4.4 Article

Modelling the risk of airborne infectious disease using exhaled air

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 372, 期 -, 页码 100-106

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.02.010

关键词

Infectious particles; Mathematical model; Threshold level; Deposition fraction

资金

  1. South African Medical Research Council (MRC)
  2. National Treasury under its Economic [MRC-RFA-UFSP-01-2013-CCAMP]
  3. African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (AIMS), South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we develop and demonstrate a flexible mathematical model that predicts the risk of airborne infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis under steady state and non-steady state conditions by monitoring exhaled air by infectors in a confined space. In the development of this model, we used the rebreathed air accumulation rate concept to directly determine the average volume fraction of exhaled air in a given space. From a biological point of view, exhaled air by infectors contains airborne infectious particles that cause airborne infectious diseases such as tuberculosis in confined spaces. Since not all infectious particles can reach the target infection site, we took into account that the infectious particles that commence the infection are determined by respiratory deposition fraction, which is the probability of each infectious particle reaching the target infection site of the respiratory tracts and causing infection. Furthermore, we compute the quantity of carbon dioxide as a marker of exhaled air, which can be inhaled in the room with high likelihood of causing airborne infectious disease given the presence of infectors. We demonstrated mathematically and schematically the correlation between TB transmission probability and airborne infectious particle generation rate, ventilation rate, average volume fraction of exhaled air, TB prevalence and duration of exposure to infectors in a confined space. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据