Short-range airborne route dominates exposure of respiratory infection during close contact
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.16.20037291: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We used Matlab for implementing the prediction. Matlabsuggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:4.5 Limitations of the study: Despite the valuable findings, our study still has the following limitations. First, exposure (μL) was used as the criterion of infection based on the assumption that every unit volume of droplet contains …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.16.20037291: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We used Matlab for implementing the prediction. Matlabsuggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:4.5 Limitations of the study: Despite the valuable findings, our study still has the following limitations. First, exposure (μL) was used as the criterion of infection based on the assumption that every unit volume of droplet contains the same amount of activated viruses. Nevertheless, according to Lindsley et al. [62], most (∼65%) virus RNA was contained in droplets smaller than 4 μm expelled by coughing, which indicates a higher risk in the respiratory range. Although the exclusion of droplets smaller than 3 μm would exert negligible influence on exposure given their small droplet volume, significant implications may exist when virus concentration variation is considered. The critical infective dose was also not considered. Future work could be done from a more biologically informed perspective based on the exposure results. Second, the number of simulated droplets was relatively small. Because MF and IF are statistical probability values, a larger number of droplets, if possible, would give more robust results. Third, the worst-case scenario of mouth inhalation and that of deposition were studied, which may deviate slightly from realistic situations. Such worst scenarios might occur during face to face conversations, but data on the frequency of its occurrence is not available. Although the effects associated with nose-versus-mouth breathing and facial structural features are weak [36], a more detailed nose inhalation model is still desirable. Our two nostrils are very clo...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
