Aerosol generation in public restrooms Jesse H. Schreck,1, a) Masoud Jahandar Lashaki,2, b) Javad Hashemi,1, c) Manhar Dhanak,1, d) and Siddhartha Verma1, e) 1)Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA 2)Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA (Dated: 29 January 2021) Aerosolized droplets play a central role in the transmission of various infectious diseases, including Legionnaire’s disease, gastroenteritis-causing norovirus, and most recently COVID-19. Respiratory droplets are known to be the most prominent source of transmission for COVID-19, however, alternative routes may exist given the discovery of small numbers of viable viruses in urine and stool samples. Flushing biomatter can lead to the aerosolization of microorganisms, thus, there is a likelihood that bioaerosols generated in public restrooms may pose a concern for the transmission of COVID-19, especially since these areas are relatively confined, experience heavy foot traffic, and may suffer from inadequate ventilation. To quantify the extent of aerosolization, we measure the size and number of droplets generated by flushing toilets and urinals in a public restroom. The results indicate that the particular designs tested in the study generate a large number of droplets in the size range 0.3µm to 3µm, which can reach heights of at least 1.52m. Covering the toilet reduced aerosol levels but did not eliminate them completely, suggesting that aerosolized droplets escaped through small gaps between the cover and the seat. In addition to consistent increases in aerosol levels immediately after flushing, there was a notable rise in ambient aerosol levels due to the accumulation of droplets from multiple flushes conducted during the tests. This highlights the need for incorporating adequate ventilation in the design and operation of public spaces, which can help prevent aerosol accumulation in high occupancy areas and mitigate the risk of airborne disease transmission.

I. INTRODUCTION to be clean, which indicates that infection is likely to have oc- curred via bioaerosols suspended within the restroom. The aerosolization of biomatter caused by flushing toi- In more controlled studies investigating toilet-generated lets has long been known to be a potential source of trans- aerosols, Barker & Bloomfield15 isolated salmonella bacte- mission of infectious microorganisms1,2. Toilet flushing can ria from air samples collected after flushing. Bacteria and generate large quantities of microbe-containing aerosols3 de- viruses could be isolated from settle plates for up to an hour to pending on the design and water pressure or flushing energy 90 minutes after flushing16,17, suggesting that the microorgan- of the toilet4–6. A variety of different pathogens which are isms were present in aerosolized droplets and droplet nuclei. found in stagnant water or in waste products (e.g., urine, fe- An experimental study in a hospital-based setting measured ces, and vomit) can get dispersed widely via such aerosoliza- bioaerosol generation when fecal matter was flushed by pa- tion, including the legionella bacterium responsible for caus- tients18. A significant increase in bioaerosols was observed ing Legionnaire’s disease7,8, the Ebola virus9, the norovirus right after flushing, and the droplets remained detectable for which causes severe gastroenteritis (food poisoning)10,11, and up to 30 minutes afterwards. Notably, flushing does not re- the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS- move all of the microorganisms which may be present in the CoV)12. Such airborne dispersion is suspected to have played bowl. In various studies where the toilet bowl was seeded with a key role in the outbreak of viral gastroenteritis aboard a microorganisms, sequential flushes led to a drop in microbe cruise ship, where infection was twice as prevalent among count, however, some residual microbes remained in the bowl passengers who used shared toilets compared to those who even after up to 24 flushes2,15,16,19,20. In some cases, resid- had private bathrooms13. Similarly, transmission of norovirus ual microbial contamination was shown to persist in biofilm via aerosolized droplets was linked to the occurrence of vom- formed within the toilet bowl for several days to weeks15. iting or diarrhea within an aircraft restroom14, as passengers In an effort to reduce aerosol dispersal, certain studies con- and crew who got infected were more likely to have visited ducted measurements with the toilet seat lid closed16,17. Clos- restrooms than those that were not infected. The participants ing the lid led to a decrease, but not a complete absence of bac- arXiv:2101.11990v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 28 Jan 2021 in the study reported that all of the restroom surfaces appeared teria recovered from air samples. This suggests that smaller aerosolized droplets were able to escape through the gap be- tween the seat and the lid. In addition to the experiment-based studies mentioned here, numerical simulations have been used a)Electronic mail: [email protected] recently to investigate the ejection of aerosolized particles b)Electronic mail: [email protected] c) from toilets and urinals, specifically in the context of COVID- Electronic mail: [email protected] 21,22 d)Electronic mail: [email protected] 19 transmission . e)Electronic mail: [email protected]; http://www.computation.fau.edu; Also The issue of aerosolization is particularly acute for viruses at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University, Fort compared to bacteria, given their different response to lev- Pierce, FL 34946, USA els of relative-humidity (RH). High RH levels result in slower 2 evaporation of aerosolized droplets, whereas lower levels ac- RNA has been found in urine even after the virus is no longer celerate the phenomenon, leading to the formation of ex- detectable in respiratory swabs40. tremely small droplet nuclei which can remain airborne for These findings suggest that the aerosolization of biomat- long periods of time and can deposit deep into the lungs23,24. ter could play a potential role in the transmission of SARS- Various studies have indicated that the viability of bacteria de- CoV-2, which is known to remain viable in aerosol form48,49. creases at low RH levels25,26, which makes them less likely to Environmental samples taken by Ding et al.50 in a hospital retain their infectivity in droplet nuclei form. On the other designated specifically for COVID-19 patients indicated high hand, viruses exhibit lowest viability at intermediate RH lev- prevalence of the virus within bathrooms used by the patients, els, and retain their viability at either low or high RH val- both on surfaces and in air samples. The authors hypothe- ues26–30, making them more likely to remain intact in droplet sized that aerosolized fecal matter may have dispersed the nuclei which can stay suspended from hours to days. Viruses virus within the bathroom, since viral samples were not de- are also more likely to aerosolize easily, as indicated by Lee at tected on surfaces in the patients’ rooms. al.31 who used wastewater sludge (both synthetic and real) to Given the potential role of aerosolized biomatter in spread- demonstrate that when viruses were seeded into the sludge, ing a wide variety of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses, 94% stayed mobile in the liquid phase while only a small we investigate droplet generation from toilets and urinals in a fraction adhered to the solid biomatter or to the surfaces of public restroom operating under normal ventilation condition. the toilet. This suggests that the presence of solid biomatter, We examine the size, number, and various heights to which which is more difficult to aerosolize, might not reduce the po- the droplets rise when generated by the flushing water. The tential for virus transmission since they are more likely to get main aim is to better understand the risk of infection trans- aerosolized with the liquid phase. mission that the droplets pose in public restrooms, since these Apart from gastrointestinal diseases, viruses associated relatively confined locations often experience heavy foot traf- with respiratory illnesses have also been detected in patients’ fic. The experimental methodology is described in Section II stool and urine samples. For instance, the SARS-CoV (Se- followed by results and discussion in Section III and conclu- vere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus) responsible sion in Section IV. for the SARS outbreak of 2003 was found in patients’ urine and stool specimens for longer than 4 weeks32. Similarly, recent studies have confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 II. METHODS (the virus associated with COVID-19) viral RNA in patients’ 33–38 stool samples , even if they did not experience gastroin- The flush-generated aerosol measurements were recorded testinal symptoms and regardless of the severity of their res- in a medium sized restroom on the university campus, con- 34,35,39,40 piratory symptoms . Surprisingly, viral RNA could sisting of 3 bathroom cubicles, 6 urinals, and 3 sinks. The be detected in feces for several days to weeks after it was no restroom was deep cleaned and closed twenty four hours prior longer detectable in respiratory samples from nasal and oral to conducting the experiments, with the ventilation system 33–35,38 41 swabs . Moreover, Wu et al. recovered large quan- operating normally to remove any aerosols generated during tities of viral RNA from urban wastewater treatment facili- cleaning. The temperature and relative humidity within the ties. The levels detected were several orders of magnitude restroom were measured to be 21◦C and 52%, respectively. higher than would be expected for the number of clinically For the measurements reported here, one particular toilet and confirmed cases in the region, which suggests that there was a one urinal were selected, both equipped with flushometer type high prevalence of asymptomatic and undetected cases. flushing systems. The urinal used 3.8 liters of water per flush Although enveloped viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are suscep- whereas the toilet used 4.8 liters per flush. tible to the acids and bile salts found in digestive juices, it has The size and concentration of aerosols generated by flush- been shown that they can survive when engulfed within mu- ing were measured using a handheld particle counter (9306- cus produced by the digestive system. Hirose et al.42 demon- V2 - TSI Incorporated). The sensor’s size resolution is less strated that influenza viruses could be protected from degra- than 15%, which is indicative of the uncertainty in the mea- dation by simulated digestive juices using both artificial and sured particle diameter. More specifically, the resolution is natural mucus. This might help explain why recent studies specified as the ratio of standard deviation to the mean size have been able to isolate viable SARS-CoV-2 virus particles of the particles being sampled. The counting efficiency of the (i.e., those able to infect new cells) that remained intact when sensor is 50% at 0.3µm and 100% for particles larger than passing through the digestive and urinary systems, albeit in 0.45µm. These values denote the ratio of particle numbers smaller quantities compared to respiratory fluids43. Wang et measured by the counter to those measured using a reference al.44 detected live virus in feces from patients who did not instrument. Handheld counters with comparable specifica- have diarrhea, and Xiao et al.45 demonstrated the infectivity tions have been used for estimating the likelihood of aerosol of intact virions isolated from a patient’s stool samples. In transmission in typical public spaces51. urine specimens, SARS-CoV-2 RNA is found less frequently The particle counter was positioned at various heights close than in fecal and respiratory samples33,40,46. However, Sun to the toilet and the urinal as shown in Figure 1. Measure- et al.47 managed to isolate the virus from a severely infected ments for the toilet were taken at 3 different heights, at ap- patient’s urine, and showed that these virions were capable of proximately 0.43m from the ground (1 ft 5in), 1.22m (4 ft), infecting new susceptible cells. As with fecal samples, viral and 1.52m (5 ft), with the toilet seat raised up. The low- 3

