Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T03:11:57.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2020

David Edwards*
Affiliation:
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Harvard University, CambridgeMA, USA Sensory Cloud Inc., Boston, MA, USA
Anthony Hickey
Affiliation:
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Richard Batycky
Affiliation:
Nocion Therapeutics, Waltham, MA, USA
Lester Griel
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA
Michael Lipp
Affiliation:
Nocion Therapeutics, Waltham, MA, USA
Wes Dehaan
Affiliation:
Selecta Biosciences, Watertown, MA, USA
Robert Clarke
Affiliation:
Pulmatrix Inc., Lexington, MA, USA
David Hava
Affiliation:
Pulmatrix Inc., Lexington, MA, USA
Jason Perry
Affiliation:
Pulmatrix Inc., Lexington, MA, USA
Brendan Laurenzi
Affiliation:
Pulmatrix Inc., Lexington, MA, USA
Aidan K. Curran
Affiliation:
Pulmatrix Inc., Lexington, MA, USA
Brandon J. Beddingfield
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
Chad J. Roy
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Tulane School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
Tom Devlin
Affiliation:
Sensory Cloud Inc., Boston, MA, USA
Robert Langer
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
*
David Edwards, E-mail: Dedwards@seas.harvard.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose the nasal administration of calcium-enriched physiological salts as a new hygienic intervention with possible therapeutic application as a response to the rapid and tenacious spread of COVID-19. We test the effectiveness of these salts against viral and bacterial pathogens in animals and humans. We find that aerosol administration of these salts to the airways diminishes the exhalation of the small particles that face masks fail to filter and, in the case of an influenza swine model, completely block airborne transmission of disease. In a study of 10 human volunteers (5 less than 65 years and 5 older than 65 years), we show that delivery of a nasal saline comprising calcium and sodium salts quickly (within 15 min) and durably (up to at least 6 h) diminishes exhaled particles from the human airways. Being predominantly smaller than 1 μm, these particles are below the size effectively filtered by conventional masks. The suppression of exhaled droplets by the nasal delivery of calcium-rich saline with aerosol droplet size of around 10 μm suggests the upper airways as a primary source of bioaerosol generation. The suppression effect is especially pronounced (99%) among those who exhale large numbers of particles. In our study, we found this high-particle exhalation group to correlate with advanced age. We argue for a new hygienic practice of nasal cleansing by a calcium-rich saline aerosol, to complement the washing of hands with ordinary soap, use of a face mask, and social distancing.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The in vitro antiviral efficacy of calcium and sodium salt formulations. (a) Calcium chloride (CaCl2) reduced influenza infectivity in a dose-dependent manner. Calu3 cells exposed to no formulation were used as a control and compared to Calu3 cells exposed to formulations of different concentrations of isotonic saline or CaCl2 dissolved in isotonic saline. The of virus released by cells exposed to each aerosol formulation was quantified by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay. Bars represent the mean and standard deviation of triplicate wells for each condition. (b) Calu3 cells exposed to no formulation were used as a control and compared to Calu3 cells exposed to formulations of magnesium matched to that of calcium on a molar basis. The concentration of virus released by cells exposed to each aerosol formulation was quantified by TCID50 assay. Bars represents the mean and standard deviation of triplicate wells for each condition. (c) The effect of multiple formulations of CaCl2, magnesium chloride and NaCl on viral titers in influenza infected Calu3 cells, as quantified by TCID50 assay. Bars represent standard deviation of triplicate wells for each condition. Data were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Turkey’s multiple comparison post-test and indicated that CaCl2 in a NaCl solution was the optimal combination of salts. (d) Data from multiple independent studies were pooled and the change in rate constant for each is plotted. The greatest reduction in rate constant was observed for calcium concentrations between 0.575 and 1.14 M and sodium concentration between 0.075 and 0.3 M. Three areas with darker the shades of blue are shown by the batched red boxes and indicate the greatest reduction in viral replication rate constant, optimizing the ratio of Ca+ and Na+ in the fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) formulations at an 8:1 ratio. (e) Anti-viral efficacy of the FEND formulation was evaluated across a range of influenza virus A and B strains. MOI 0.1 to 0.01. (f) Normal human bronchial epithelial cells (NHBECs) exposed to no formulation were used as a control and compared to cells exposed to FEND1 and FEND3. The concentration of virus (Influenza A/Panama/2007/99) released by cells exposed to each aerosol formulation was quantified by TCID50 assay. Bars represent standard deviation of triplicate wells for each condition. Data were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Turkey’s multiple comparison post-test. (g) NHBE donor cells were exposed to low and high CaCl2 FEND formulations, then harvested 8, 24, and 30 h post treatment. BD-2 mRNA expression relative to the air (untreated) control was elevated at all time points after exposure to the high CaCl2 formulation. In addition, there was a time-dependent increase in BD-2 protein in the apical surface wash between 4 and 30 hours after exposure in cells exposed to the high CaCl2 FEND formulation relative to the air control.