1/ I agree with @Don_Milton. It is important to distinguish between near- and far-field aerosol particles. In the near field (close contact) there is potential for much higher concentration of aerosol particles in the breathing zone of a receptor.
2/ The actual concentration depends on extent of emissions from infector, body positioning of infector and receptor, mixing conditions between infector and receptor (which depends on a number of other factors), and DISTANCE between infector and receptor.
3/ Aerosol particles do not vanish beyond the near field. They exist in the far field and will accumulate until an approximate steady-state is achieved (more on this later) as long as the infector(s) stay in the space.
4/ The concentration in the far field will be lower than in the near field, but in a large indoor event there will be many more people exposed in the far field than in the near field, unless the infector(s) actively moves around and speaks to many people.
5/ A key factor is the ratio of near-field to far-field aerosol particle concentrations (expressed as volume for appropriate dose analyses), which depends on a large number of factors, largely building related (which is why building scientists should play a role in all of this).
6/ As but ONE OF THOUSANDS (caveat!) of different scenarios, I had a PhD student over a decade ago looking at breathing zone concentration vs. far-field (volume-averaged large chamber) concentration of cleaning chemicals during the act of cleaning w/ different body positions.
7/ The ratio of breathing-zone vs. far-field in those experiments ranged from 7 to 10 for 4 to 5 ft distancing in a 70 m3 chamber with ACH a little over 0.8/hr.
8/ For these SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (caveat) a 5 min near-field dose is equivalent to a 35 - 50 min far-field dose, certainly realistic exposure times in each. Seems entirely plausible that inhalation dose of virus-laden aerosol particles in near- and far-fields are BOTH important.
9/ Why pit the two against one another as if it has to be one or the other? Both are relevant and we should try to reduce both. Our respiratory system does not distinguish between or exclude aerosol particles based on where we are when we inhale them.
10/ More details on inhaled deposited dose at corsiaq.com. This is intended to be a roadmap in terms of factors that influence inhalation dose so that we can focus on approaches to reduce dose, whether near-field or far-field.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ The air pollution that we breathe during our lifetime, even pollution of outdoor origin, is dominated by the air we breathe INDOORS.
3/ We can dramatically reduce our exposure to air pollution by reducing emissions from indoor sources, removing pollutants of indoor origin (ventilation & good engineering controls), & designing/operating buildings to reduce outdoor pollution from penetrating indoors.
Highest % of courses with a hands-on component in the entire CSU system.
3rd highest % of students in natural resources and STEM programs in CSU.
CSU’s highest % of STEM grads who go on to earn doctoral degrees, ranking 8th nationally among 660 master’s level institutions.
It's always had a robust Environmental (Resources) Engineering degree program, among the largest and oldest in the US. That program has graduated a large number of highly-qualified engineers who have served the State of California & beyond.
Sad that we have come to this point. We are here because throughout this mess political leaders, health authorities, and the general public were irresponsible, stubborn, & impatient. Will we learn from this that "fits and starts" is the worst possible policy?
We did not invoke the precautionary principle early on this pandemic, deciding (without any scientific evidence) that only three of four transmission routes were relevant and downplaying transmission by aerosol particles.
Across the board, there was a lack of unified effort to starve this virus of its hosts & manage it. We did not need major investments. What needed to be done was obvious to many scientists from the start, but lacked acceptance by leaders, unified messaging, & public commitment.
1/ Most important thing at the moment is to starve this virus of hosts. Need political leaders, business owners, bldg managers, school officials & public all acting in concert to substantially reduce inhaled dose of virus-laden aerosol particles in indoor near- & far-fields.
2/ We will find ourselves w/ similar challenges again. So, we also need to reflect on all of the things done wrong to get us into this horrific mess, learn from mistakes, and be prepared to do the right things next time.
3/ There have been unconscionable failures of leadership that fueled this mess. But there have also been many other failures, from general public to academia, media to businesses, medical profession to much more.
1/ Reviewing data from past school study in Texas. On average ventilation rates are considerably higher in portable than in permanent classrooms, but with much greater variability.
2/ Portables are much more connected to outdoor environment - greater infiltration and opportunity for natural ventilation (open door/windows).
3/ But interestingly, portables (on average) appear to have higher rebreathed fraction of air (fraction of inhaled air that was exhaled by others in the indoor space) than permanent classrooms due to higher density (occupants per classroom volume).
1/ As a senior in high school I ran for Mayor of @TorranceCA, Calif, against a sitting Councilmember (James Armstrong). At the time I believe I was the youngest candidate to ever run (& lose!) in California. Gr8 experience and learned a new meaning for the term "landslide".
2/ I conceded immediately after the votes were counted. Within a couple of days my "opponent" and I had lunch together at the Good Earth in the Del Amo Mall. We kept in touch over the years until Jim's passing & would occasionally discuss our campaign and debates.
3/ We had several public debates, including one on the radio that I wish I could find. To this day, I am haunted by a question regarding my views on binding arbitration.