1.52m

1.22m 1.22m

0.97m

0.43m 0.53m

(a) (b)

FIG. 1: Measurement locations where the aerosol sensor was placed for (a) the toilet and (b) the urinal. Measurements for the toilet were taken at heights of 0.43m from the ground (1 ft 5in), 1.22m (4 ft), and 1.52m (5 ft), whereas those for the urinal were taken at 0.53m (1 ft 9in), 0.97m (3 ft 2in), and 1.22m (4 ft). est level corresponds to the distance between the ground and seconds at each of the levels depicted in Figure 1. We note the toilet seat, and represents the scenario where the parti- that although it is feasible to compute droplet concentration cle counter was placed level with the seat. Measurements for at a given measurement location, it is difficult to determine the urinal were taken at 3 different heights, at approximately overall characteristic droplet production rates for the toilet or 0.53m from the ground (1 ft 9in), 0.97m (3 ft 2in), and 1.22m urinal, since the measured values depend on both the location (4 ft). The particle counter’s intake probe was oriented par- and orientation of the probe. During the 300-second sampling, allel to the floor and perpendicular to the back wall, with the the toilet and urinal were flushed manually 5 different times at inlet pointing in the direction of the flushing water. The probe the 30, 90, 150, 210, and 270 second mark, with the flushing was centered laterally for both toilet and urinal measurements. handle held down for five consecutive seconds. The data ob- The placement and orientation were selected to be represen- tained from the three different scenarios, i.e., toilet flushing, tative of a person breathing in when flushing the toilet/urinal covered toilet flushing, and urinal flushing, were analyzed to after use, since different choices were observed have a notable determine the increase in aerosol concentration. The behav- impact on the measured droplet count. The probe inlet was po- ior of droplets of different sizes, the heights that they rose to, sitioned 5cm inside the rim of the toilet, and it was placed 5cm and the impact of covering the toilet are discussed in detail in outside the edge of the urinal, as depicted in Figure 1. In ad- Section III. dition to measurements taken during normal operation of the toilet, aerosol measurements were recorded after a large flat plate was placed over the toilet opening, to assess the impact III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of flushing with the lid closed. The use of a separate cover was necessary since public restrooms in the United States often do The measurements from the particle counter were ana- not come equipped with toilet seat lids. lyzed to determine the extent of aerosolization, and the var- The particle counter drew air samples at a volume flow ious heights to which the droplets rise after flushing. Fig- rate of 2.83 liters per minute (0.1 Cubic Feet per Minute ure 2 shows the time-variation of the total number of particles - CFM), and measured aerosol concentrations in six differ- recorded by the sensor from measurements for the uncovered ent size ranges, namely, (0.3 to 0.5)µm, (0.5 to 1.0)µm, toilet. The data plotted has been smoothed using a moving (1.0 to 3.0)µm, (3.0 to 5.0)µm, (5.0 to 10.0)µm, and (10.0 average window of size 4 to reduce noise levels. Figure 2a to 25.0)µm. For the tests reported here, air samples were depicts the time series for particles of size (0.3 to 0.5)µm and recorded at a sampling frequency of 1Hz for a total of 300 (0.5 to 1)µm, whereas the size groups (1 to 3)µm and (3 to 4

