ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
Large eddy simulation of droplet transport and deposition in the human respiratory tract to evaluate inhalation risk.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. 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
As evidenced by the worldwide pandemic, respiratory infectious diseases and their airborne transmission must be studied to safeguard public health. This study focuses on the emission and transport of speech-generated droplets, which can pose risk of infection depending on the loudness of the speech, its duration and the initial angle of exhalation. We have numerically investigated the transport of these droplets into the human respiratory tract by way of a natural breathing cycle in order to predict the infection probability of three strains of SARS-CoV-2 on a person who is listening at a one-meter distance. Numerical methods were used to set the boundary conditions of the speaking and breathing models and large eddy simulation (LES) was used for the unsteady simulation of approximately 10 breathing cycles. Four different mouth angles when speaking were contrasted to evaluate real conditions of human communication and the possibility of infection. Breathed virions were counted using two different approaches: the breathing zone of influence and direction deposition on the tissue. Our results show that infection probability drastically changes based on the mouth angle and the breathing zone of influence overpredicts the inhalation risk in all cases. We conclude that to portray real conditions, the probability of infection should be based on direct tissue deposition results to avoid overprediction and that several mouth angles must be considered in future analyses.
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.