Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812218›Full record

ArticleBuilding and environment2022

Evaluation of different air distribution systems in a commercial airliner cabin in terms of comfort and COVID-19 infection risk.

Mingxin Liu, Junjie Liu, Qing Cao, Xingyang Li, Sumei Liu, Shengcheng Ji, Chao-Hsin Lin, Daniel Wei, Xiong Shen, Zhengwei Long and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Building and environment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Mingxin LiuTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Junjie LiuTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Qing CaoSchool of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology (DUT), 2 Linggong Road, Dalian, 116024, China.
Xingyang LiTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Sumei LiuTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Shengcheng JiBeijing Aeronautical Science & Technology Research Institute of COMAC, Beijing, China.
Chao-Hsin LinEnvironmental Control Systems, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Everett, WA, 98203, USA.
Daniel WeiBoeing Research & Technology, Beijing, 100027, China.
Xiong ShenTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Zhengwei LongTianjin Key Lab of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
Qingyan ChenDepartment of Building Environment and Energy Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Tianjin University · CNBoeing (United States) · USCommercial Aircraft Corporation of China (China) · CNDalian University of Technology · CNHong Kong Polytechnic University · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The air distribution system in an airliner plays a key role in maintaining a comfortable and healthy environment in the aircraft cabin. To evaluate the performance of a novel displacement ventilation (DV) system and a traditional mixing ventilation (MV) system in an airliner cabin, this study conducted experiments and simulations in a seven-row cabin mockup. This investigation used ultrasonic anemometers and T-thermocouples to measure the air velocity, temperature and distribution of 1 μm and 5 μm particles. Simulation verifications were performed for these operating conditions, and additional scenarios with different occurrence source locations were also simulated. This study combined the Wells-Riley equation with a real case based on a COVID-19 outbreak among passengers on a long-distance bus to obtain the COVID-19 quanta value. Through an evaluation of the airflow organization, thermal comfort, and risk of COVID-19 infection, the two ventilation systems were compared. This investigation found that polydisperse particles should be used to calculate the risk of infection in airliner cabins. In addition, at the beginning of the pandemic, the infection risk with DV was lower than that with MV. In the middle and late stages of the epidemic, the infection risk with MV can be reduced when passengers wear masks, leading to an infection risk approximately equal to that of DV.

Indexed as

Airliner cabinDisplacement ventilationEffect of masksInfection riskMixing ventilationThermal comfort

Identifiers

PMID34812218
PMCPMC8599143
OpenAlexW3212422933

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.