3500 80 20 600 3000 60 15 500 2500 400 40 10 2000 Particle Count Particle Count 300 20 5 1500 200 1000 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] Time [s] (a) (b) 6

5

4

3

Particle Count 2

1

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] (c)

FIG. 2: Particle-count from the toilet-flushing test, measured at a height of 0.43m (1 ft5in). The time series plots are shown for particles in various size ranges: (a) (0.3 to 0.5)µm - black, and (0.5 to 1)µm - blue; (b) (1 to 3)µm - black, and (3 to 5)µm - blue; (c) (5 to 10)µm - black, and (10 to 25)µm - blue. The black curves in (a) and (b) correspond to the left vertical axes, whereas the blue curves correspond to the right vertical axes. The dashed gray lines indicate the instances when the flushing handle was depressed and held down for 5 seconds.

5)µm are shown in Figure 2b, and size groups (5 to 10)µm smaller droplets. We note that for the smallest aerosols (i.e., and (10 to 25)µm are shown in Figure 2c. We observe a no- those smaller than 1µm), ambient levels in the restroom were ticeable increase in particle count for all of the size ranges a relatively high prior to starting the experiment (∼ O(3000)). few seconds after flushing. This indicates that flushing the Thus, in these size ranges the flush-generated droplets com- toilet generates droplets in significant numbers, which can be prise a small fraction of the total particle count. On the other detected at seat-level for up to 30 seconds after initiating the hand, ambient levels for particle sizes larger than 1µm were flush. negligible in the restroom (∼ O(1) to O(10)), resulting in the In Figure 2a we observe a large variation in the measured distinctive surges observed after flushing. levels of the smallest particles, i.e., those smaller than 1µm. Similar plots depicting the time-variation of droplet counts These particles are highly susceptible to flow disturbances in for the covered toilet test and the urinal-flushing test are the ambient environment due to their low mass, which may shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. For the covered account for the high variability. The time series for particles toilet, the plots display a large variation in the number of the larger than 1µm (Figures 2b and 2c) exhibit distinctive surges smallest droplets in Figure 3a, and comparatively small surges in particle count after each flushing event. Importantly, the relative to ambient levels due to the background count being total number of droplets generated in the smaller size ranges high. Importantly, the observed peak values of the surges are is considerably larger than that generated in the larger ranges, lower for the covered toilet compared to the uncovered tests. even though the surges appear to be less prominent for the This is evident in Figure 3b, where the peak values are ap- 5

3000 600 50 20

500 40 2500 15

400 30 2000 10 300 20 Particle Count Particle Count 1500 5 200 10

1000 100 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] Time [s] (a) (b) 6

5

4

3

Particle Count 2

1

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] (c)

FIG. 3: Particle-count from the flushing test when the toilet was covered using a large flat plate. Measurements taken at a height of 0.43m (1 ft5in). The time series plots are shown for particles in various size ranges: (a) (0.3 to 0.5)µm - black, and (0.5 to 1)µm - blue; (b) (1 to 3)µm - black, and (3 to 5)µm - blue; (c) (5 to 10)µm - black, and (10 to 25)µm - blue. The black curves in (a) and (b) correspond to the left vertical axes, whereas the blue curves correspond to the right vertical axes. The dashed gray lines indicate the instances when the flushing handle was depressed and held down for 5 seconds. proximately 35 droplets on average for the (1 to 3)µm range, of the toilet bowl. We observe that there is no consistent in- and 3 droplets for the (3 to 5)µm range. The same numbers creasing or decreasing trend in either the peaks or the baseline for the uncovered toilet are approximately 50 droplets and 5 levels with subsequent flushes in the time series plots. The droplets, respectively, in Figure 2b. Notably, there is a sig- same holds true for data from the toilet-flushing tests in Fig- nificant reduction in the number of droplets larger than 5µm ures 2 and 3. Thus, any short term changes in temperature for the covered toilet (Figure 3c) compared to the uncovered and RH at the measurement location due to flushing do not toilet (Figure 2c). This indicates that the covering helps to have a noticeable impact on the droplet count. Furthermore, reduce the dispersion of flush-generated droplets, especially while the smallest droplets will remain suspended for longer those larger than 5µm, but it does not completely contain the than 300s, the time series plots indicate that droplet counts escape of droplets smaller than 5µm. at the sensor location return to ambient levels within approx- The data from the urinal-flushing tests in Figure 4 indicate a imately half a minute. Nonetheless, as these droplets move large number of droplets generated in all size ranges observed; past the particle counter they become part of the ambient en- the post-flush surges are much more pronounced than those vironment, leading to a measurable increase in background for the toilet-flushing tests, even for droplets smaller than 1µm levels as demonstrated later in this section. (Figure 4a). This may be related to the closer proximity of the To compare the increase in droplet concentration for the sensor to the water drain in the urinal, compared to the toilet- three different scenarios at various measurement heights, the flushing tests for which the sensor was placed at the outer edge time series data were examined manually to identify the time 6

80 20 4000 600

3500 60 15 500 3000

400 40 10 2500 Particle Count Particle Count 2000 300 20 5 1500 200 1000 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] Time [s] (a) (b) 25

20

15

10 Particle Count

5

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] (c)

