Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36815961›Full record

ArticleBuilding and environment2023

A CFD-based framework to assess airborne infection risk in buildings.

Giulio Vita, Darren Woolf, Thomas Avery-Hickmott, Rob Rowsell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Building and environment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giulio VitaWirth Research Ltd, Charlotte Avenue, Bicester, OX27 8BL, United Kingdom.
Darren WoolfWirth Research Ltd, Charlotte Avenue, Bicester, OX27 8BL, United Kingdom.
Thomas Avery-HickmottWirth Research Ltd, Charlotte Avenue, Bicester, OX27 8BL, United Kingdom.
Rob RowsellWirth Research Ltd, Charlotte Avenue, Bicester, OX27 8BL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted huge efforts to further the scientific knowledge of indoor ventilation and its relationship to airborne infection risk. Exhaled infectious aerosols are spread and inhaled as a result of room airflow characteristics. Many calculation methods and assertions on risk assume 'well-mixed' flow conditions. However, ventilation in buildings is complex and often not showing well-mixed conditions. Ventilation guidance is typically based on the provision of generic minimum ventilation flow rates for a given space, irrespective of the effectiveness in the delivery of the supply air. Furthermore, the airflow might be heavily affected by the season, the HVAC ventilation, or the opening of windows, which would potentially generate draughts and non-uniform conditions. As a result, fresh air concentration would be variable depending upon a susceptible receptor's position in a room and, therefore, associated airborne infection risk. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and dynamic thermal modelling (DTM) framework is proposed to assess the influence of internal airflow characteristics on airborne infection risk. A simple metric is proposed, the hourly airborne infection rate (HAI) which can easily help designers to stress-test the ventilation within a building under several conditions. A case study is presented, and the results clearly demonstrate the importance of understanding detailed indoor airflow characteristics and associated concentration patterns in order to provide detailed design guidance, e.g. occupancy, supply air diffusers and furniture layouts, to reduce airborne infection risk.

Indexed as

Airborne infection riskCFDCOVID-19Dynamic thermal modellingIndoor ventilationResilience

Identifiers

PMID36815961
PMCPMC9925846

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.