ArticleIndoor air2022
Role of ventilation on the transmission of viruses in buildings, from a single zone to a multizone approach.
Article in Indoor air, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hotels as quarantine facilities with airborne virus controls.Building and environment · 2025Article
- Role of ventilation on the transmission of viruses in buildings, from a single zone to a multizone approach.Indoor air · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a virus pandemic context, buildings ventilation has been recognized as a solution for preventing transmission of the virus in aerosolized form. The impact of the widespread recommendation of window opening and sealing door on ventilation circuits needs to be considered with a multizone approach. We modeled the airflow distribution in a building where people are isolating in a pandemic context, including one infected person. We analyzed the impact of opening the window and sealing the door in the quarantine room on exposures and probability of infection for occupants of the flat and of adjacent flats. In order to study the sensitivity of the results, we tested three ventilation systems: balanced, exhaust-only, and humidity-based demand-controlled, and several window- and door-opening strategies. When the door of the quarantine room is sealed, we observe that opening the window in the quarantine room always results in increased exposure and probability of infection for at least one other occupant, including in neighbors' apartments. When all internal doors are opened, we observe moderate impacts, with rather an increase of exposure of the occupants of the same apartments and of their probability of infection, and a decrease for the occupants located in other apartments. Based on the analysis on the airflows distribution in this case study, we conclude that sealing the internal door has more influence than opening the window of the quarantine room, whatever the ventilation system. We observe that this widespread recommendation to open the window of a quarantine room and to seal the door is based on the consideration of a single zone model. We illustrate the importance of moving from such a single zone approach to a multizone approach for quantifying ventilation and airing impacts in multizone buildings as residences in order to prevent epidemics of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. It highlights the need of air leakage databases.
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.