Displacement ventilation: a viable ventilation strategy for makeshift hospitals and public buildings to contain COVID-19 and other airborne diseases

  1. Rajesh K. Bhagat
  2. P. F. Linden

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has so far infected more than 31 million people around the world, and its impact is being felt by all. Patients with diseases such as COVID-19 should ideally be treated in negative pressure isolation rooms. However, due to the overwhelming demand for hospital beds, patients have been treated in general wards, hospital corridors and makeshift hospitals. Adequate building ventilation in hospitals and public spaces is a crucial factor to contain the disease (Escombe et al. 2007 PLoS Med. 4 ; Escombe et al. 2019 BMC Infect. Dis. 19 , 88 ( doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3717-9 ); Morawska & Milton 2020 Clin. Infect. Dis . ciaa939. ( doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa939 )), to exit lockdown safely, and reduce the chance of subsequent waves of outbreaks. A recently reported air-conditioner-induced COVID-19 outbreak caused by an asymptomatic patient, in a restaurant in Guangzhou, China (Lu et al. 2020 Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26 ) exposes our vulnerability to future outbreaks linked to ventilation in public spaces. We argue that displacement ventilation (either mechanical or natural ventilation), where air intakes are at low level and extracts are at high level, is a viable alternative to negative pressure isolation rooms, which are often not available on site in hospital wards and makeshift hospitals. Displacement ventilation produces negative pressure at the occupant level, which draws fresh air from outdoors, and positive pressure near the ceiling, which expels the hot and contaminated air out. We acknowledge that, in both developed and developing countries, many modern large structures lack the openings required for natural ventilation. This lack of openings can be supplemented by installing extract fans. We have also discussed and addressed the issue of the ‘lock-up effect’. We provide guidelines for such mechanically assisted, naturally ventilated makeshift hospitals.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1098/rsos.200680
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.20075648: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    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: 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.

    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 10.1101/2020.04.22.20075648v1 on medRxiv