ArticleRegenerative therapy2025
Optimized personnel flow with minimal contamination: development and validation of an air-barrier cleanroom for cell products processing.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cell processing facilities for regenerative medicine require strict prevention of cross-contamination. However, the typically employed sealed, multi-room layout increases energy demands and capital costs due to heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC), and restricts staff mobility. We devised a semi-open (SO) cleanroom that eliminated doors between the cell processing room (CPR) and adjoining corridor, while maintaining unidirectional airflow as a barrier. This study rigorously compared four interface variants-plain opening, wing walls, push-pull ventilation, and a conventional swing door-to verify whether operational flexibility can be achieved without compromising particle content performance at the CPR-corridor interface. Methods: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations reproduced two connected rooms separated by a 900 × 2000-mm Results: CFD showed all layouts leaked ≤0.011 %, with a 1 m/s walking draft, push-pull kept inflow below 0.05 %, halving 500-mm wing-wall performance and outperforming plain openings. The PIV confirmed significant differences in airflow velocity distributions under each condition in the case of the exit. The semi-open layout without doors showed a lower proportion of vectors pointing opposite to the forward direction than the conventional layout in both the exit and entry cases. Particle counts supported this: push-pull transferred 0.013 % of particles on exit, 32.8 % on entry, giving overall migration to the adjacent room of 0.0043 %. Conclusions: The SO cleanroom concept suppresses fluctuations in particle content at the CPR-corridor interface while eliminating physical doors, enabling flexible personnel flow and obviating extra HVAC zones. Push-pull ventilation delivered the most robust containment against walking-induced disturbances, whereas the 500-mm wing walls offered a passive, power-free alternative with moderate protection. With worst-case inter-room transfers below 0.05 %, SO designs can rationally replace conventional door-sealed rooms, substantially reducing energy and construction costs in regenerative medicine manufacturing.
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.