Impact of ionizers on prevention of airborne infection in classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious diseases (e.g., coronavirus disease 2019) dramatically impact human life, economy and social development. Exploring the low-cost and energy-saving approaches is essential in removing infectious virus particles from indoors, such as in classrooms. The application of air purification devices, such as negative ion generators (ionizers), gains popularity because of the favorable removal capacity for particles and the low operation cost. However, small and portable ionizers have potential disadvantages in the removal efficiency owing to the limited horizontal diffusion of negative ions. This study aims to investigate the layout strategy (number and location) of ionizers based on the energy-efficient natural ventilation in the classroom to improve removal efficiency (negative ions to particles) and decrease infection risk. Three infected students were considered in the classroom. The simulations of negative ion and particle concentrations were performed and validated by the experiment. Results showed that as the number of ionizers was 4 and 5, the removal performance was largely improved by combining ionizer with natural ventilation. Compared with the scenario without an ionizer, the scenario with 5 ionizers largely increased the average removal efficiency from around 20% to 85% and decreased the average infection risk by 23%. The setup with 5 ionizers placed upstream of the classroom was determined as the optimal layout strategy, particularly when the location and number of the infected students were unknown. This work can provide a guideline for applying ionizers to public buildings when natural ventilation is used. Electronic Supplementary Material ESM: the Appendix is available in the online version of this article at 10.1007/s12273-022-0959-z.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".