ArticleGeoscience frontiers2022
Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 airborne infection transmission risk in public buses.
Article in Geoscience frontiers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced smart commuting with artificial intelligence for intelligent health and safety monitoring in school buses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Human cerebral blood supply via circulus arteriosus cerebri: A scoping review on its variations and clinical implications.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A model for SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission on the upper deck of a passenger ship bound for a short trip.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Applications of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to Respiratory Pathogens and Implications for Uptake in Policy: A State-of-the-Science Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
- Risk assessment for long- and short-range airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, indoors and outdoors.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Introduction to the special issue on "COVID-19".Geoscience frontiers · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public transport environments are thought to play a key role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide. Indeed, high crowding indexes (i.e. high numbers of people relative to the vehicle size), inadequate clean air supply, and frequent extended exposure durations make transport environments potential hotspots for transmission of respiratory infections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, generic mitigation measures (e.g. physical distancing) have been applied without also considering the airborne transmission route. This is due to the lack of quantified data about airborne contagion risk in transport environments. In this study, we apply a novel combination of close proximity and room-scale risk assessment approaches for people sharing public transport environments to predict their contagion risk due to SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection. In particular, the individual infection risk of susceptible subjects and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 (expressed through the reproduction number) are evaluated for two types of buses, differing in terms of exposure time and crowding index: urban and long-distance buses. Infection risk and reproduction number are calculated for different scenarios as a function of the ventilation rates (both measured and estimated according to standards), crowding indexes, and travel times. The results show that for urban buses, the close proximity contribution significantly affects the maximum occupancy to maintain a reproductive number of <1. In particular, full occupancy of the bus would be permitted only for an infected subject breathing, whereas for an infected subject speaking, masking would be required. For long-distance buses, full occupancy of the bus can be maintained only if specific mitigation solutions are simultaneously applied. For example, for an infected person speaking for 1 h, appropriate filtration of the recirculated air and simultaneous use of FFP2 masks would permit full occupancy of the bus for a period of almost 8 h. Otherwise, a high percentage of immunized persons (>80%) would be needed.
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.