ArticlePloS one2025
The influence of glottal and respiratory factors on aerosol emission during phonation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpeech-driven aerosol generation plays a key role in airborne disease transmission, yet the physiological mechanisms remain poorly understood. Beyond vocal-fold vibration, airflow and glottal configuration may be key determinants. We tested how phonation type affects aerosol generation while accounting for ventilatory output estimated from exhaled CO₂.
methodsFive healthy female adults (22-43 years) sustained vowels across six phonation types: modal register, glottal fry, falsetto register, forced whisper, loud modal register, and vowels preceded by/h/. Aerosol concentration and size distribution (0.1-20 µm) were measured using an aerodynamic particle sizer (APS). Laryngoscopy, conducted in a separate session, was used to estimate the normalized glottal gap during the open phase of phonation (NGG). Exhaled CO₂ range was recorded concurrently as a control for ventilatory variation across tasks.
resultsPhonation types that had greater ventilatory output and a larger open-phase glottal gap (e.g., forced whispering, loud modal register) produced the highest aerosol concentrations; types with less ventilatory output and smaller open-phase glottal gap (e.g., glottal fry and modal register) produced the lowest. Submicron particles (0.1-1 µm) dominated across conditions. Forced whispering exhibited a bimodal aerosol distribution, with increased emissions at both the smallest (0.1-1 µm) and largest (10-20 µm) particle sizes. Despite the assumption that vocal fold vibration is necessary for aerosol production, whispering, a voiceless sound production, generated a high concentration of particles, suggesting a primary role for airflow and glottal configuration. Normalized glottal gap was the strongest predictor of aerosol output, and CO₂ range (ventilatory output) was also positively associated.
conclusionSustained sound production can generate substantial aerosols even without vocal fold vibration. The strong association between normalized glottal gap and aerosol output indicates that airflow and glottal configuration, rather than vibration alone, are primary contributors under these task conditions.
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.