Airborne transmission of COVID-19 and mitigation using box fan air cleaners in a poorly ventilated classroom

  1. Ruichen He
  2. Wanjiao Liu
  3. John Elson
  4. Rainer Vogt
  5. Clay Maranville
  6. Jiarong Hong

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Many indoor places, including aged classrooms and offices, prisons, homeless shelters, etc., are poorly ventilated but resource-limited to afford expensive ventilation upgrades or commercial air purification systems, raising concerns on the safety of opening activities in these places in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this challenge, using computational fluid dynamics, we conducted a systematic investigation of airborne transmission in a classroom equipped with a single horizontal unit ventilator (HUV) and evaluate the performance of a low-cost box fan air cleaner for risk mitigation. Our study shows that placing box fan air cleaners in the classroom results in a substantial reduction of airborne transmission risk across the entire space. The air cleaner can achieve optimal performance when placed near the asymptomatic patient. However, without knowing the location of the patient, the performance of the cleaner is optimal near the HUV with the air flowing downwards. In addition, we find that it is more efficient in reducing aerosol concentration and spread in the classroom by adding air cleaners in comparison with raising the flow rate of HUV alone. The number and placement of air cleaners need to be adjusted to maintain their efficacy for larger classrooms and to account for the thermal gradient associated with a human thermal plume and hot ventilation air during cold seasons. Overall, our study shows that box fan air cleaners can serve as an effective low-cost alternative for mitigating airborne transmission risks in poorly ventilated spaces.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1063/5.0050058
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253395: (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

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253395v1 on medRxiv