Hayden A Hedworth1, Mokbel Karam1, Josh McConnell1, James C Sutherland1, Tony Saad2. 1. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. 2. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. tony.saad@chemeng.utah.edu.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic forced performing arts groups to cancel shows and entire seasons due to safety concerns for the audience and performers. It is unclear to what extent aerosols generated by wind instruments contribute to exposure because their fate is dependent on the airflow onstage. We use transient, second-order accurate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and quantitative microbial risk assessment to estimate aerosol concentrations and the associated risk and assess strategies to mitigate exposure in two distinct concert venues. Mitigation strategies involved rearranging musicians and altering the airflow by changing HVAC settings, opening doors, and introducing flow-directing geometries. Our results indicate that the proposed mitigation strategies can reduce aerosol concentrations in the breathing zone by a factor of 100, corresponding to a similar decrease in the probability of infection.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced performing arts groups to cancel shows and entire seasons due to safety concerns for the audience and performers. It is unclear to what extent aerosols generated by wind instruments contribute to exposure because their fate is dependent on the airflow onstage. We use transient, second-order accurate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and quantitative microbial risk assessment to estimate aerosol concentrations and the associated risk and assess strategies to mitigate exposure in two distinct concert venues. Mitigation strategies involved rearranging musicians and altering the airflow by changing HVAC settings, opening doors, and introducing flow-directing geometries. Our results indicate that the proposed mitigation strategies can reduce aerosol concentrations in the breathing zone by a factor of 100, corresponding to a similar decrease in the probability of infection.
Authors: Lingzhe Wang; Tong Lin; Hevander Da Costa; Shengwei Zhu; Tehya Stockman; Abhishek Kumar; James Weaver; Mark Spede; Donald K Milton; Jean Hertzberg; Darin W Toohey; Marina E Vance; Shelly L Miller; Jelena Srebric Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 6.554
Authors: Birte Knobling; Gefion Franke; Lisa Beike; Timo Dickhuth; Johannes K Knobloch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.614