Experimental investigation to verify if excessive plastic sheeting shielding produce micro clusters of SARS-CoV-2

  1. Yo Ishigaki
  2. Yuto Kawauchi
  3. Shinji Yokogawa
  4. Akira Saito
  5. Hiroko Kitamura
  6. Takashi Moritake

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We experimentally investigated indoor air ventilation using the CO 2 tracer technique to verify the infection cluster of SARS-CoV-2 that erupted at an office space. Multi-placed observations revealed extremely low air change rates (0.1/h) at the site. The local infection clusters were observed several meters away from a door that is the only ventilation in the office, which suggests a negative effect of plastic sheeting shielding. The thermo-fluid simulation showed that the plastic sheet blocked the airflow and trapped the exhaled air in each partition cell. As risk suppression methods, improving air ventilation by opening windows and using fans were verified, and significant improvements (10–28/h) were observed for each partition cells.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.22.21257321: (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 page 13. 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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.22.21257321v1 on medRxiv