ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Effects of Return Air Inlets' Location on the Control of Fine Particle Transportation in a Simulated Hospital Ward.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has made significant impacts on public health, including human exposure to airborne pathogens. In healthcare facilities, the locations of return air vents in ventilation systems may have important effects on lowering airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This study conducted experiments to examine the influence of different return air vents' heights (0.7 m, 1.2 m, and 1.6 m) on the particle removal effects in a simulated patient ward. Three different ventilation systems were examined: top celling air supply-side wall return (TAS), underfloor air supply-side wall return (UFAS) and side wall air supply-side wall return (SAS). CFD simulation was applied to further study the effects of return air inlets' heights (0.3 m, 0.7 m, 1.2 m, 1.6 m, and 2.0 m) and air exchange rates. The technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis was used to calculate the comprehensive scores of 60 scenarios using a multi-criterion method to obtain the optimal return air inlets' heights. Results showed that for each additional 0.5 m distance in most working conditions, the inhalation fraction index of medical staff could be reduced by about 5-20%. However, under certain working conditions, even though the distances between the patients and medical personnel were different, the optimal heights of return air vents were constant. For TAS and UFAS, the optimal return air inlets' height was 1.2 m, while for SAS, the best working condition was 1.6 m air supply and 0.7 m air return. At the optimum return air heights, the particle decay rate per hour of SAS was 75% higher than that of TAS, and the rate of particle decay per hour of SAS was 21% higher than that of UFAS. The location of return air inlets could further affect the operating cost-effectiveness of ventilation systems: the highest operating cost-effectiveness was 8 times higher than the lowest one.
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.