ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2022
Human Research Study of Particulate Propagation Distance From Human Respiratory Function.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights into the mechanisms of infection transmission via inanimate surfaces.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Simultaneous detection of respiratory virus RNA on environmental surfaces in a university setting by a sensitive Surface 3-Step PCR platform.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Role of Gut Microbiota in Long COVID: Impact on Immune Function and Organ System Health.Archives of microbiology & immunology · 2025Article
- Interactive Simulation of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions of Airborne Disease Transmission in Office Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Article
- The effect of relative air humidity on the evaporation timescales of a human sneeze.AIP advances · 2022Article
- [Development of specific guidance for the safe opening and operation of recreational destinations under pandemic conditions].Zentralblatt fur Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAirborne viral pathogens like severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be encapsulated and transmitted through liquid droplets/aerosols formed during human respiratory events.
methodsThe number and extent of droplets/aerosols at distances between 1 and 6 ft (0.305-1.829 m) for a participant wearing no face covering, a cotton single-layer cloth face covering, and a 3-layer disposable face covering were measured for defined speech and cough events. The data include planar particle imagery to illuminate emissions by a light-sheet and local aerosol/droplet probes taken with phase Doppler interferometry and an aerodynamic particle sizer.
resultsWithout face coverings, droplets/aerosols were detected up to a maximum of 1.25 m (4.1ft ± 0.22-0.28 ft) during speech and up to 1.37 m (4.5ft ± 0.19-0.33 ft) while coughing. The cloth face covering reduced maximum axial distances to 0.61 m (2.0 ft ± 0.11-0.15 ft) for speech and to 0.67 m (2.2 ft ± 0.02-0.20 ft) while coughing. Using the disposable face covering, safe distance was reduced further to 0.15 m (0.50 ft ± 0.01-0.03 ft) measured for both emission scenarios. In addition, the use of face coverings was highly effective in reducing the count of expelled aerosols.
conclusionsThe experimental study indicates that 0.914 m (3 ft) physical distancing with face coverings is equally as effective at reducing aerosol/droplet exposure as 1.829 m (6 ft) with no face covering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.