English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In light of the role that airborne transmission plays in the spread of SARS-CoV-2, as well as the ongoing high global mortality from well-known airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and measles, there is an urgent need for practical ways of identifying congregate spaces where low ventilation levels contribute to high transmission risk. Poorly ventilated clinic spaces in particular may be high risk, due to the presence of both infectious and susceptible people. While relatively simple approaches to estimating ventilation rates exist, the approaches most frequently used in epidemiology cannot be used where occupancy varies, and so cannot be reliably applied in many of the types of spaces where they are most needed.    Methods  The aim of this study was to demonstrate the use of a non-steady state method to estimate the absolute ventilation rate, which can be applied in rooms where occupancy levels vary. We used data from a room in a primary healthcare clinic in a high TB and HIV prevalence setting, comprising indoor and outdoor carbon dioxide measurements and head counts (by age), taken over time. Two approaches were compared: approach 1 using a simple linear regression model and approach 2 using an ordinary differential equation model.    Results  The absolute ventilation rate, Q, using approach 1 was 2407 l/s [95% CI: 1632–3181] and Q from approach 2 was 2743 l/s [95% CI: 2139–4429].    Conclusions  We demonstrate two methods that can be used to estimate ventilation rate in busy congregate settings, such as clinic waiting rooms. Both approaches produced comparable results, however the simple linear regression method has the advantage of not requiring room volume measurements. These methods can be used to identify poorly-ventilated spaces, allowing measures to be taken to reduce the airborne transmission of pathogens such as  Mycobacterium tuberculosis , measles, and SARS-CoV-2.

Estimating ventilation rates in rooms with varying occupancy levels: Relevance for reducing transmission risk of airborne pathogens