MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202419251 · doi:10.4236/gep.2021.99010

Practical Mitigation Strategies for Countering the Spread of Aerosolized COVID-19 Virus (SARS-CoV-2) Using Ventilation and HEPA Air Purifiers: A Literature Review

2021· review· en· W3202419251 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsHEPAAir purifierCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AerosolizationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVentilation (architecture)Environmental scienceVirologyMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringTelecommunicationsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses, through an extensive literature review, the use of ventilation and High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) purifiers as practical mitigation strategies for reducing the spread of aerosolized COVID-191 virus. HEPA is a well-defined standard by the U.S. Department of Energy for filters. The focus of the literature review was on indoor air quality (IAQ) and COVID-19, with a particular emphasis on classroom settings. The start of the review, January 2020, was chosen to coincide with the first cases of COVID-19 in North America. Although children under the age of 12 are currently not yet vaccinated, there is mounting pressure for a return to normal by the start of the new school year, 2021. Also, many classrooms lack pre-installed mechanical ventilation systems (Olsiewski et al., 2021); therefore, mitigation in classrooms often falls solely in the hands of teachers and students. Research shows that ventilation and air purification are essential tools to counter aerosolized transmission (Curtius et al. (2020), the inhaled dose of particles containing virus RNA is six times lower when using air purifiers with an ACH (air changes per hour) of 5.7. However, ventilation and air purifiers are not replacements for masks, which remain vital for countering droplet (>5 μm) transmission. In addition, occupancy (i.e., number and proximity of people present in a given area) and group activity levels (e.g., talking, shouting, singing) play a critical role in viral transmission. Although natural ventilation by opening windows can be an essential strategy to help counter the spread of the virus, the level of ventilation offered by opening windows is largely uncontrollable as it is subject to weather conditions and building design. One must also consider the energy implications (i.e., loss of heat) that this strategy carries. Scientific evidence shows that varying levels of continuous and/or intermittent ventilation, either mechanical or natural, combined with the use of HEPA air purifiers, can provide a higher degree of protection than window access alone (Curtius et al., 2020). Systematic deployment of a hybrid mitigation strategy incorporating both ventilation and HEPA air purification in schools, offices, or other facilities offers a practical way to establish a safe re-opening of society in Canada.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it