FIG. 4: Particle-count from the urinal-flushing test, measured at a height of 0.53m (1 ft9in). The time series plots are shown for particles in various size ranges: (a) (0.3 to 0.5)µm - black, and (0.5 to 1)µm - blue; (b) (1 to 3)µm - black, and (3 to 5)µm - blue; (c) (5 to 10)µm - black, and (10 to 25)µm - blue. The black curves in (a) and (b) correspond to the left vertical axes, whereas the blue curves correspond to the right vertical axes. The dashed gray lines indicate the instances when the flush was activated using the proximity sensor. delay between flush initiation and the observed rise in parti- strongly by the placement of the sensor, the fixture geome- cle count, as well as the total time span for which the particle try, the flushing mechanism, as well as the water volume and counts remained elevated. The corresponding values are pro- pressure. vided in Table I. We note that the time delay between flush initiation and the measured surge for the uncovered toilet at The number of droplets produced during the flushes were seat-level was 10 seconds, whereas that for the covered toilet determined by numerically integrating the sections compris- was 0 seconds. Furthermore, the delay was smaller for the ing the ‘surge’ segments in the unfiltered time series. More covered toilet at a height of 1.22m (5s versus 10s), suggesting specifically, within each 1-minute window associated with a that the aerosols were forced through gaps in between the seat particular flush, the start of the surge was identified using the and the plate for the covered toilet. In both cases, the droplet time-delay values specified in Table I. Starting at this time the counts remained elevated for a further 20 seconds after first area under the particle-count curve was computed numerically detection of the surge. For the covered toilet and the urinal, up until the end of the surge, the corresponding time span for we observe a consistent increase in time delay with increasing which is also specified in Table I. The average surge count was height, which also corresponds to increasing distance from the determined by dividing this area by the corresponding time flushing water, but the observed delay remained nearly con- span. The area under the remaining parts of the curve, i.e., the stant for the uncovered toilet at 10s. We remark that the time segments lying outside the surge but within the 1-minute time delay and detection duration are expected to be influenced window, was determined similarly to obtain the average am- bient droplet count. This ambient count was subtracted from 7

220 TABLE I: Average time delay between flush initiation and 1.52m the observed rise in particle count. The last column indicates 1.22m 200 the average time taken for the particle count to return to 0.43m ambient levels. 180

Height Time Delay [s] Time Span [s] 160 0.43m (1 ft5in) 10 20 80 Toilet 1.22m (4 ft) 10 20 1.52m (5 ft) 10 20 60 0.43m (1 ft5in) 0 20 Covered Toilet 1.22m (4 ft) 5 20 40 0.53m (1 ft9in) 0 15 Increase in Droplet Count Urinal 0.97m (3 ft2in) 5 15 20 1.22m (4 ft) 6 20 0 0.3 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 3 Particle Size Range [µm] the surge count to yield the average number of flush-generated FIG. 5: Average increase in the number of droplets measured droplets measured per second by the particle counter. The re- per second after flushing the toilet. The error bars indicate sulting values from the 4 different full-minute flush measure- the standard deviation of the measured increase from ments were averaged to obtain the increase in droplet count multiple flushes. Each bar cluster corresponds to particles in per second, and the standard deviation was computed to deter- a given size range, and indicates how the droplet count varies mine the uncertainty. The resulting data for the flushing toilet with measurement height. The corresponding values are is depicted graphically in Figure 5, and the corresponding nu- provided in Table II. merical values are provided in Table II. We note that droplets larger than 3µm were excluded from this analysis since very few droplets in these size ranges were detected at the higher TABLE II: Numerical values for the average increase in locations, which made it difficult to distinguish between the droplet count per second from the toilet-flushing tests, with measured values and background noise. the standard deviation provided in parentheses. The data The bar graphs in Figure 5 indicate that a significant num- corresponds to the bar graphs shown in Figure 5. ber of droplets smaller than 0.5µm were generated by the flushing toilet. If these droplets contain infectious microor- Height (0.3 to 0.5)µm (0.5 to 1)µm (1 to 3)µm ganisms from aerosolized biomatter, they can pose a signifi- 0.43m 186 (±25) 51 (±20) 17 (±3) cant transmission risk since they remain suspended for long 1.22m 27 (±24) 14 (±7) 7 (±2) periods of time. For instance, in a poorly ventilated loca- 1.52m 29 (±5) 13 (±5) 5 (±2) tion where gravitational settling is the only means of remov- ing suspended particles, the Stokes settling time for a spheri- cal water droplet of size 0.5µm from a height of 1.52m (5 ft) since the droplet concentration is highest when the probe is would be approximately 56 hours, or more than 2 days. Apart placed closer to the flushing water, and it decreases at farther from the smallest aerosols, comparatively larger aerosols also locations due to dispersal of the droplets over a wider area. pose a risk in poorly ventilated areas even though they experi- We remark that gravitational forces are not expected to play a ence stronger gravitational settling. They often undergo rapid dominant role in the observed behavior, given the extremely evaporation in the ambient environment and the resulting de- small mass of the aerosols being considered here. Rather, it is creases in size and mass, or the eventual formation of droplet aerodynamic drag that dominates. The Stokes settling speed nuclei, can allow microbes to remain suspended for several for the largest aerosol being considered, i.e., a 3µm droplet, is hours52–54. approximately 0.00027m/s. This amounts to a settling time of In Figure 5, we observe a large variation for aerosols in the 1589s from a height of 0.43m, and even longer for the smaller size range (0.3 to 0.5)µm. This may be attributed to the small droplets. Thus, the effects of gravitational forces are not dom- droplets’ high sensitivity to ambient flow fluctuations, as well inant at the time scales being considered (∼ O(10s)). Finally, as to the sensor’s limited counting efficiency in this range. No- the monotonic decrease in particle count with increasing par- tably, droplets smaller than 3µm