ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2023
How much natural ventilation rate can suppress COVID-19 transmission in occupancy zones?
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 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.
- COVID-19-associated neurological and psychological manifestations.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous research has emphasized the importance of efficient ventilation in suppressing COVID-19 transmission in indoor spaces, yet suitable ventilation rates have not been suggested. Materials and Methods: This study investigated the impacts of mechanical, natural, single-sided, cross-ventilation, and three mask types (homemade, surgical, N95) on COVID-19 spread across eight common indoor settings. Viral exposure was quantified using a mass balance calculation of inhaled viral particles, accounting for initial viral load, removal via ventilation, and mask filtration efficiency. Results: Results demonstrated that natural cross-ventilation significantly reduced viral load, decreasing from 10,000 to 0 viruses over 15 minutes in a 100 m2 space by providing ~1325 m3/h of outdoor air via two 0.6 m2 openings at 1.5 m/s wind speed. In contrast, single-sided ventilation only halved viral load at best. Conclusion: Natural cross-ventilation with masks effectively suppressed airborne viruses, lowering potential infections and disease transmission. The study recommends suitable ventilation rates to reduce COVID-19 infection risks in indoor spaces.
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.