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) formulations inhibit the movement of multiple bacterial and viral pathogens across mucus mimetic. (ae) The number of bacteria and crossing 4% sodium alginate mucus mimetic over time (0–4 h) was measured. Data are expressed as the percent of the maximal titer for the saline control after 4 h. Mucus mimetic was treated topically with aerosol (saline [closed circles] or FEND1 [open circles]) and bacteria were added immediately post treatment (n = 3 independent experiments for Klebsiella pneumoniae and Streptococcus pneumoniae; n = 2 independent experiments for Staphylococcus. aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenzae). Basolateral samples were serially diluted in saline and plated on blood or chocolate agar plates at each time point to quantify the number of bacteria. The percentage of the total number of bacteria passing through the mimetic in 4 h following saline exposure (maximum colony forming units [CFU] recovered from each assay) was calculated for each time point and the area under curve (AUC) of each curve was determined. In each case, the exposure of mimetic significantly reduced the number of bacteria crossing the mimetic compared to the control condition (p < 0.05 for t test of AUC between saline and FEND1 treatment group for each pathogen). (fg). Sodium alginate mucus mimetic was treated with the indicated formulations and the movement of Influenza A/WSN/33/1 or Rhinovirus (Rv16) was assayed. Influenza was assayed from the basolateral buffer 4 h after treatment by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Rhinovirus was assayed over time by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay. (fg). Sodium alginate mucus mimetic was treated with the indicated formulations and the movement of Influenza A/WSN/33/1 or Rhinovirus (Rv16) was assayed. Influenza was assayed from the basolateral buffer 4 h after treatment by qPCR and Rhinovirus was assayed over time by TCID50 assay. (f) Data depict the mean ± standard deviation of replicate runs of the qPCR reaction and are representative of three independent experiments. Data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test (*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.001 compared to the saline control). (g) Data are representative of two independent experiments. The limit of detection of the TCID50 assay was 1.2 log10 TCID50/ml.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Treatment and prophylaxis of pneumonia in mice by fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) aerosol. (a) Mice infected with Streptococcus pneumoniae and treated with CaCl2-saline (FEND1) aerosol for 15 min 2 h after infection have less bacterial burden than untreated controls. (b) Mice infected with S. pneumoniae and pretreated with CaCl2-saline (FEND1) aerosol for 15 min 2 h before infection have less bacterial burden than untreated controls. (c) Mice infected with S. pneumoniae and treated with MgCl2 aerosol for 15 min 2 h before infection have a similar bacterial burden as untreated controls. (d) Mice infected with S. pneumoniae and pretreated with NaCl aerosol for 15 min 2 h before infection have a higher bacterial burden than animals pretreated with CaCl2 aerosol. Pooled data from multiple experiments are shown. Each data point represents the data obtained from a single animal. The bar for each group represents the geometric mean of the group. The data were statistically analyzed using a Mann–Whitney U test (ns = not significant).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Antiviral and anti-contagion efficacy of fast emergency nasal defense (FEND)1 against Influenza A infection in swine model. (a) Pooled data from replicate experiments (n = 8 control and n = 8 FEND1). Percent lung consolidation as a primary indicator of lung infection was significantly reduced (Unpaired t test p < 0.01) in animals treated with FEND1 relative to air treated controls. Similarly, reduced clinical illness, expressed as change in body temperature area under curve (AUC)48–192h (Unpaired t test p < 0.05). (b) Each bar represents the percent lung consolidation from the most affected lobe from a single animal. Naïve animals (n = 4 for each replicate) were secondarily exposed to the exhaled breath of primary infected untreated animals (black bars, n = 4) or primary infected treated animals (red bars, n = 4). Exhaled breath from the four infected swine was combined and delivered to individual naïve swine using a custom-designed exposure system designed to prevent direct contact transmission. Naïve swine were exposed to exhaled breath from infected animals for 1 h/day on day 2 and 3 post infection. Influenza transmission was observed between primary untreated animals and secondary animals (left black to gray bars). Primary infected treated animals (red bars) showed evidence of reduced infection rates and evidence of transmission was not observed (right red to light red bars).

