1
|
Sobolik JS, Sajewski ET, Jaykus LA, Cooper DK, Lopman BA, Kraay ANM, Ryan PB, Leon JS. Controlling risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers of enclosed food manufacturing facilities. Food Control 2021; 133:108632. [PMID: 34703082 PMCID: PMC8532033 DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2021] [Revised: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia S Sobolik
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | | | - Lee-Ann Jaykus
- Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA
| | - D Kane Cooper
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Ben A Lopman
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Alicia N M Kraay
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - P Barry Ryan
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Juan S Leon
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| |
Collapse
|