HEAVENLY 😇 MATCH ❤️
U-C Berkeley put:
modest 🐇 ventilation 🌪️ (6.4 ACH)
+ slow 🐢 ceiling fans 🌸 (122 ft/min)
in conf. room w/ olive oil 🫒 aerosol released like breathing 🧘♀️
RESULT (vs 6.4 ACH 🌪️ alone):
-77 % (less) aerosol @ CLOSE-UP
+5% aerosol @ LONG-RANGE
(1/4)
U-C Berkeley put:
modest 🐇 ventilation 🌪️ (6.4 ACH)
+ slow 🐢 ceiling fans 🌸 (122 ft/min)
in conf. room w/ olive oil 🫒 aerosol released like breathing 🧘♀️
RESULT (vs 6.4 ACH 🌪️ alone):
-77 % (less) aerosol @ CLOSE-UP
+5% aerosol @ LONG-RANGE
(1/4)
+5% increase in long-range exposure with ceiling fans at 6.4 ACH 🐇 was still 80% lower than at 1.6 ACH 🐌
For future experiments:
What would the reduction in exposure be at 12 ACH 🐎 like on passenger airplanes ✈️ ?
(2/4)
For future experiments:
What would the reduction in exposure be at 12 ACH 🐎 like on passenger airplanes ✈️ ?
(2/4)
PLACEMENT of people relative to fans seems to matter a lot.
Berkeley result (-77%) with mannequins offset from fan is significantly less than another result from Singapore (~95%) in which mannequins were placed direct under the ceiling fan.
(3/4)
Berkeley result (-77%) with mannequins offset from fan is significantly less than another result from Singapore (~95%) in which mannequins were placed direct under the ceiling fan.
(3/4)
https://twitter.com/sri_srikrishna/status/1800352313208619490
Conclusion; “We found ceiling fans can effectively reduce short-range exposure to particles but slightly increase long-range exposure.”
But slight increase is offset by more ventilation/filtration
Link to Berkeley paper (free and open-access)
(4/4)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
But slight increase is offset by more ventilation/filtration
Link to Berkeley paper (free and open-access)
(4/4)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