are detectable in significant ticle size is similar to the trend observed by Johnson et al.5 for numbers even at a height of 1.52m (5 ft). We observe a con- various toilet designs and flushing mechanisms. sistent decline in droplet count with increasing height; there The data collected after flushing the covered toilet and the is a significant drop in droplet count going from seat-level to urinal were also processed in a similar manner to determine 1.22m, and a very small decrease with a further move up to the corresponding increases in droplet count per second. The 1.52m for droplets larger than 0.5µm. The smallest aerosols results for the covered toilet are presented in Figure 6 and Ta- exhibit some variation in the trend, which is likely due to the ble III, whereas those from flushing the urinal are presented in sensor limitations mentioned above. The observed decrease in Figure 7 and Table IV. Results from measurements at 1.52m droplet count with increasing measurement height is expected, height were not included in the analysis for the covered toi- 8 let, since it was difficult to discern droplet counts from back- 200 ground noise due to the extremely low measured values. This 1.22m 180 0.43m indicates that the covering plate prevented the aerosols from rising upward and instead deflected them to lower levels, also 160 resulting in shorter time delays compared to the uncovered toi- 140 let (Table I). Over the long term however, these aerosols could 120 rise up with updrafts created by the ventilation system or by the movement of people in the restroom. 100 We observe a large number of aerosolized droplets smaller 80 than 1µm in Figure 6, and an appreciable number of droplets 60 in the (1 to 3)µm range. This suggests that while the covering Increase in Droplet Count 40 is able to suppress the dispersion of droplets to some extent, it does not eliminate them completely. Thus, although a toilet 20 lid may appear to be a straightforward solution for reducing 0 aerosol dispersal, other alternatives may need to be evaluated 0.3 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 3 when designing public restrooms, such as modifying the fix- Particle Size Range [µm] ture design, water pressure, vent placement, airflow rate, or FIG. 6: Average increase in number of droplets measured per even employing a liquid ‘curtain’ incorporated into the fix- second from flushing the covered toilet. The error bars ture55. indicate the standard deviation of the measured increase from The bars in Figure 6 display a consistent decline in droplet multiple flushes. Each bar cluster corresponds to particles in count with increasing height, similar to the trend observed for a given size range, and indicates how the droplet count varies the uncovered toilet. One unexpected observation is the occur- with measurement height. The corresponding values are rence of higher droplet counts for the covered toilet at 1.22m, provided in Table III. compared to analogous measurements for the uncovered toi- let in Table II. We remark that this does not indicate that the covering led to an increase in droplet count, but rather that the TABLE III: Numerical values for the average increase in aerosols were redirected in higher concentrations to the posi- droplet count per second from the covered toilet-flushing tion where the counter was located, after being forced through tests, with the standard deviation provided in parentheses. gaps between the seat and the cover. Examining the data from The data corresponds to the bar graphs shown in Figure 6. the the urinal-flushing tests in Figure 7, we observe a simi- lar decline in droplet count with increasing height as for the Height (0.3 to 0.5)µm (0.5 to 1)µm (1 to 3)µm other two cases. A large number of droplets were detected in 0.43m 147 (±47) 35 (±9) 9 (±2) the (0.3 to 0.5)µm size range (approximately 300 droplets per 1.22m 80 (±36) 27 (±7) 7 (±3) second on average) at the lowest measurement level, which can be attributed to the close proximity of the sensor to the flushing water. Moreover, a significant number of droplets reached heights of up to 1.22m (4 ft) from the ground, similar further note that while the results presented here are restricted to the toilet-flushing tests. to specific measurement heights, there is a high likelihood of We remark that the total number of droplets generated in the aerosols getting dispersed throughout the room over time each flushing test described here can range in the tens of thou- due to updrafts created by the ventilation system or by the sands. The numbers reported here indicate average droplet movement of people. count per second, for cases where the time span for each surge In addition to the flush-generated aerosol measurements, varies from 15s to 20s (Table I). Thus, an average count of 50 ambient aerosol levels were measured prior to starting the droplets per second for one size range would amount to a total experiments and again after completing all of the tests. Af- of 750 to 1000 droplets at one particular measurement loca- ter approximately 3 hours of tests involving over 100 flushes, tion. Considering that similar measurements could be made there was a substantial increase in the measured aerosol lev- all around the periphery of the fixtures, and that droplets are els in the ambient environment. The corresponding data is generated in several different size ranges, the overall total presented in Figure 8 and Table V. There was a 69.5% in- count would likely end up being significantly higher. Further- crease in measured levels for particles of size (0.3 to 0.5)µm, more, droplet generation and accumulation depend on a vari- a 209% increase for the (0.5 to 1)µm particles, and a 50% ety of factors, such as the design of the toilet fixtures, the wa- increase for the (1 to 3)µm particles. Particles larger than ter pressure, the ventilation positioning, airflow, temperature, 3µm were excluded from the analysis due to the the im- and RH, to name a few. The aim of the present work is not pact of background noise on the extremely low measured val- to present detailed characterizations of the influence of these ues. The results point to significant accumulation of flush- factors on droplet dynamics, but instead to highlight the oc- generated aerosolized droplets within the restroom over time, currence of aerosol generation and accumulation within pub- which indicates that the ventilation system was not effective lic restrooms. These observations can help stimulate further in removing them from the enclosed space, although there was studies to investigate steps to mitigate the issues involved. We no perceptible lack of airflow within the restroom; the room 9

