Toward Standardized Aerovirology: A Critical Review of Existing Results and Methodologies

Understanding the airborne survival of viruses is important for public health and epidemiological modeling and potentially to develop mitigation strategies to minimize the transmission of airborne pathogens. Laboratory experiments typically involve investigating the effects of environmental parameters on the viability or infectivity of a target airborne virus. However, conflicting results among studies are common. Herein, the results of 34 aerovirology studies were compared to identify links between environmental and compositional effects on the viability of airborne viruses. While the specific experimental apparatus was not a factor in variability between reported results, it was determined that the experimental procedure was a major factor that contributed to discrepancies in results. The most significant contributor to variability between studies was poorly defined initial viable virus concentration in the aerosol phase, causing many studies to not measure the rapid inactivation, which occurs quickly after particle generation, leading to conflicting results. Consistently, studies that measured their reference airborne viability minutes after aerosolization reported higher viability at subsequent times, which indicates that there is an initial loss of viability which is not captured in these studies. The composition of the particles which carry the viruses was also found to be important in the viability of airborne viruses; however, the mechanisms for this effect are unknown. Temperature was found to be important for aerosol-phase viability, but there is a lack of experiments that directly compare the effects of temperature in the aerosol phase and the bulk phase. There is a need for repeated measurements between different research groups under identical conditions both to assess the degree of variability between studies and also to attempt to better understand already published data. Lack of experimental standardization has hindered the ability to quantify the differences between studies, for which we provide recommendations for future studies. These recommendations are as follows: measuring the reference airborne viability using the "direct method"; use equipment which maximizes time resolution; quantify all losses appropriately; perform, at least, a 5- and 10-min sample, if possible; report clearly the composition of the virus suspension; measure the composition of the gas throughout the experiment. Implementing these recommendations will address the most significant oversights in the existing literature and produce data which can more easily be quantitatively compared.