ArticlePloS one2024
Effectiveness of a suction device for containment of pathogenic aerosols and droplets.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAs the global community begins recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges due to its aftermath remain. This health crisis has highlighted challenges associated with airborne pathogens and their capacity for rapid transmission. While many solutions have emerged to tackle this challenge, very few devices exist that are inexpensive, easy to manufacture, and versatile enough for various settings.
methodsThis paper presents a novel suction device designed to counteract the spread of aerosols and droplets and be cost-effective and adaptable to diverse environments. We also conducted an experimental study to evaluate the device's effectiveness using an artificial cough generator, a particle counter, and a mannequin in an isolated system. We measured droplet removal rates with simulated single and repeated cough incidents. Also, measurements were taken at four distinct areas to compare its effectiveness on direct plume versus indirect particle removal.
resultsThe device reduced airborne disease transmission risk, as evidenced by its capacity to decrease the half-life of aerosol volume from 23.6 minutes to 15.6 minutes, effectively capturing aerosol-sized droplets known for their extended airborne persistence. The suction device lessened the peak total droplet volume from peak counts. At 22 minutes post peak droplet count, the count had dropped 24% without the suction device and 43% with the suction device.
conclusionsThe experiment's findings confirm the suction device's capability to effectively remove droplets from the environment, making it a vital tool in enhancing indoor air quality. Given the sustained performance of the suction device irrespective of single or multiple cough events, this demonstrates its potential utility in reducing the risk of airborne disease transmission. 3D printing for fabrication opens the possibility of a rapid iterative design process, flexibility for different configurations, and rapid global deployment for future pandemics.
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.