Figure 4

Table 1. Results from 14-day rat and 14- or 28-day Beagle dog toxicology of FEND1 and FEND2 following aerosol exposure

Figure 5

Table 2. Baseline exhaled particle counts from eight human subjects prior to placebo and three doses of FEND

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Suppression of expired bioaerosol from human lungs following treatment by fast emergency nasal defense (FEND)1 at the high clinical trial dose. (a) Exhaled bioparticles per liter versus hours post dosing (relative to baseline) of the eight human subjects following FEND1 treatment or following saline placebo control. Bioparticle sampling from exhaled air was performed at the following time points: prior to dosing and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 h post dose for each period, and prior to release from the clinic on period 4, day 2. Each subject was treated with a placebo (saline) control and with each of the three doses of FEND1 at 24 h intervals. Data from each subject’s high dose recording are compared with each subject’s placebo control. (b) Expired bioparticles per liter (relative to baseline) in the size range of 300–500 nm from each of the human subjects are shown relative to placebo versus hour relative to dosing. Each subject was treated with a placebo (saline) control and with each of the three doses of FEND1 at 24-h intervals.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) delivery from nasal nebulizer (Nimbus). (a) The hand-held nebulizer discharged aerosol within an open-beam laser diffraction system (Malvern Spraytec) capable of measuring geometric size distributions of emitted droplets and particles. A fume extractor was used to draw the plume across the path of the laser. Triplicate measurements were performed twice on pure water yielding (9.5 μm average diameter) and on FEND2 composition yielding a mass mean aerodynamic diameter of 9.23 μm ± 0.60 and 8.84 μm ± 0.45. (b) Triplicate measurements were performed twice on a nasal pump spray triplicate measurements with FEND2 composition yielding a mass mean aerodynamic diameter of 107 μm. (c) Tipping of Nimbus actuated mesh vibration and generates an aerosol cloud for dosing. (d) FEND can be administered by Nimbus with a deep nasal inspiration either in an uncontrolled fashion before the nose or in a controlled fashion by containing the cloud in a glass.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Exhaled particles from the 10 human volunteers prior to fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) dosing. Exhaled particles per liter of air are shown within three size distributions—between 300 and 500 nm, 500 and 1,000 nm, and 1,000 and 5,000 nm. (a) Two of the human subjects (ages 63 and 70) exhaled greater than 25,000 and 7,000 particle per liter, respectively, the majority of these particles between 300 and 500 nm, and a large minority of the particles between 500 and 1,000 nm. (b) The other eight individuals breathed out on average several hundred particles per liter.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Exhaled particles from the 10 human volunteers following fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) dosing. The exhaled particles per liter per human subject are shown on a log scale prior to dosing (t = 0) and at various times post dosing up to 6 h post dosing. In all cases statistically significant suppression of exhaled aerosol is observed while the effect is dramatically significant for the largest “super producing” subjects (ages 63 and 70), whose overall exhaled particle counts diminish more than 99% for 6 h following FEND nasal inspiration.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Exhaled particles per subject following fast emergency nasal defense (FEND) dosing in comparison to the placebo control. All exhaled particles per liter (all sizes) are shown with standard error bars up to 1 h post dosing comparing the effects of FEND and isotonic saline (CVS Saline Spray) dosing on expired aerosol numbers For cases (d) and (g) the saline control shows significant suppression while for case (f) it show significant amplification. In all cases FEND suppresses exhaled aerosol counts relative to the control (p < 0.05) when comparisons are made between the closest time points of counts measured. The ages of the human subjects shown are: (a) 83, (b) 40, (c) 70, (d) 88, (e) 76, (f) 59, (g) 63, (h) 75, and (i) 30.

