical experiments with infectious virus that closely replicate real-world conditions. Using a novel, self-contained containment level 3 chamber, we aerosolized the virus in different environmental conditions then collected droplets on nasal tissue, cell lines, or different materials to measure the transmission of infectious SARS-CoV-2. We found that SARS-CoV-2 survival was much shorter than previously reported for the potential of fomite transmission. Temperature, relative humidity and the presence of incinerated tobacco, cannabis, or vape products had no discernible impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission through aerosolized droplets, but affected the survival of VSV, a non-respiratory enveloped virus. When compared to USA-WA1/2020 and the Omicron variant, Delta SARS-CoV-2 had the greatest survival during aerosolization. These findings suggest that respiratory enveloped viruses like SARS-CoV-2 may have and may be continuing to evolve higher transmission fitness through droplets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".