Mobile air cleaners (MACs) have been proposed as a supplementary solution to combat the spread of respiratory aerosols in school classrooms. To determine which, where and how to use MACs, seven small- and medium-sized MACs were selected and assessed for different settings and configurations by 1) a decay test for determining the clean air delivery rate (CADR), and 2) a perception test with a panel of subjects, together with physical measurements, of noise and air movement. The findings show that to achieve the desired CADR (appr. 1000 m3/h for 30 students per classroom), the key factors are the induced airflow pattern and the location of the MACs. MACs with an upward air supply toward the occupied zone showed much higher CADR (max. 775–1332 m3/h) than those with a horizontal air supply (max. 219–333 m3/h). Moreover, using multiple devices simultaneously was crucial when the room size was increased, and combining mechanical ventilation could improve aerosol removal. Achieving a sufficient CADR would always lead to a noise level above the limit of 35 dB(A), yet sometimes the rating of the panel was more than 50% acceptable. The air velocities mostly fulfilled the requirement (<0.2 m/s), which aligned with the positive panel assessment. Hence, the evaluation by a panel of subjects can help to optimize the use of MACs in a classroom.@en

As mandatory masking and social distancing measures decrease post-COVID-19, the risk of airborne pathogen transmission in crowded indoor spaces remains a significant public health concern. The pandemic highlighted the critical role of indoor air quality and ventilation in mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, underscoring the urgent need to improve our understanding and prediction of indoor airflow to minimise airborne transmission. In this review, studies on airborne transmission in indoor settings were systematically reviewed to identify research gaps and recommend changes in approach. The analysis is categorised into indoor airflow, dynamics of infectious respiratory particles (IRPs), and investigation methodologies. Findings reveal that almost 40% of the reviewed literature does not specify the type of indoor setting, with only 3% focusing on restaurant environments. Additionally, indoor air conditions are typically assumed to be constant, and respiratory activities are often limited to coughing and breathing. The review identifies the challenge of replicating the complex behaviour of IRPs in experiments and the computational expense of predicting turbulent indoor flows. Recommendations for future research include: i) focusing on social settings like restaurants, ii) considering varying air temperatures and humidity, iii) examining speech-related respiratory flows, and iv) employing visual and accurate tools to investigate particle-laden airflow. These insights aim to enhance public health guidelines and building designs to reduce the risk of airborne diseases.@en