540 5000 2500 520 1.22m 320 0.97m 0.53m 300 4000 2000 280 260 240 220 3000 1500 200 180 160 2000 1000 140 Particle Count 120 100 1000 500

Increase in Droplet Count 80 60 40 0 0 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.3 to 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 3 Time [s] Particle Size Range [ m] FIG. 8: Particle-count from ambient measurements within FIG. 7: Average increase in number of droplets measured per the restroom. The plot indicates the time-variation of second from flushing the urinal. The error bars indicate the particles in two different size ranges, (0.3 to 0.5)µm - black, standard deviation of the measured increase from multiple and (0.5 to 1)µm - blue. The black curves correspond to the flushes. Each bar cluster corresponds to particles in a given left vertical axis, whereas the blue curves correspond to the size range, and indicates how the droplet count varies with right vertical axis. The dashed lines indicate initial measurement height. The corresponding values are provided background readings before conducting any flushing tests, in Table IV. whereas the solid lines indicate measurements taken at the conclusion of all tests, approximately 3 hours and 100 flushes later. TABLE IV: Numerical values for the average increase in droplet count per second from the urinal-flushing tests, with the standard deviation provided in parentheses. The data TABLE V: Average values for the background corresponds to the bar graphs shown in Figure 7. measurements shown in Figure 8. Additionally, average measurements for the (1 to 3)µm size group are also Height (0.3 to 0.5)µm (0.5 to 1)µm (1 to 3)µm provided below. The ‘Before’ column indicates the average 0.53m 315 (±209) 80 (±47) 17 (±8) ambient levels measured within a 5-minute time window 0.97m 46 (±23) 14 (±5) 8 (±2) before conducting any flushing experiments, and the ‘After’ 1.22m 34 (±12) 10 (±2) 5 (±2) column indicates similar measurements taken after concluding all the experiments. was equipped with two vents rated at volume flow rates of Particle Size Group Before After Percent Change 7.5m3/min (265 CFM) and 5.66m3/min (200 CFM). Further- 0.3 to 0.5 µm 2537 4301 69.5% more, a comparison with ambient levels outside the restroom 0.5 to 1 µm 201 621 209% 1 to 3 µm 8 12 50% (a few meters away from the closed restroom door, but within the same building) indicated that the levels of droplets smaller than 1µm were more than 10 times higher within the restroom compared to ambient levels outside the restroom. This was hood of infection for respiratory illnesses via bioaerosols may unexpected since the restroom had been closed off for more be low compared to the risk posed by respiratory droplets than 24 hours after deep cleaning, with the ventilation system (since virions are detected in larger quantities in respiratory operating normally. While it is difficult to ascertain the ex- samples), it presents a viable transmission route especially act source of the droplets that contributed to high background in public restrooms which often experience heavy foot-traffic levels within the restroom, it is likely that they were generated within a relatively confined area. As demonstrated here, mul- during the cleaning operation. There were no other readily tiple flush-use over time can lead to an accumulation of poten- apparent sources, since both locations, i.e., inside and outside tially infectious aerosols, which poses a measurable risk con- the restroom, employed the same centralized air-conditioning sidering the large number of individuals who may visit a pub- system, and the RH and temperature were maintained at com- lic restroom and subsequently disperse into the broader com- parable levels (Figure 9). These observations further highlight munity. Moreover, apart from flush-generated bioaerosols, the the importance of employing adequate ventilation in enclosed accumulation of respiratory aerosols also poses a concern in spaces to extract suspended droplets effectively, in order to public restrooms if adequate ventilation is not available. Over- reduce the chances of infection transmission via aerosolized all, the results presented here highlight the crucial need for droplets. ensuring effective aerosol removal capability in high density The results presented here indicate that although the likeli- and frequently visited public spaces. 10

