ArticleBuilding simulation2023
Quantification of how mechanical ventilation influences the airborne infection risk of COVID-19 and HVAC energy consumption in office buildings.
Article in Building simulation, 2023. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization-informed Rule Extraction for HVAC system: A Case Study of Dedicated Outdoor Air System Control in a Mixed-Humid Climate Zone.Energy and buildings · 2023Article
- A cost-effectiveness assessment of the operational parameters of central HVAC systems during pandemics.Building simulation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents an EnergyPlus-based parametric analysis to investigate the infection risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) under different mechanical ventilation scenarios for a typical medium-sized office building in various climate zones. A Wells-Riley (WR) based Gammaitoni-Nucci (GN) model was employed to quantitatively calculate the airborne infection risk. The selected parameters for the parametric analysis include the climate zone, outdoor air fraction, fraction of infectors, quanta generation rate, and exposure time. The loss and deposition of particles are not considered. The results suggest that the COVID-19 infection risk varies significantly with climate and season under different outdoor air fraction scenarios since the building heating and cooling load fundamentally impacts the supply airflow rate and thus directly influences the amount of mechanical ventilation, which determines the dilution ratio of contaminants. This risk assessment identified the climate zones that benefit the most and the least from increasing the outdoor air fraction. The climate zones such as 1A (Honolulu, HI), 2B (Tucson, AZ), 3A (Atlanta, GA), and 7 (International Falls, MN) are the most energy-efficient locations when it comes to increasing the outdoor air fraction to reduce the COVID-19 infection risk. In contrast, the climate zones such as 6A (Rochester, MN) and 6B (Great Falls, MT) are the least energy-efficient ones. This paper facilitates understanding a widely recommended COVID-19 risk mitigation strategy (i.e., increase the outdoor airflow rate) from the perspective of energy consumption. Electronic Supplementary Material: Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/s12273-022-0937-5 and is accessible for authorized users.
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.