Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34803360›Full record

ReviewPhysics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994)2021

Challenges in simulating and modeling the airborne virus transmission: A state-of-the-art review.

Farzad Pourfattah, Lian-Ping Wang, Weiwei Deng, Yong-Feng Ma, Liangquan Hu, Bo Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Quantifying strategies to minimize aerosol dispersion in dental clinics.Experimental and computational multiphase flow · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Evaporation of liquid nanofilms: A minireview.Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994) · 2022
    Review
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

6 authors.

Farzad PourfattahGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Turbulence Research and Applications, Center for Complex Flows and Soft Matter Research and Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-2708
Weiwei DengGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Turbulence Research and Applications, Center for Complex Flows and Soft Matter Research and Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8331-9249
Yong-Feng MaGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Turbulence Research and Applications, Center for Complex Flows and Soft Matter Research and Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7102-2707
Liangquan HuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Turbulence Research and Applications, Center for Complex Flows and Soft Matter Research and Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8006-4236
Bo YangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Turbulence Research and Applications, Center for Complex Flows and Soft Matter Research and Department of Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the COVID-19 virus pandemic has led to many studies on the airborne transmission of expiratory droplets. While limited experiments and on-site measurements offer qualitative indication of potential virus spread rates and the level of transmission risk, the quantitative understanding and mechanistic insights also indispensably come from careful theoretical modeling and numerical simulation efforts around which a surge of research papers has emerged. However, due to the highly interdisciplinary nature of the topic, numerical simulations of the airborne spread of expiratory droplets face serious challenges. It is essential to examine the assumptions and simplifications made in the existing modeling and simulations, which will be reviewed carefully here to better advance the fidelity of numerical results when compared to the reality. So far, existing review papers have focused on discussing the simulation results without questioning or comparing the model assumptions. This review paper focuses instead on the details of the model simplifications used in the numerical methods and how to properly incorporate important processes associated with respiratory droplet transmission. Specifically, the critical issues reviewed here include modeling of the respiratory droplet evaporation, droplet size distribution, and time-dependent velocity profile of air exhaled from coughing and sneezing. According to the literature review, another problem in numerical simulations is that the virus decay rate and suspended viable viral dose are often not incorporated; therefore here, empirical relationships for the bioactivity of coronavirus are presented. It is hoped that this paper can assist researchers to significantly improve their model fidelity when simulating respiratory droplet transmission.

Identifiers

PMID34803360
PMCPMC8597718

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.