ArticleFood control2022
Controlling risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers of enclosed food manufacturing facilities.
Article in Food control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to Respiratory Pathogens and Implications for Uptake in Policy: A State-of-the-Science Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
- The multi-dimensional challenges of controlling respiratory virus transmission in indoor spaces: Insights from the linkage of a microscopic pedestrian simulation and SARS-CoV-2 transmission model.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A Regional-Scale Assessment-Based SARS-CoV-2 Variants Control Modeling with Implications for Infection Risk Characterization.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Article
- Combined Infection Control Interventions Protect Essential Food Workers from Occupational Exposures to SARS-CoV-2 in the Agricultural Environment.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- A review on indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19- modelling and mitigation approaches.Journal of building engineering · 2023Review
- A Comprehensive Sampling Study on SARS-CoV-2 Contamination of Air and Surfaces in a Large Meat Processing Plant Experiencing COVID-19 Clusters in June 2020.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
- The Skagit County choir COVID-19 outbreak - have we got it wrong?Public health · 2023Review
- Spatial Optimization to Improve COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Decontamination of SARS-CoV-2 from cold-chain food packaging provides no marginal benefit in risk reduction to food workers.Food control · 2022Article
- Low risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via fomite, even in cold-chain.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic poses significant health risks to workers who are essential to maintaining the food supply chain. Using a quantitative risk assessment model, this study characterized the impact of risk reduction strategies for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission (droplet, aerosol, fomite-mediated) among front-line workers in a representative indoor fresh fruit and vegetable manufacturing facility. We simulated: 1) individual and cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infection risks from close contact (droplet and aerosols at 1-3 m), aerosol, and fomite-mediated exposures to a susceptible worker following exposure to an infected worker during an 8 h-shift; and 2) the relative reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk attributed to infection control interventions (physical distancing, mask use, ventilation, surface disinfection, hand hygiene, vaccination). Without mitigation measures, the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk was largest for close contact (droplet and aerosol) at 1 m (0.96, 5th - 95th percentile: 0.67-1.0). In comparison, risk associated with fomite (0.26, 5th - 95th percentile: 0.10-0.56) or aerosol exposure alone (0.05, 5th - 95th percentile: 0.01-0.13) at 1 m distance was substantially lower (73-95%). At 1 m, droplet transmission predominated over aerosol and fomite-mediated transmission, however, this changed by 3 m, with aerosols comprising the majority of the exposure dose. Increasing physical distancing reduced risk by 84% (1-2 m) and 91% (1-3 m). Universal mask use reduced infection risk by 52-88%, depending on mask type. Increasing ventilation (from 0.1 to 2-8 air changes/hour) resulted in risk reductions of 14-54% (1 m) and 55-85% (2 m). Combining these strategies, together with handwashing and surface disinfection, resulted in <1% infection risk. Partial or full vaccination of the susceptible worker resulted in risk reductions of 73-92% (1 m risk range: 0.08-0.26). However, vaccination paired with other interventions (ACH 2, mask use, or distancing) was necessary to achieve infection risks <1%. Current industry SARS-CoV-2 risk reduction strategies, particularly when bundled, provide significant protection to essential food workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.