25 tious aerosols within public restrooms, which poses an ele- 52 vated risk of airborne disease transmission. In addition to 24 50 flush-generated bioaerosols, the accumulation of respiratory aerosols also poses a concern in public restrooms in the ab-

48 23 C] sence of adequate ventilation. Overall, the results presented ° here indicate that ensuring adequate ventilation in public re- 46 22 strooms is essential, since these relatively confined areas of- 44 ten experience heavy foot traffic and could pose a risk for 21

Temperature [ widespread community transmission of various gastrointesti-

Relative Humidity [%] 42 nal and respiratory illnesses. 20 40

38 19 DATA AVAILABILITY 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time [s] The data that support the findings of this study are available FIG. 9: Relative humidity (black) and temperature from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

measurements (blue) inside and outside the restroom. Solid 1 lines indicate measurements taken inside the restroom, H. Darlow and W. Bale, “Infective hazards of water-closets,” The Lancet 273, 1196 – 1200 (1959), originally published as Volume 1, Issue 7084. whereas dashed lines correspond to measurements outside the 2C. P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick, “Microbiological Hazards of restroom, a few meters away from the closed restroom door. Household Toilets: Droplet Production and the Fate of Residual Organ- isms,” Applied Microbiology 30, 229–237 (1975). 3D. L. Johnson, K. R. Mead, R. A. Lynch, and D. V. Hirst, “Lifting the lid on toilet plume aerosol: A literature review with suggestions for future IV. CONCLUSION research,” American Journal of Infection Control 41, 254–258 (2013). 4W. Bound and R. Atkinson, “Bacterial aerosol from water closets: A com- parison of two types of pan and two types of cover,” The Lancet 287, 1369 The aerosolization of biomatter from flushing toilets is – 1370 (1966), originally published as Volume 1, Issue 7451. 5 known to play a potential role in spreading a wide variety of D. Johnson, R. Lynch, C. Marshall, K. Mead, and D. Hirst, “Aerosol gener- ation by modern flush toilets,” Aerosol Science and Technology 47, 1047– gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses. To better understand 1057 (2013). the risk of infection transmission that such droplets may pose 6A. C. Lai, T. F. Tan, W. S. Li, and D. K. Ip, “Emission strength of airborne in confined spaces, this paper investigates droplet-generation pathogens during toilet flushing,” Indoor Air 28, 73–79 (2018). by flushing toilets and urinals in a public restroom operating 7K. A. Hamilton, M. T. Hamilton, W. Johnson, P. Jjemba, Z. Bukhari, under normal ventilation condition. The measurements were M. LeChevallier, and C. N. Haas, “Health risks from exposure to Le- gionella in reclaimed water aerosols: Toilet flushing, spray irrigation, and conducted inside a medium-sized public restroom, with a par- cooling towers,” Water Research 134, 261–279 (2018). ticle counter placed at various heights to determine the size 8J. Couturier, C. Ginevra, D. Nesa, M. Adam, C. Gouot, G. Descours, and number of droplets generated upon flushing. The results C. Campèse, G. Battipaglia, E. Brissot, L. Beraud, A. G. Ranc, S. Jar- indicate that both toilets and urinals generate large quantities raud, and F. Barbut, “Transmission of Legionnaires’ Disease through Toilet Flushing,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 26, 1526–1528 (2020). of droplets smaller than 3µm in size, which can pose a signif- 9K. Lin and L. C. Marr, “Aerosolization of Ebola Virus Surrogates in icant transmission risk if they contain infectious microorgan- Wastewater Systems,” Environmental Science and Technology 51, 2669– isms from aerosolized biomatter. The droplets were detected 2675 (2017). at heights of up to 1.52m (5 ft) for 20 seconds or longer after 10E. Caul, “Small round structured viruses: airborne transmission and hospi- initiating the flush. Owing to their small size, these droplets tal control,” The Lancet 343, 1240 – 1242 (1994), originally published as Volume 1, Issue 8908. can remain suspended for long periods of time, as is demon- 11P. J. Marks, I. B. Vipond, D. Carlisle, D. Deakin, R. E. Fey, and E. O. Caul, strated in the present study via ambient measurements taken “Evidence for airborne transmission of Norwalk-like virus (NLV) in a hotel before and after conducting the experiments. When a large restaurant,” Epidemiology and Infection 124, 481–487 (2000). flat plate was used to cover the toilet opening, it led to a de- 12J. Zhou, C. Li, G. Zhao, H. Chu, D. Wang, H. H. N. Yan, V. K. M. Poon, crease in droplet dispersion but not a complete absence of the L. Wen, B. H. Y. Wong, X. Zhao, M. C. Chiu, D. Yang, Y. Wang, R. K. Au-Yeung, I. H. Y. Chan, S. Sun, J. F. W. Chan, K. K. W. To, Z. A. Mem- measured aerosols. This indicates that installing toilet seat ish, V. M. Corman, C. Drosten, I. F. N. Hung, Y. Zhou, S. Y. Leung, and lids in public restrooms may help reduce droplet dispersal to K. Y. Yuen, “Human intestinal tract serves as an alternative infection route some extent, but it may not sufficiently address the risk posed for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus,” Science Advances 3 (2017), 10.1126/sciadv.aao4966. by the smallest aerosolized droplets. Ambient aerosol levels 13 measured before and after conducting the experiments indi- M.-S. Ho, S. Monroe, S. Stine, D. Cubitt, R. Glass, H. Madore, P. Pinsky, C. Ashley, and E. Caul, “Viral gastroenteritis aboard a cruise ship,” The cated a substantial increase in particle count, pointing to sig- Lancet 334, 961 – 965 (1989). nificant accumulation of flush-generated aerosols within the 14M.-A. Widdowson, R. Glass, S. Monroe, R. S. Beard, J. W. Bateman, restroom over time. This indicates that the ventilation sys- P. Lurie, and C. Johnson, “Probable Transmission of Norovirus on an Air- tem was not effective in removing the aerosols, although there plane,” JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association 293, 1855– 1860 (2005). was no perceptible lack of airflow within the restroom. Im- 15J. Barker and S. Bloomfield, “Survival of Salmonella in bathrooms and toi- portantly, this suggests that multiple flush-use over time can lets in domestic homes following salmonellosis,” Journal of Applied Mi- lead to the accumulation of high levels of potentially infec- crobiology 89, 137–144 (2000). 11