Supplementary material: PDF

Edwards et al. supplementary material

Edwards et al. supplementary material 1

Download Edwards et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 456.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Edwards et al. supplementary material

Open Peer Review
Download Edwards et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 88.3 KB

Review: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R0/PR1

Conflict of interest statement

This reviewer has no conflict of interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: Edwards et al. reported a systematic, thorough and timely study of natural antimicrobial and anti-contagion against airborne pathogens using a simple and inexpensive device and a salt solution containing various concentrations of common salts NaCl and CaCl2. These salts are immediately available worldwide and affordable and the solution is easy to make. Such simple salt solution may save countless lives during the current COVID-19 pandemics. They cited 3 key previous studies as references for their current systematic studies, one reference is their own, Edwards et al 2004.

Edwards DA, et al (2004) Inhaling to mitigate exhaled bioaerosols. PNAS 101, 17383-17388.

Ramalingam S, et al (2018) Antiviral innate immune response in non-myeloid cells is augmented by chloride ions via an increase in intracellular hypochlorous acid levels. Scientific Reports 8(1).

Ramalingam S, et al (2019) A pilot, open labelled, randomized controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold. Scientific Reports 9(1).

These authors demonstrated that such common NaCl and CaCl2 salt solution is easy to make, to store and to make into nasal and pulmonary aerosols for immediate uses. Since the salt ingredients are easy to obtain and inexpensive, it can be quickly adopted by the world population including developing world population to combat the COVID-19 pandemics.

They carried out experiments, not only in tissue culture using Normal Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells (NHBE) to assay for its BD2 mRNA expression but also for BD2 protein production after exposure to CaCl2. They also used Calu3 cells against a variety of Influenza A and Influenza B strains for their NaCl and CaCl2 salt solution tests that are shown to be effective in all cases with increased CaCl2 concentration.

They systemically tested the simple salt aerosols in mice, rats, beagle dogs, pigs and 8 human voluntaries. They tested the salt aerosols on various pathogens including influenza A/WSN/33/1, rhinovirus (Rv16), and a range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial, Streptococcus pneumonia (Sterotype 4; TIGR4), Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAO1), Staphylococcus aureus and non-typeable Haemophilus influenza (14P14H). Their results are sound and their claims are justified by their well-planned experiments and tests with very good controls.

Although they have not tested their salt solutions on current coronavirus Covid-19, it is presumed that such salt solution can be tried since it is harmless for human uses as they have already tested on human clinical trial voluntaries and analyzed and showed the data. The salt solution indeed has no harm to human during the small scale clinical trials.

Although they have not conducted large scale human clinical trial studies and there may be some unknown side effects that are only known in large scale studies, the benefit is significant outweigh the common salt side effect. Furthermore, there is no any effective vaccine available in near future, this reviewer agrees with their final statement “at a time when personal hygiene and antiseptic methods are at the forefront of daily living, it seems prudent to consider the immediate introduction of readily available nasal saline as part of that repertoire”.

There are some minor points:

1) Please move the explanation of FEND (fast emergency nasal defense) from late part of Results under FEND Nasal Delivery to first part of Introduction, so the readers can understand, from the beginning, what FEND means, rather read it later.

2) It is better to use the concentration of FEND in Results as millimolar, it is a more precise measurement than %. They can put % in ( ) after mM.

3) Please place A, B, C, D, E, F, G on each panel of Figure 1. In Figure 1G, please explain ~24 hours why the mRNA level goes down (left panel), but the protein level goes up (right panel). Is because the mRNA being degraded after 24 hours?

4) Figure 3, please label panels A, B, C, D.It is better to switch the locations of panels B and C, so it is consistent with other figures, namely, A and B are on the same horizonal level. There are no circles (number of mice) on MgCl2 on panel C. Please make it clear. If there are no differences between treated and nontreated mice, 3 circles representing 3 mice should be marked on MgCl2 part.

5) Figure 4, there are 3 panels, please use A, B, C to make them clear, since the Y axis for the left panel A is different from the right panel. They should be labelled as panel A and B.

