Revisiting physical distancing threshold in indoor environment using infection-risk-based modeling

[thumbnail of Open Access]
Preview
Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview
Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution
[thumbnail of Revised Manuscript (1).pdf]
Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
Restricted to Repository staff only

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Liu, F., Luo, Z. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2082-3958, Li, Y., Zheng, X., Zhang, C. and Qian, H. (2021) Revisiting physical distancing threshold in indoor environment using infection-risk-based modeling. Environment International, 153. 106542. ISSN 0160-4120 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106542

Abstract/Summary

Physical distancing has been an important policy to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in public settings. However, the current 1-2m physical distancing rule is based on the physics of droplet transport and could not directly translate into infection risk. We therefore revisit the 2-m physical distancing rule by developing an infection-risk-based model for human speaking. The key modeling framework components include viral load, droplets dispersion and evaporation, deposition efficiency, viral dose-response rate and infection risk. The results suggest that the one-size-fits-all 2-m physical distancing rule derived from the pure droplet-physics-based model is not applicable under some realistic indoor settings, and may rather increase transmission probability of diseases. Especially, in thermally stratified environments, the infection risk could exhibit multiple peaks for a long distance beyond 2 meters. With Sobol’s sensitivity analysis, most variance of the risk is found to be significantly attributable to the variability in temperature gradient, exposure time and breathing height difference. Our study suggests there is no such magic 2m physical distancing rule for all environments, but it needs to be used alongside other strategies, such as using face cover, reducing exposure time, and controlling the thermal stratification of indoor environment.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/97023
Identification Number/DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106542
Refereed No
Divisions Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IDRCs) > Walker Institute
Science > School of the Built Environment > Urban Living group
Science > School of the Built Environment > Energy and Environmental Engineering group
Publisher Elsevier
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar