A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Assessment of exhaled pathogenic droplet dispersion and indoor-outdoor exposure risk in urban street with naturally-ventilated buildings
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8688-6206
Abstract Outdoor droplet exposure risk is generally regarded much smaller than that indoor, but such indoor-outdoor assessment and comparison are still rare. By coupling indoor and outdoor environments, we numerically simulate the ventilation and dispersion of exhaled pathogenic droplets (e.g., diameter d = 10 μm) within typical street canyon (outdoor, aspect ratio H/W = 1) and each room (indoor) of two eight-floor single-sided naturally-ventilated buildings. Inhaled fraction (IF) and suspended fraction (SF) between two face-to-face people are calculated to quantify and compare the human-to-human exposure risk in all 16 rooms (indoor) on eight floors and those at two outdoor sites. Numerical simulations are validated well by wind tunnel experiments. Results show that, the rooms in the 1st and 8th floors attain greater air change rate per hour (∼4.5–6.6 h−1) and the lower exposure risk (IF∼2–4 ppm) than the 2nd-7th floors (air change rate per hour∼1.6–5.3 h−1, IF∼4–11 ppm). Although inter-floor droplet dispersion exists, the room with index patient attains 2–4 order greater exposure risk than the other rooms without index patient. When the index patient stays outdoor, outdoor IF will change with locations, i.e. ∼55 ppm at leeward corner (even exceeding indoor IF∼2–11 ppm), and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Hence, the outdoor infection risk should not be ignored especially for people at leeward street corner where small vortex exists inducing local weak ventilation. Particularly, outdoor IF is decided by short-distance spraying droplet exposure (∼1 m) and long-route airborne transmissions by the main recirculation through entire street canyon (∼50–100 m).
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights We study exhaled droplet dispersion/exposure risk in street with 8-floor single-sided buildings. Exposure risk in index-patient's room is 2–4 order larger than other rooms without index patient. 1st and 8th floors attain more ACH/smaller inhaled fraction (IF∼2–4 ppm) than 2nd-7th floors (∼4–11 ppm). Outdoor IF varies with locations, ∼55 ppm in leeward corner (exceeding indoor ∼2–11 ppm) and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Both short-distance exposure (∼1 m) and long-transport by street vortex (∼100 m) are key to Outdoor IF.
Assessment of exhaled pathogenic droplet dispersion and indoor-outdoor exposure risk in urban street with naturally-ventilated buildings
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8688-6206
Abstract Outdoor droplet exposure risk is generally regarded much smaller than that indoor, but such indoor-outdoor assessment and comparison are still rare. By coupling indoor and outdoor environments, we numerically simulate the ventilation and dispersion of exhaled pathogenic droplets (e.g., diameter d = 10 μm) within typical street canyon (outdoor, aspect ratio H/W = 1) and each room (indoor) of two eight-floor single-sided naturally-ventilated buildings. Inhaled fraction (IF) and suspended fraction (SF) between two face-to-face people are calculated to quantify and compare the human-to-human exposure risk in all 16 rooms (indoor) on eight floors and those at two outdoor sites. Numerical simulations are validated well by wind tunnel experiments. Results show that, the rooms in the 1st and 8th floors attain greater air change rate per hour (∼4.5–6.6 h−1) and the lower exposure risk (IF∼2–4 ppm) than the 2nd-7th floors (air change rate per hour∼1.6–5.3 h−1, IF∼4–11 ppm). Although inter-floor droplet dispersion exists, the room with index patient attains 2–4 order greater exposure risk than the other rooms without index patient. When the index patient stays outdoor, outdoor IF will change with locations, i.e. ∼55 ppm at leeward corner (even exceeding indoor IF∼2–11 ppm), and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Hence, the outdoor infection risk should not be ignored especially for people at leeward street corner where small vortex exists inducing local weak ventilation. Particularly, outdoor IF is decided by short-distance spraying droplet exposure (∼1 m) and long-route airborne transmissions by the main recirculation through entire street canyon (∼50–100 m).
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights We study exhaled droplet dispersion/exposure risk in street with 8-floor single-sided buildings. Exposure risk in index-patient's room is 2–4 order larger than other rooms without index patient. 1st and 8th floors attain more ACH/smaller inhaled fraction (IF∼2–4 ppm) than 2nd-7th floors (∼4–11 ppm). Outdoor IF varies with locations, ∼55 ppm in leeward corner (exceeding indoor ∼2–11 ppm) and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Both short-distance exposure (∼1 m) and long-transport by street vortex (∼100 m) are key to Outdoor IF.
Assessment of exhaled pathogenic droplet dispersion and indoor-outdoor exposure risk in urban street with naturally-ventilated buildings
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8688-6206
Abstract Outdoor droplet exposure risk is generally regarded much smaller than that indoor, but such indoor-outdoor assessment and comparison are still rare. By coupling indoor and outdoor environments, we numerically simulate the ventilation and dispersion of exhaled pathogenic droplets (e.g., diameter d = 10 μm) within typical street canyon (outdoor, aspect ratio H/W = 1) and each room (indoor) of two eight-floor single-sided naturally-ventilated buildings. Inhaled fraction (IF) and suspended fraction (SF) between two face-to-face people are calculated to quantify and compare the human-to-human exposure risk in all 16 rooms (indoor) on eight floors and those at two outdoor sites. Numerical simulations are validated well by wind tunnel experiments. Results show that, the rooms in the 1st and 8th floors attain greater air change rate per hour (∼4.5–6.6 h−1) and the lower exposure risk (IF∼2–4 ppm) than the 2nd-7th floors (air change rate per hour∼1.6–5.3 h−1, IF∼4–11 ppm). Although inter-floor droplet dispersion exists, the room with index patient attains 2–4 order greater exposure risk than the other rooms without index patient. When the index patient stays outdoor, outdoor IF will change with locations, i.e. ∼55 ppm at leeward corner (even exceeding indoor IF∼2–11 ppm), and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Hence, the outdoor infection risk should not be ignored especially for people at leeward street corner where small vortex exists inducing local weak ventilation. Particularly, outdoor IF is decided by short-distance spraying droplet exposure (∼1 m) and long-route airborne transmissions by the main recirculation through entire street canyon (∼50–100 m).
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights We study exhaled droplet dispersion/exposure risk in street with 8-floor single-sided buildings. Exposure risk in index-patient's room is 2–4 order larger than other rooms without index patient. 1st and 8th floors attain more ACH/smaller inhaled fraction (IF∼2–4 ppm) than 2nd-7th floors (∼4–11 ppm). Outdoor IF varies with locations, ∼55 ppm in leeward corner (exceeding indoor ∼2–11 ppm) and ∼7 ppm at middle street. Both short-distance exposure (∼1 m) and long-transport by street vortex (∼100 m) are key to Outdoor IF.
Assessment of exhaled pathogenic droplet dispersion and indoor-outdoor exposure risk in urban street with naturally-ventilated buildings
Hang, Jian (author) / Yang, Xia (author) / Ou, Cui-Yun (author) / Luo, Zhi-Wen (author) / Fan, Xiao-Dan (author) / Zhang, Xue-Lin (author) / Gu, Zhong-Li (author) / Li, Xian-Xiang (author)
Building and Environment ; 234
2023-02-15
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Developing indoor temperature standards for naturally ventilated buildings
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1995
Indoor Air Quality in Naturally Ventilated Buildings in Urban Areas: Case Studies
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1997
| British Library Online Contents | 2015