6) Figure 5A, what are the thin black line and circle that reach to 6000? Is this some kind of control? The black line and circle are not represented in the colored side panel. What does it mean “expired bioaerosol”? Why “expired”?

7) Figure 5B, what is the Y-axis? Please label X-axis as hours. The numbers on Y-axis vary widely, patients 2 reaches ~6000, others only in 200-500, patient 4 reaches -6000, what do they mean? The figure legend is not clear.

8) Figure 5C, please label Y-axis. Please label X-axis as hours.Similar as Figure 5B, patients 2 reaches ~4500, others only in 200–500, patient 4 reaches -5000, what do they mean?

9) Figure 6, please use fine log scale for both panel A and B, rather only panel A, so the readers can immediately estimate the µm size. It is not easy to estimate µm size in panel B.

10) Supplementary Figure S1, please place a rule in centimeters, or a scale bar next to the device, so readers have a general idea how large the device is.

11) Supplementary Figure S2, it is better to add 2–3 steps (label steps A, B, C, D, etc) for the cartoon to demonstrate how this device is used. This reviewer did not understand it at first and asked someone else to explain how to use it.Ideally, no words are needed for the cartoon series, similar as he airplane emergence instructions, people from around the world can understand the cartoon immediately.

12) Supplementary Figure S3, please use the fine log scale for X-axis.

After they make these changes, this reviewer highly recommends expedite publication of this paper in QRB Discovery so the world population can benefit such simple, inexpensive and effective device to combat COVID-19 pandemics.

Review: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

This reviewer has no conflict of interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: The manuscript by Edwards et al. studies the role of inhaled calcium and sodium salts to prevent disease transmission through exhaled aerosols. The manuscript includes a wide range of methods and pathogens, combining results from cell cultures and animal models, and a complete Phase I human study. The authors show that calcium chloride in saline (in three formulations FEND 1-3) reduces the influenza viral concentration in cell cultures, and slows down viruses and bacteria moving through a mucus mimetic. Furthermore, FEND has a prophylactic/treating effect on S. pneumoniae infection in mice, and also blocks aerosol spread of influenza between swine. The tests on human subjects show that the salts are safe and quite well tolerated, and for some of the subjects, the number of exhaled aerosol particles decrease.

The manuscript is of good quality and highly innovative. The cell/animal results show convincingly that inhaled salts have a significant effect slowing down or preventing viral/microbial infection. Thus, FEND has huge potential if developed into a simple and affordable first barrier of protection against airborne disease in humans. It is reasonable to continue human trials based on these results, I therefore recommend publication with very minor revisions.

Some points:

The authors should clarify the dosage (and method of delivery) of salts in the in vitro experiments.

“Rate constant” appears in the Figure 1 captions, but without sufficient explanation in the Methods section.

The sentence “In addition, mRNA expression of 26 genes following application of CaCl2 formulations compositions.” is hard to understand. If possible, data on these 26 genes should be listed, preferably in the SI.

“CANA” (appears once) should be clarified/changed into calcium-sodium.

“(X mg/kg)” appears once.

The colors and legend in Figure 5A do not match, and the -1800 particle change (Fig 5B, subject 7) does not match Fig 5A.

The sentence “Five of the eight subjects prior to placebo or treatment exhaled on average 151 +/− 87 particles per liter, while three of the individuals exhaled between 92 and 5942 particles, with a mean expiration of 1201 +/− 1715 particles per liter.” is somewhat difficult to understand, and Figure 5A is not very clear. If possible, Figure 5A should be replaced with a table. Also, the number of particles prior to placebo or treatment should be included in the table.

There is a huge variability in number of particles in Fig 5A, both between subjects, and also for the same subject on different days. The high dose data is presented in Fig 5B, but low and medium dose data should also be shown, preferably in SI, to give a better understanding of the natural variability. Also, most of the decrease in number of particles seems to come from subject 6. Maybe a stacked area chart summarizing all subjects could be used in the main text, while moving Fig 5 B-C to SI.

The use of the sign ≤ is mathematically incorrect in “In all samples, 2.5 ≤ tan (δ) ≥ 3.0 at 3 rad/s.” Also, the strain sweep (rheometer?) could be explaned in the methods section.

In the section “Non-clinical Safety Studies”, should “8.77 CaCl2/kg” be “8.77 mg CaCl2/kg”?

