4.6 Review

Airborne spread of expiratory droplet nuclei between the occupants of indoor environments: A review

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 500-524

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12465

Keywords

airborne transmission; computational fluid dynamics; cross-infection risk; experiment; manikin; review

Funding

  1. People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews past studies of airborne transmission between occupants in indoor environments, focusing on the spread of expiratory droplet nuclei from mouth/nose to mouth/nose for non-specific diseases. Special attention is paid to summarizing what is known about the influential factors, the inappropriate simplifications of the thermofluid boundary conditions of thermal manikins, the challenges facing the available experimental techniques, and the limitations of available evaluation methods. Secondary issues are highlighted, and some new ways to improve our understanding of airborne transmission indoors are provided. The characteristics of airborne spread of expiratory droplet nuclei between occupants, which are influenced correlatively by both environmental and personal factors, were widely revealed under steady-state conditions. Owing to the different boundary conditions used, some inconsistent findings on specific influential factors have been published. The available instrumentation was too slow to provide accurate concentration profiles for time-dependent evaluations of events with obvious time characteristics, while computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies were mainly performed in the framework of inherently steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes modeling. Future research needs in 3 areas are identified: the importance of the direction of indoor airflow patterns, the dynamics of airborne transmission, and the application of CFD simulations.

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