Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34803226›Full record

ArticleSafety science2022

A coupled Computational Fluid Dynamics and Wells-Riley model to predict COVID-19 infection probability for passengers on long-distance trains.

Zhaozhi Wang, Edwin R Galea, Angus Grandison, John Ewer, Fuchen Jia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Safety science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Risk assessment of infection of COVID-19 contacts based on scenario simulation.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Numerical performance of COScientific reports · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

5 authors.

Zhaozhi WangFire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK.
Edwin R GaleaFire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK.
Angus GrandisonFire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK.
John EwerFire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK.
Fuchen JiaFire Safety Engineering Group, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coupled Wells-Riley (WR) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling (WR-CFD) facilitates a detailed analysis of COVID-19 infection probability (IP). This approach overcomes issues associated with the WR 'well-mixed' assumption. The WR-CFD model, which makes uses of a scalar approach to simulate quanta dispersal, is applied to Chinese long-distance trains (G-train). Predicted IPs, at multiple locations, are validated using statistically derived (SD) IPs from reported infections on G-trains. This is the first known attempt to validate a coupled WR-CFD approach using reported COVID-19 infections derived from the rail environment. There is reasonable agreement between trends in predicted and SD IPs, with the maximum SD IP being 10.3% while maximum predicted IP was 14.8%. Additionally, predicted locations of highest and lowest IP, agree with those identified in the statistical analysis. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the distribution of infectious aerosols is non-uniform and dependent on the nature of the ventilation. This suggests that modelling techniques neglecting these differences are inappropriate for assessing mitigation measures such as physical distancing. A range of mitigation strategies were analysed; the most effective being the majority (90%) of passengers correctly wearing high efficiency masks (e.g. N95). Compared to the base case (40% of passengers wearing low efficiency masks) there was a 95% reduction in average IP. Surprisingly, HEPA filtration was only effective for passengers distant from an index patient, having almost no effect for those in close proximity. Finally, as the approach is based on CFD it can be applied to a range of other indoor environments.

Indexed as

CFDCOVID-19Infection probabilityPassenger trainWells-Riley equation

Identifiers

PMID34803226
PMCPMC8590932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.