Decision: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R0/PR3

Comments

Comments to Author: Reviewer #1: Edwards et al. reported a systematic, thorough and timely study of natural antimicrobial and anti-contagion against airborne pathogens using a simple and inexpensive device and a salt solution containing various concentrations of common salts NaCl and CaCl2. These salts are immediately available worldwide and affordable and the solution is easy to make. Such simple salt solution may save countless lives during the current COVID-19 pandemics. They cited 3 key previous studies as references for their current systematic studies, one reference is their own, Edwards et al 2004.

Edwards DA, et al (2004) Inhaling to mitigate exhaled bioaerosols. PNAS 101, 17383-17388.

Ramalingam S, et al (2018) Antiviral innate immune response in non-myeloid cells is augmented by chloride ions via an increase in intracellular hypochlorous acid levels. Scientific Reports 8(1).

Ramalingam S, et al (2019) A pilot, open labelled, randomized controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold. Scientific Reports 9(1).

These authors demonstrated that such common NaCl and CaCl2 salt solution is easy to make, to store and to make into nasal and pulmonary aerosols for immediate uses.Since the salt ingredients are easy to obtain and inexpensive, it can be quickly adopted by the world population including developing world population to combat the COVID-19 pandemics.

They carried out experiments, not only in tissue culture using Normal Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells (NHBE) to assay for its BD2 mRNA expression but also for BD2 protein production after exposure to CaCl2. They also used Calu3 cells against a variety of Influenza A and Influenza B strains for their NaCl and CaCl2 salt solution tests that are shown to be effective in all cases with increased CaCl2 concentration.

They systemically tested the simple salt aerosols in mice, rats, beagle dogs, pigs and 8 human voluntaries. They tested the salt aerosols on various pathogens including influenza A/WSN/33/1, rhinovirus (Rv16), and a range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial, Streptococcus pneumonia (Sterotype 4; TIGR4), Klebsiella pneumonia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAO1), Staphylococcus aureus and non-typeable Haemophilus influenza (14P14H). Their results are sound and their claims are justified by their well-planned experiments and tests with very good controls.

Although they have not tested their salt solutions on current coronavirus Covid-19, it is presumed that such salt solution can be tried since it is harmless for human uses as they have already tested on human clinical trial voluntaries and analyzed and showed the data. The salt solution indeed has no harm to human during the small scale clinical trials.

Although they have not conducted large scale human clinical trial studies and there may be some unknown side effects that are only known in large scale studies, the benefit is significant outweigh the common salt side effect. Furthermore, there is no any effective vaccine available in near future, this reviewer agrees with their final statement “at a time when personal hygiene and antiseptic methods are at the forefront of daily living, it seems prudent to consider the immediate introduction of readily available nasal saline as part of that repertoire”.

There are some minor points:

1) Please move the explanation of FEND (fast emergency nasal defense) from late part of Results under FEND Nasal Delivery to first part of Introduction, so the readers can understand, from the beginning, what FEND means, rather read it later.

2) It is better to use the concentration of FEND in Results as millimolar, it is a more precise measurement than %. They can put % in ( ) after mM.

3) Please place A, B, C, D, E, F, G on each panel of Figure 1. In Figure 1G, please explain ~24 hours why the mRNA level goes down (left panel), but the protein level goes up (right panel). Is because the mRNA being degraded after 24 hours?

4) Figure 3, please label panels A, B, C, D.It is better to switch the locations of panels B and C, so it is consistent with other figures, namely, A and B are on the same horizonal level. There are no circles (number of mice) on MgCl2 on panel C. Please make it clear. If there are no differences between treated and nontreated mice, 3 circles representing 3 mice should be marked on MgCl2 part.

5) Figure 4, there are 3 panels, please use A, B, C to make them clear, since the Y axis for the left panel A is different from the right panel. They should be labelled as panel A and B.

6) Figure 5A, what are the thin black line and circle that reach to 6000? Is this some kind of control? The black line and circle are not represented in the colored side panel. What does it mean “expired bioaerosol”? Why “expired”?

7) Figure 5B, what is the Y-axis? Please label X-axis as hours. The numbers on Y-axis vary widely, patients 2 reaches ~6000, others only in 200-500, patient 4 reaches -6000, what do they mean? The figure legend is not clear.

