ArticleEnvironmental health insights2024
Numerical Analysis of Indoor Air Characteristics and Window Screen Influence on Particulate Matter Dispersion in a Childcare Center Using Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Article in Environmental health insights, 2024. 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.
- Window typology as a determinant of indoor air quality in naturally ventilated tropical African offices.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Indoor exposure to outdoor pollutants adversely affects health, varying with building dimensions and particularly ventilation that have critical role on their indoor dispersion. This study assesses the impact of outdoor air on indoor air quality in a child care center. Computational fluid dynamics was utilized to analyze the dispersion of particulate matter, with a specific focus on window screens featuring 6 distinct pore sizes ranging from 0.8 mm to 2 mm and 2 different thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 0.1 mm. Results indicate that the presence of a window screen offers significant advantages in controlling particle infiltration compared to scenarios without a screen, as larger particles tend to pass directly through the window within the breathing zone. The scenario without window screens minimizes pressure drop but lacks enhanced particle capture capabilities. However, for effective particle reduction, the window screen with a pore size of 0.8 mm (R0.8T2) and a thickness of 0.5 mm proves to be the most beneficial, achieving the particle filtering efficiency of approximately 54.16%, while the larger window screen with a pore size of 2 mm and a thickness of 1 mm exhibits the lowest efficiency at about 23.85%. Nonetheless, screens with very small sizes are associated with a high-pressure drop, impacting energy efficiency, and overall window performance. Larger pores with smaller thicknesses (0.5 mm) reduced particle count by approximately 45.97%. Therefore, the significance of window screen thickness beyond pore size for particle reduction efficiency is highlighted, emphasizing screens' role in indoor air quality and health protection.
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.