16J. Barker and M. V. Jones, “The potential spread of infection caused by do we know? A review,” Science of The Total Environment 743, 140444 aerosol contamination of surfaces after flushing a domestic toilet,” Journal (2020). of Applied Microbiology 99, 339–347 (2005). 38S. Gupta, J. Parker, S. Smits, J. Underwood, and S. Dolwani, “Persistent 17E. L. Best, J. A. T. Sandoe, and M. H. Wilcox, Journal of Hospital Infection viral shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in faeces – a rapid review,” Colorectal Dis- 80, 1–5 (2012). ease 22, 611–620 (2020). 18S. D. Knowlton, C. L. Boles, E. N. Perencevich, D. J. Diekema, M. W. 39J. Zhang, S. Wang, and Y. Xue, “Fecal specimen diagnosis 2019 novel Nonnenmann, and CDC Epicenters Program, “Bioaerosol concentrations coronavirus-infected pneumonia,” Journal of Medical Virology 92, 680– generated from toilet flushing in a hospital-based patient care setting,” An- 682 (2020). timicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 7, 16 (2018). 40Y. Ling, S.-B. Xu, Y.-X. Lin, D. Tian, Z.-Q. Zhu, F.-H. Dai, F. Wu, Z.-G. 19D. L. Johnson, R. A. Lynch, S. M. Villanella, J. F. Jones, H. Fang, K. R. Song, W. Huang, J. Chen, B.-J. Hu, S. Wang, E.-Q. Mao, L. Zhu, W.-H. Mead, and D. V. L. Hirst, “Persistence of Bowl Water Contamination dur- Zhang, and H.-Z. Lu, “Persistence and clearance of viral RNA in 2019 ing Sequential Flushes of Contaminated Toilets,” Journal of environmental novel coronavirus disease rehabilitation patients,” Chinese Medical Journal health 80, 34–49 (2017). 133 (2020). 20K. A. Aithinne, C. W. Cooper, R. A. Lynch, and D. L. Johnson, “Toilet 41F. Wu, J. Zhang, A. Xiao, X. Gu, W. L. Lee, F. Armas, K. Kauff- plume aerosol generation rate and environmental contamination following man, W. Hanage, M. Matus, N. Ghaeli, N. Endo, C. Duvallet, M. Poyet, bowl water inoculation with Clostridium difficile spores,” American Journal K. Moniz, A. D. Washburne, T. B. Erickson, P. R. Chai, J. Thomp- of Infection Control 47, 515–520 (2019). son, and E. J. Alm, “SARS-CoV-2 Titers in Wastewater Are Higher 21Y. Y. Li, J. X. Wang, and X. Chen, “Can a toilet promote virus transmis- than Expected from Clinically Confirmed Cases,” mSystems 5 (2020), sion? From a fluid dynamics perspective,” Physics of Fluids 32 (2020), 10.1128/mSystems.00614-20. 10.1063/5.0013318. 42R. Hirose, T. Nakaya, Y. Naito, T. Daidoji, Y. Watanabe, H. Yasuda, 22J. X. Wang, Y. Y. Li, X. D. Liu, and X. Cao, “Virus transmission from H. Konishi, and Y. Itoh, “Mechanism of Human Influenza Virus RNA Per- urinals,” Physics of Fluids 32 (2020), 10.1063/5.0021450. sistence and Virion Survival in Feces: Mucus Protects Virions from Acid 23A. K. Mallik, S. Mukherjee, and M. V. Panchagnula, “An experimental and Digestive Juices,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 216, 105–109 (2017). study of respiratory aerosol transport in phantom lung bronchioles,” Physics 43D. L. Jones, M. Q. Baluja, D. W. Graham, A. Corbishley, J. E. Mc- of Fluids 32, 111903 (2020). Donald, S. K. Malham, L. S. Hillary, T. R. Connor, W. H. Gaze, I. B. 24H. Wang, Z. Li, X. Zhang, L. Zhu, Y. Liu, and S. Wang, “The motion of Moura, M. H. Wilcox, and K. Farkas, “Shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in fe- respiratory droplets produced by coughing,” Physics of Fluids 32, 125102 ces and urine and its potential role in person-to-person transmission and the (2020). environment-based spread of COVID-19,” Science of The Total Environ- 25W. D. Won and H. Ross, “Effect of diluent and relative humidity on ap- ment 749, 141364 (2020). parent viability of airborne pasteurella pestis,” Applied and Environmental 44W. Wang, Y. Xu, R. Gao, R. Lu, K. Han, G. Wu, and W. Tan, “Detection of Microbiology 14, 742–745 (1966). SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens,” JAMA - Journal 26K. Lin and L. C. Marr, “Humidity-Dependent Decay of Viruses, but Not of the American Medical Association 323, 1843–1844 (2020). Bacteria, in Aerosols and Droplets Follows Disinfection Kinetics,” Envi- 45F. Xiao, J. Sun, Y. Xu, F. Li, X. Huang, H. Li, J. Zhao, J. Huang, and ronmental Science and Technology 54, 1024–1032 (2020). J. Zhao, “Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in feces of patient with severe COVID- 27J. R. Songer, “Influence of relative humidity on the survival of some 19,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 26, 1920–1922 (2020). airborne viruses,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 15, 35–42 46L. Peng, J. Liu, W. Xu, Q. Luo, D. Chen, Z. Lei, Z. Huang, X. Li, K. Deng, (1967). B. Lin, and Z. Gao, “SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal 28J. E. Benbough, “Some factors affecting the survival of airborne viruses,” swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens,” Journal of Medical Virology Journal of General Virology 10, 209–220 (1971). 92, 1676–1680 (2020). 29F. L. Schaffer, M. E. Soergel, and D. C. Straube, “Survival of airborne 47J. Sun, A. Zhu, H. Li, K. Zheng, Z. Zhuang, Z. Chen, Y. Shi, Z. Zhang, influenza virus: Effects of propagating host, relative humidity, and compo- S. bei Chen, X. Liu, J. Dai, X. Li, S. Huang, X. Huang, L. Luo, L. Wen, sition of spray fluids,” Archives of Virology 51, 263–273 (1976). J. Zhuo, Y. Li, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, F. Li, L. Feng, X. Chen, 30A. I. Donaldson and N. P. Ferris, “The survival of some air-borne animal N. Zhong, Z. Yang, J. Huang, J. Zhao, and Y. min Li, “Isolation of infec- viruses in relation to relative humidity,” Veterinary Microbiology 1, 413– tious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient,” Emerging Microbes 420 (1976). and Infections 9, 991–993 (2020). 31M. T. Lee, A. Pruden, and L. C. Marr, “Partitioning of Viruses in Wastew- 48N. van Doremalen, T. Bushmaker, D. H. Morris, M. G. Holbrook, A. Gam- ater Systems and Potential for Aerosolization,” Environmental Science and ble, B. N. Williamson, A. Tamin, J. L. Harcourt, N. J. Thornburg, S. I. Technology Letters 3, 210–215 (2016). Gerber, J. O. Lloyd-Smith, E. de Wit, and V. J. Munster, “Aerosol and 32D. Xu, Z. Zhang, L. Jin, F. Chu, Y. Mao, H. Wang, M. Liu, M. Wang, Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1,” New L. Zhang, G. F. Gao, and F. S. Wang, “Persistent shedding of viable England Journal of Medicine 382, 1564–1567 (2020). SARS-CoV in urine and stool of SARS patients during the convalescent 49A. C. Fears, W. B. Klimstra, P. Duprex, A. Hartman, S. C. Weaver, K. S. phase,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Plante, D. Mirchandani, J. A. Plante, P. V. Aguilar, D. Fernández, A. Nalca, 24, 165–171 (2005). A. Totura, D. Dyer, B. Kearney, M. Lackemeyer, J. K. Bohannon, R. John- 33F. Xiao, M. Tang, X. Zheng, Y. Liu, X. Li, and H. Shan, “Evidence for son, R. F. Garry, D. S. Reed, and C. J. Roy, “Persistence of Severe Acute Gastrointestinal Infection of SARS-CoV-2,” Gastroenterology 158, 1831– Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Aerosol Suspensions,” Emerging 1833.e3 (2020). infectious diseases 26 (2020), 10.3201/eid2609.201806. 34Y. Wu, C. Guo, L. Tang, Z. Hong, J. Zhou, X. Dong, H. Yin, Q. Xiao, 50Z. Ding, H. Qian, B. Xu, Y. Huang, T. Miao, H.-L. Yen, S. Xiao, L. Cui, Y. Tang, X. Qu, L. Kuang, X. Fang, N. Mishra, J. Lu, H. Shan, G. Jiang, X. Wu, W. Shao, Y. Song, L. Sha, L. Zhou, Y. Xu, B. Zhu, and Y. Li, and X. Huang, “Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in faecal “Toilets dominate environmental detection of severe acute respiratory syn- samples,” The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 5, 434–435 (2020). drome coronavirus 2 in a hospital,” Science of The Total Environment 753, 35Y. Chen, L. Chen, Q. Deng, G. Zhang, K. Wu, L. Ni, Y. Yang, B. Liu, 141710 (2021). W. Wang, C. Wei, J. Yang, G. Ye, and Z. Cheng, “The presence of SARS- 51G. A. Somsen, C. J. M. van Rijn, S. Kooij, R. A. Bem, and D. Bonn, CoV-2 RNA in the feces of COVID-19 patients,” Journal of Medical Virol- “Measurement of small droplet aerosol concentrations in public spaces us- ogy 92, 833–840 (2020). ing handheld particle counters,” Physics of Fluids 32, 121707 (2020). 36W. Zhang, R.-H. Du, B. Li, X.-S. Zheng, X.-L. Yang, B. Hu, Y.-Y. Wang, 52W. F. Wells, “On air-borne infection: Study II. Droplets and droplet nuclei.” G.-F. Xiao, B. Yan, Z.-L. Shi, and P. Zhou, “Molecular and serological in- American Journal of Epidemiology 20, 611–618 (1934). vestigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: implication of multiple shed- 53J. P. Duguid, “The size and the duration of air-carriage of respiratory ding routes,” Emerging Microbes & Infections 9, 386–389 (2020). droplets and droplet-nuclei,” The Journal of hygiene 78, 471–479 (2020). 37P. Foladori, F. Cutrupi, N. Segata, S. Manara, F. Pinto, F. Malpei, L. Bruni, 54S. Basu, P. Kabi, S. Chaudhuri, and A. Saha, “Insights on drying and pre- and G. La Rosa, “SARS-CoV-2 from faeces to wastewater treatment: What cipitation dynamics of respiratory droplets from the perspective of covid- 12

19,” Physics of Fluids 32, 123317 (2020). 32, 111707 (2020). 55S.-C. Wu, M.-Y. Guo, J.-X. Wang, S. Yao, J. Chen, and Y.-y. Li, “Liquid- curtain-based strategy to restrain plume during flushing,” Physics of Fluids