Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.

Air distribution systems are essential for controlling indoor airborne cross-infection risks. However, there is no consensus on the most effective system. This study compares the effectiveness of common air distribution methods, including mixing ventilation (MV), displacement ventilation (DV), and s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hatif, Ihab Hasan, Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda, Kamsah, Nazri, Wong, Keng Yinn
Format: Article
Published: Elsevier Ltd. 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/106336/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107913
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.utm.106336
record_format eprints
spelling my.utm.1063362024-06-29T06:47:01Z http://eprints.utm.my/106336/ Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments. Hatif, Ihab Hasan Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda Kamsah, Nazri Wong, Keng Yinn TJ Mechanical engineering and machinery Air distribution systems are essential for controlling indoor airborne cross-infection risks. However, there is no consensus on the most effective system. This study compares the effectiveness of common air distribution methods, including mixing ventilation (MV), displacement ventilation (DV), and stratum ventilation (SV), while considering specific influencing factors for each system. Factors such as inlet type for MV, airflow direction for SV, and relative body posture for DV were evaluated. Computational thermal manikins with actual breathing functions were simulated, and tracer gas (N2O) and particles of various sizes were used to simulate pathogen-laden droplet nuclei from an infected individual. The modified Wells-Riley model was employed to assess infection risk. Results indicate that no single air distribution system consistently outperforms others, with effectiveness depending on different conditions. Under the DV system, the highest infection risk (20.86 %) occurred when the infected person was seated, and the exposed person was standing, decreasing to 1.2 % when their positions were reversed. In SV system, the highest risk (17.58 %) was observed when the infected person with the same direction as the airflow, dropping to 1.01 % in the opposite direction. The study suggests using MV systems with adequate air volume when people's locations and relative positions are unclear. Elsevier Ltd. 2023-11-15 Article PeerReviewed Hatif, Ihab Hasan and Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda and Kamsah, Nazri and Wong, Keng Yinn (2023) Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments. Journal of Building Engineering, 79 (107913). NA-NA. ISSN 2352-7102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107913 DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107913
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
building UTM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
content_source UTM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://eprints.utm.my/
topic TJ Mechanical engineering and machinery
spellingShingle TJ Mechanical engineering and machinery
Hatif, Ihab Hasan
Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda
Kamsah, Nazri
Wong, Keng Yinn
Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
description Air distribution systems are essential for controlling indoor airborne cross-infection risks. However, there is no consensus on the most effective system. This study compares the effectiveness of common air distribution methods, including mixing ventilation (MV), displacement ventilation (DV), and stratum ventilation (SV), while considering specific influencing factors for each system. Factors such as inlet type for MV, airflow direction for SV, and relative body posture for DV were evaluated. Computational thermal manikins with actual breathing functions were simulated, and tracer gas (N2O) and particles of various sizes were used to simulate pathogen-laden droplet nuclei from an infected individual. The modified Wells-Riley model was employed to assess infection risk. Results indicate that no single air distribution system consistently outperforms others, with effectiveness depending on different conditions. Under the DV system, the highest infection risk (20.86 %) occurred when the infected person was seated, and the exposed person was standing, decreasing to 1.2 % when their positions were reversed. In SV system, the highest risk (17.58 %) was observed when the infected person with the same direction as the airflow, dropping to 1.01 % in the opposite direction. The study suggests using MV systems with adequate air volume when people's locations and relative positions are unclear.
format Article
author Hatif, Ihab Hasan
Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda
Kamsah, Nazri
Wong, Keng Yinn
author_facet Hatif, Ihab Hasan
Mohamed Kamar, Haslinda
Kamsah, Nazri
Wong, Keng Yinn
author_sort Hatif, Ihab Hasan
title Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
title_short Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
title_full Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
title_sort comparative evaluation of air distribution systems for controlling the airborne infection risk in indoor environments.
publisher Elsevier Ltd.
publishDate 2023
url http://eprints.utm.my/106336/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107913
_version_ 1803334993743708160
score 13.160551