Cargando…

Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19

Currently, COVID-19 is a global pandemic that scientists and engineers around the world are aiming to understand further through rigorous testing and observation. This paper aims to provide safe distance recommendations among individuals and minimize the spread of COVID-19, as well as examine the ef...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chea, Branson, Bolt, Andre, Agelin-Chaab, Martin, Dincer, Ibrahim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AIP Publishing LLC 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8142834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34040335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0046429
_version_ 1783696630997843968
author Chea, Branson
Bolt, Andre
Agelin-Chaab, Martin
Dincer, Ibrahim
author_facet Chea, Branson
Bolt, Andre
Agelin-Chaab, Martin
Dincer, Ibrahim
author_sort Chea, Branson
collection PubMed
description Currently, COVID-19 is a global pandemic that scientists and engineers around the world are aiming to understand further through rigorous testing and observation. This paper aims to provide safe distance recommendations among individuals and minimize the spread of COVID-19, as well as examine the efficacy of face coverings as a tool to slow the spread of respiratory droplets. These studies are conducted using computational fluid dynamics analyses, where the infected person breathes, coughs, and sneezes at various distances and environmental wind conditions and while wearing a face-covering (mask or face shield). In cases where there were no wind conditions, the breathing and coughing simulations display 1–2 m physical distancing to be effective. However, when sneezing was introduced, the physical distancing recommendation of 2 m was deemed not effective; instead, a distance of 2.8 m and greater was found to be more effective in reducing the exposure to respiratory droplets. The evaluation of environmental wind conditions necessitated an increase in physical distancing measures in all cases. The case where breathing was measured with a gentle breeze resulted in a physical distancing recommendation of 1.1 m, while coughing caused a change from the previous recommendation of 2 m to a distance of 4.5 m or greater. Sneezing in the presence of a gentle breeze was deemed to be the most impactful, with a recommendation for physical distancing of 5.8 m or more. It was determined that face coverings can potentially provide protection to an uninfected person in static air conditions. However, the uninfected person's protection can be compromised even in gentle wind conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8142834
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AIP Publishing LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81428342021-05-24 Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19 Chea, Branson Bolt, Andre Agelin-Chaab, Martin Dincer, Ibrahim Phys Fluids (1994) ARTICLES Currently, COVID-19 is a global pandemic that scientists and engineers around the world are aiming to understand further through rigorous testing and observation. This paper aims to provide safe distance recommendations among individuals and minimize the spread of COVID-19, as well as examine the efficacy of face coverings as a tool to slow the spread of respiratory droplets. These studies are conducted using computational fluid dynamics analyses, where the infected person breathes, coughs, and sneezes at various distances and environmental wind conditions and while wearing a face-covering (mask or face shield). In cases where there were no wind conditions, the breathing and coughing simulations display 1–2 m physical distancing to be effective. However, when sneezing was introduced, the physical distancing recommendation of 2 m was deemed not effective; instead, a distance of 2.8 m and greater was found to be more effective in reducing the exposure to respiratory droplets. The evaluation of environmental wind conditions necessitated an increase in physical distancing measures in all cases. The case where breathing was measured with a gentle breeze resulted in a physical distancing recommendation of 1.1 m, while coughing caused a change from the previous recommendation of 2 m to a distance of 4.5 m or greater. Sneezing in the presence of a gentle breeze was deemed to be the most impactful, with a recommendation for physical distancing of 5.8 m or more. It was determined that face coverings can potentially provide protection to an uninfected person in static air conditions. However, the uninfected person's protection can be compromised even in gentle wind conditions. AIP Publishing LLC 2021-05 2021-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8142834/ /pubmed/34040335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0046429 Text en © 2021 Author(s) Published under license by AIP Publishing. 1070-6631/2021/33(5)/051903/14/$30.00 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle ARTICLES
Chea, Branson
Bolt, Andre
Agelin-Chaab, Martin
Dincer, Ibrahim
Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title_full Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title_fullStr Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title_short Assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for COVID-19
title_sort assessment of effectiveness of optimum physical distancing phenomena for covid-19
topic ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8142834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34040335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0046429
work_keys_str_mv AT cheabranson assessmentofeffectivenessofoptimumphysicaldistancingphenomenaforcovid19
AT boltandre assessmentofeffectivenessofoptimumphysicaldistancingphenomenaforcovid19
AT agelinchaabmartin assessmentofeffectivenessofoptimumphysicaldistancingphenomenaforcovid19
AT dinceribrahim assessmentofeffectivenessofoptimumphysicaldistancingphenomenaforcovid19