Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33680337›Full record

ArticleBuilding simulation2021

A probabilistic model to evaluate the effectiveness of main solutions to COVID-19 spreading in university buildings according to proximity and time-based consolidated criteria.

Marco D'Orazio, Gabriele Bernardini, Enrico Quagliarini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Building simulation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Propagation and Diffusion of Fluorescent Substances with Footprints in Indoor Environments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marco D'OrazioDepartment of Construction, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
Gabriele BernardiniDepartment of Construction, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
Enrico QuagliariniDepartment of Construction, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

University buildings are one of the most relevant closed environments in which the COVID-19 event clearly pointed out stakeholders' needs toward safety issues, especially because of the possibility of day-to-day presences of the same users (i.e. students, teachers) and overcrowding causing long-lasting contacts with possible "infectors". While waiting for the vaccine, as for other public buildings, policy-makers' measures to limit virus outbreaks combine individual's strategies (facial masks), occupants' capacity and access control. But, up to now, no easy-to-apply tools are available for assessing the punctual effectiveness of such measures. To fill this gap, this work proposes a quick and probabilistic simulation model based on consolidated proximity and exposure-time-based rules for virus transmission confirmed by international health organizations. The building occupancy is defined according to university scheduling, identifying the main "attraction areas" in the building (classrooms, break-areas). Scenarios are defined in terms of occupants' densities and the above-mentioned mitigation strategies. The model is calibrated on experimental data and applied to a relevant university building. Results demonstrate the model capabilities. In particular, it underlines that if such strategies are not combined, the virus spreading can be limited by only using high protection respiratory devices (i.e. FFP3) by almost every occupant. On the contrary, the combination between access control and building capacity limitation can lead to the adoption of lighter protective devices (i.e. surgical masks), thus improving the feasibility, users' comfort and favorable reception. Simplified rules to combine acceptable mask filters-occupants' density are thus provided to help stakeholders in organizing users' presences in the building during the pandemic. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL ESM: supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at 10.1007/s12273-021-0770-2.

Indexed as

building occupancyclosed built environmentCOVID-19crowd modelsproximity exposuresimulation model

Identifiers

PMID33680337
PMCPMC7910197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.