Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427632›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The research on the particle concentration distribution of directed airflow in cleanrooms for operators.

Chao Li, Hao Li, Minwei Zhang, Xin Wang, Cui Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chao LiSchool of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Hao LiSchool of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Minwei ZhangSchool of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Xin WangSchool of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9108-3478
Cui HuangCity University of Hefei, Hefei, China.
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology · CNCity University of Macau · MO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing research of non-unidirectional cleanrooms generally suggests that lower-side return air outlets provide better control effect on indoor particle concentration. As a result, there has been relatively less focus on return air outlets. However, installing return air outlets oriented towards operators as particle emission sources can reduce the impact on process layout and improve space utilization, while also provide less impact from upper particle emission sources on the workbench area. To investigate the characteristics of return air outlet for operators (abbreviated as H), this study compared the particle concentration distribution, non-uniformity, and purification efficiency of return air oultet H and the traditional lower-side (abbreviated as L) return air outlets by experiments and CFD simulations. Based on the theory of mass conservation, the expression of required air supply volume under equivalent cleanroom conditions was derived. Under corresponding experimental and simulation conditions, the particle concentration differences range from 2.0% to 12.7% for return air outlet H and from 12.4% to 33.2% for return air outlet L, and these differences gradually decrease with the air exchange rate (ACH) increases. The results show that ACH = 20 is sufficient for cleanliness requirements with return air outlet H when there is one person in the cleanroom, while a higher rate of ACH = 35 is needed when there are two persons. Although lower-side return air outlets have certain potential for reducing particle concentration in the cleanroom, increasing the air exchange rate remains the most effective method to control indoor particle concentration. Compared to the traditional lower-side return air outlet L, the ranges of the non-uniformity coefficients for return air outlet H and L are 0.50 to 0.67 and 0.45 to 0.53, respectively. The average non-uniformity coefficient differs by 11.9%, and there is not a significant difference in uniformity with more than 20 air changes per hour. The use of return air outlets H only requires an additional 11% of air supply volume to achieve the same cleanliness, demonstrating its effectiveness in controlling particle concentration. It is suitable for cleanrooms with higher requirements for workbenches and for cleanrooms with restricted floor usage or requiring flexible layouts. The study also explores the impact of width of return air outlet oriented towards operators as particle emission sources, the results show that the larger-sized outlets facilitate the particle discharge and control the particle distribution inside the room.

Indexed as

Body FluidsRespiratory Physiological PhenomenaComputer SimulationHumansParticle SizePatient Discharge

Identifiers

PMID38427632
PMCPMC10906888
OpenAlexW4392387989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.