Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study presents an in-situ methodology to assess indoor ventilation performance and estimate the recommended percentage of maximum occupancy (RPMO) for reducing airborne disease transmission risks. Using carbon dioxide (CO2) as a tracer gas, Air Changes per Hour (ACH) were determined in university facilities, including classrooms, meeting rooms, auditoriums, and a concert hall, under natural and mechanical ventilation conditions. Multi-point CO2 monitoring enabled the identification of ventilation patterns and under-ventilated zones. Results demonstrated that natural cross-flow ventilation could produce ACH values up to 180% higher than mechanical systems, resulting in RPMO estimates of 95%, compared to the 30% limit implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, some mechanically ventilated spaces achieved 12% RPMO, despite being used at higher levels. This discrepancy highlights the importance of empirical ventilation assessments to avoid under or overestimating recommended indoor capacities. A model for estimating the recommended number of occupants (NOP) was validated during six public events in a concert hall, demonstrating good agreement between predicted and measured CO2 concentrations. The proposed methodology is simple, scalable, and operationally feasible, providing institutions with a practical tool to define evidence-based occupancy limits and improve ventilation management. The findings highlight the role of ventilation in reducing airborne transmission risks in educational and public buildings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macías-Vargas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: