A review on indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19– modelling and mitigation approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years, significant efforts have been made to investigate the transmission of COVID-19. This paper provides a review of the COVID-19 airborne transmission modeling and mitigation strategies. The simulation models here are classified into airborne transmission infectious risk models and numerical approaches for spatiotemporal airborne transmissions. Mathematical descriptions and assumptions on which these models have been based are discussed. Input data used in previous simulation studies to assess the dispersion of COVID-19 are extracted and reported. Moreover, measurements performed to study the COVID-19 airborne transmission within indoor environments are introduced to support validations for anticipated future modeling studies. Transmission mitigation strategies recommended in recent studies have been classified to include modifying occupancy and ventilation operations, using filters and air purifiers, installing ultraviolet (UV) air disinfection systems, and personal protection compliance, such as wearing masks and social distancing. The application of mitigation strategies to various building types, such as educational, office, public, residential, and hospital, is reviewed. Recommendations for future works are also discussed based on the current apparent knowledge gaps covering both modeling and mitigation approaches. Our findings show that different transmission mitigation measures were recommended for various indoor environments; however, there is no conclusive work reporting their combined effects on the level of mitigation that may be achieved. Moreover, further studies should be conducted to understand better the balance between approaches to mitigating the viral transmissions in buildings and building energy consumption.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".