8) Figure 5C, please label Y-axis. Please label X-axis as hours.Similar as Figure 5B, patients 2 reaches ~4500, others only in 200-500, patient 4 reaches -5000, what do they mean?

9) Figure 6, please use fine log scale for both panel A and B, rather only panel A, so the readers can immediately estimate the µm size. It is not easy to estimate µm size in panel B.

10) Supplementary Figure S1, please place a rule in centimeters, or a scale bar next to the device, so readers have a general idea how large the device is.

11) Supplementary Figure S2, it is better to add 2–3 steps (label steps A, B, C, D, etc) for the cartoon to demonstrate how this device is used. This reviewer did not understand it at first and asked someone else to explain how to use it.Ideally, no words are needed for the cartoon series, similar as he airplane emergence instructions, people from around the world can understand the cartoon immediately.

12) Supplementary Figure S3, please use the fine log scale for X-axis.

After they make these changes, this reviewer highly recommends expedite publication of this paper in QRB Discovery so the world population can benefit such simple, inexpensive and effective device to combat COVID-19 pandemics.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Edwards et al. studies the role of inhaled calcium and sodium salts to prevent disease transmission through exhaled aerosols. The manuscript includes a wide range of methods and pathogens, combining results from cell cultures and animal models, and a complete Phase I human study. The authors show that calcium chloride in saline (in three formulations FEND 1-3) reduces the influenza viral concentration in cell cultures, and slows down viruses and bacteria moving through a mucus mimetic. Furthermore, FEND has a prophylactic/treating effect on S. pneumoniae infection in mice, and also blocks aerosol spread of influenza between swine. The tests on human subjects show that the salts are safe and quite well tolerated, and for some of the subjects, the number of exhaled aerosol particles decrease.

The manuscript is of good quality and highly innovative. The cell/animal results show convincingly that inhaled salts have a significant effect slowing down or preventing viral/microbial infection. Thus, FEND has huge potential if developed into a simple and affordable first barrier of protection against airborne disease in humans. It is reasonable to continue human trials based on these results, I therefore recommend publication with very minor revisions.

Some points:

The authors should clarify the dosage (and method of delivery) of salts in the in vitro experiments.

“Rate constant” appears in the Figure 1 captions, but without sufficient explanation in the Methods section.

The sentence “In addition, mRNA expression of 26 genes following application of CaCl2 formulations compositions.” is hard to understand. If possible, data on these 26 genes should be listed, preferably in the SI.

“CANA” (appears once) should be clarified/changed into calcium-sodium.

“(X mg/kg)” appears once.

The colors and legend in Figure 5A do not match, and the -1800 particle change (Fig 5B, subject 7) does not match Fig 5A.

The sentence “Five of the eight subjects prior to placebo or treatment exhaled on average 151 +/− 87 particles per liter, while three of the individuals exhaled between 92 and 5942 particles, with a mean expiration of 1201 +/− 1715 particles per liter.” is somewhat difficult to understand, and Figure 5A is not very clear. If possible, Figure 5A should be replaced with a table. Also, the number of particles prior to placebo or treatment should be included in the table.

There is a huge variability in number of particles in Fig 5A, both between subjects, and also for the same subject on different days. The high dose data is presented in Fig 5B, but low and medium dose data should also be shown, preferably in SI, to give a better understanding of the natural variability. Also, most of the decrease in number of particles seems to come from subject 6. Maybe a stacked area chart summarizing all subjects could be used in the main text, while moving Fig 5 B-C to SI.

The use of the sign ≤ is mathematically incorrect in “In all samples, 2.5 ≤ tan (δ) ≥ 3.0 at 3 rad/s.” Also, the strain sweep (rheometer?) could be explaned in the methods section.

In the section “Non-clinical Safety Studies”, should “8.77 CaCl2/kg” be “8.77 mg CaCl2/kg”?

Review: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R1/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

This reviewer has no conflict of interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: Referee report

Edwards et al. A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens

This is a revised manuscript that combined previously 2 manuscripts: 1) A Natural Antimicrobial and Anti-Contagion Against Airborne Pathogens, and 2) A natural hygiene for cleansing the air of the exhaled particles face masks do not stop.

