4.6 Article

Removal of exhaled particles by ventilation and deposition in a multibed airborne infection isolation room

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 284-297

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00653.x

Keywords

Airborne infection; Isolation room; Large droplets; Ventilation

Funding

  1. Hong Kong SAR Government [HKU 7150/06E]
  2. National Nature and Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [50808038]
  3. Jiangsu Fundamental Research Project [BK2009289]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Removal of airborne particles in airborne infection isolation rooms is important for infection control of airborne diseases. Previous studies showed that the downward ventilation recommended by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could not produce the expected 'laminar' flow for pushing down respiratory gaseous contaminants and removing them via floor-level exhausts. Instead, upper-level exhausts were more efficient in removing gaseous contaminants because of upward body plumes. The conventional wisdom in the current CDC-recommended design is that floor-level exhausts may efficiently remove large droplets/particles, but such a hypothesis has not been proven. We investigated the fate of respiratory particles in a full-scale six-bed isolation room with exhausts at different locations by both experimental and computational studies. Breathing thermal manikins were used to simulate patients, and both gaseous and large particles were used to simulate the expelled fine droplet nuclei and large droplets. Gaseous and fine particles were found to be removed more efficiently by ceiling-level exhausts than by floor-level exhausts. Large particles were mainly removed by deposition rather than by ventilation. Our results show that the existing isolation room ventilation design is not effective in removing both fine and large respiratory particles. An improved ventilation design is hence recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available