The knowledge of exposure to the airborne particle emitted from three-dimensional (3D) printing activities is becoming a crucial issue due to the relevant spreading of such devices in recent years. To this end, a low-cost desktop 3D printer based on fused deposition modeling (FDM) principle was used. Particle number, alveolar-deposited surface area, and mass concentrations were measured continuously during printing processes to evaluate particle emission rates (ERs) and factors. Particle number distribution measurements were also performed to characterize the size of the emitted particles. Ten different materials and different extrusion temperatures were considered in the survey. Results showed that all the investigated materials emit particles in the ultrafine range (with a mode in the 10-30-nm range), whereas no emission of super-micron particles was detected for all the materials under investigation. The emission was affected strongly by the extrusion temperature. In fact, the ERs increase as the extrusion temperature increases. Emission rates up to 1×10 particles min were calculated. Such high ERs were estimated to cause large alveolar surface area dose in workers when 3D activities run. In fact, a 40-min-long 3D printing was found to cause doses up to 200 mm .

Although the interpersonal distance represents an important parameter affecting the risk of infection due to respiratory viruses, the mechanism of exposure to exhaled droplets remains insufficiently characterized. In this study, an integrated risk assessment is presented for SARS-CoV-2 close proximity exposure between a speaking infectious subject and a susceptible subject. It is based on a three-dimensional transient numerical model for the description of exhaled droplet spread once emitted by a speaking person, coupled with a recently proposed SARS-CoV-2 emission approach. Particle image velocimetry measurements were conducted to validate the numerical model. The contribution of the large droplets to the risk is barely noticeable only for distances well below 0.6 m, whereas it drops to zero for greater distances where it depends only on airborne droplets. In particular, for short exposures (10 s) a minimum safety distance of 0.75 m should be maintained to lower the risk below 0.1%; for exposures of 1 and 15 min this distance increases to about 1.1 and 1.5 m, respectively. Based on the interpersonal distances across countries reported as a function of interacting individuals, cultural differences, and environmental and sociopsychological factors, the approach presented here revealed that, in addition to intimate and personal distances, particular attention must be paid to exposures longer than 1 min within social distances (of about 1 m).

SUMMARYThis paper presents a numerical comparison of two different numerical procedures based on the characteristic-based split (CBS) algorithm for the solution of incompressible flows. The first procedure is based on the original semi-implicit version of the CBS, introduced in the early days of the scheme development. The second was proposed more recently in order to have a fully explicit version of the scheme, and is based on the introduction of an artificial compressibility type of formulation. The interest in fully explicit schemes has increased because of the easy and efficient parallelization. The main differences between the two versions of the schemes are highlighted in this work, and a numerical comparison is presented on the basis of several benchmark solutions. Both steady and unsteady flows are considered. With the explicit version of the scheme a dual time stepping procedure is needed to recover unsteady solutions.

No abstract

No abstract