The first manuscript is a very comprehensive study combining biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and animal studies of FEND, a simple but effective solution containing CaCl2/NaCl, and the second manuscript reports its clinical applications to human subjects.FEND is shown to be effective in human tests against spreading infections.

Their systematic studies spanning a wide range of areas including human that should have great benefit to prevent pandemic of COVID-19 around the world, especially in the developing countries since May 2020. The coronavirus infection rate has lately increased around the world alarmingly, particularly in the more vulnerable populations in the world.

The authors have already made corrections and addressed the concerns raised in both manuscripts by the reviewers. This combined manuscript is now in good standing to be published without further delay. This reviewer highly recommends expedite its publication. The sooner it is published, the sooner FEND solution can be used worldwide, the sooner it can prevent further spread coronavirus infections, and the more lives will be saved. The time is essence!

The Economist warned on July 3, 2020 the worst is yet to come for COVID-19 around the world. “The worst is to come. Based on research in 84 countries, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reckons that, for each recorded case, 12 go unrecorded and that for every two covid-19 deaths counted, a third is misattributed to other causes. Without a medical breakthrough, it says, the total number of cases will climb to 200m-600m by spring 2021. At that point, between 1.4m and 3.7m people will have died. Even then, well over 90% of the world’s population will still be vulnerable to infection—more if immunity turns out to be transient.”

Review: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R1/PR5

Conflict of interest statement

This reviewer has no conflict of interest.

Comments

Comments to Author: After combining two manuscripts, “A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens” by Edwards et al. is of good quality and high potential scientific impact. The concept of reducing exhaled bioaerosol levels by inhaling simple salts could, in the near future, be developed into effectively blocking disease transmission when masks are unavailable or impractical. The single most interesting result is actually that calcium chloride apparently prevented lung consolidation in influenza infected piglets. Whatever the cause for the above, accounting for the effect of aerosols on the spread of Covid-19, I highly recommend publishing.

Decision: A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens — R1/PR6

Comments

Comments to Author: Reviewer #1: Referee report

Edwards et al. A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens

This is a revised manuscript that combined previously 2 manuscripts: 1) A Natural Antimicrobial and Anti-Contagion Against Airborne Pathogens, and 2) A natural hygiene for cleansing the air of the exhaled particles face masks do not stop.

The first manuscript is a very comprehensive study combining biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and animal studies of FEND, a simple but effective solution containing CaCl2/NaCl, and the second manuscript reports its clinical applications to human subjects. FEND is shown to be effective in human tests against spreading infections.

Their systematic studies spanning a wide range of areas including human that should have great benefit to prevent pandemic of COVID-19 around the world, especially in the developing countries since May 2020. The coronavirus infection rate has lately increased around the world alarmingly, particularly in the more vulnerable populations in the world.

The authors have already made corrections and addressed the concerns raised in both manuscripts by the reviewers. This combined manuscript is now in good standing to be published without further delay. This reviewer highly recommends expedite its publication. The sooner it is published, the sooner FEND solution can be used worldwide, the sooner it can prevent further spread coronavirus infections, and the more lives will be saved. The time is essence!

The Economist warned on July 3, 2020 the worst is yet to come for COVID-19 around the world. “The worst is to come. Based on research in 84 countries, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reckons that, for each recorded case, 12 go unrecorded and that for every two covid-19 deaths counted, a third is misattributed to other causes. Without a medical breakthrough, it says, the total number of cases will climb to 200m–600m by spring 2021. At that point, between 1.4m and 3.7m people will have died. Even then, well over 90% of the world’s population will still be vulnerable to infection—more if immunity turns out to be transient.”

Reviewer #2: After combining two manuscripts, “A New Natural Defense Against Airborne Pathogens” by Edwards et al. is of good quality and high potential scientific impact. The concept of reducing exhaled bioaerosol levels by inhaling simple salts could, in the near future, be developed into effectively blocking disease transmission when masks are unavailable or impractical. The single most interesting result is actually that calcium chloride apparently prevented lung consolidation in influenza infected piglets. Whatever the cause for the above, accounting for the effect of aerosols on the spread of Covid-19, I highly recommend publishing.