Effect of Different Inlet Configurations on Particle Concentration around a Patient in Cleanroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoor air technologies have been developing in recent years.In this regard, the overwhelming majority of the studies are about thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and energy consumption in residential buildings and industrial workspaces.On the other hand, indoor air quality is a significant parameter on humans' health and convenience, especially in cleanrooms.Furthermore, rooms can produce a considerable number of particles in the form of harmful organismic gases and can adversely affect the people working in there.Exploiting a clean air stream to remove inside particles and contaminations is the primary method of improving the indoor air quality.Designing an air ventilation system to remove inside particles is one of these methods.In this study, aerosol concentration for different particle dimensions and different layouts of the inlet gates in a wholly equipped cleanroom is investigated.Moreover, the average particle concentration resulting from each layout is compared.It is illustrated that the particle concentration changes with the variation of the dimension of the particles.In the next part, particle concentration on different parts of a patient's body with different inlet gates is investigated.For this purpose, four different points of the body are specified for measurements, and the particle concentration for each part is studied for particles with 0.5 μm and 5 μm diameter with different inlet gate arrangements.According to the results, a fully open gate arrangement has the best efficiency, while a diagonal layout cannot remove particles suitably.Moreover, it has been conducted that using a model patient instead of an actual patient can adversely affect the results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".