In practice, the drag coefficient of a particle is usually calculated using empirical relationships obtained by generalizing experimental data. This study demonstrates that using the default Stokes’ law settings in FLUENT to computationally predict the drag coefficients for bioaerosol deposition is not really appropriate: the average fractional bias is 7% and the average normalized mean square error is 15%. Comparatively, the errors for bacteria (−12% to 24%) are larger than those for fungi (−8% to 26%). These errors, however, can be minimized by selecting a suitable drag constant, which can be determined based on the bioaerosol diameter. The average drag constants for bacteria were shown by the results to vary from 0.25 to 3.1, which are much smaller than the default value of 24, whereas the values for fungi were generally larger and in a wider range. This study also investigated the correlation between the drag coefficient and Reynolds number for common indoor bioaerosols with diameters between 0.69 and 8.6 µm. The outcome of this study would therefore provide a good reference point for future estimation of the deposition distribution patterns of various common indoor bioaerosols.
YangYSze-ToGNChaoCYH. Estimation of the aerodynamic sizes of single bacterium-laden expiratory aerosols using stochastic modeling with experimental validation. Aerosol Sci Technol2012; 46: 1–12.
2.
TianLAhmadiG. Particle deposition in turbulent duct flows–comparision of different model predictions. J Aerosol Sci2007; 38: 377–397.
3.
ZhangZChenQ. Experimental measurements and numerical simulations of particle transport and distribution in ventilated rooms. Atmos Environ2006; 40: 3396–3408.
4.
ZhaoBWuJ. Effect of particle spatial distribution on particle deposition in ventilation rooms. J Hazard Mater2009; 170: 449–456.
5.
WangMLinCHChenQ. Determination of particle deposition in enclosed spaces by detached eddy simulation with the Lagrangian method. Atmos Environ2011; 45: 5376–5384.
6.
LittmanHMorganMHIIIPaccioneJDJovanovicSD. Modeling and measurement of the effective drag coefficient in decelerating and non-accelerating turbulent gas-solids dilute phase flow of large particles in a vertical transport pipe. Powder Technol1993; 77: 267–283.
7.
PetkovJTDenkovNDDanovKDVelevODAustRDurstF. Measurement of the drag coefficient of spherical particles attached to fluid interfaces. J Colloid Interf Sci1995; 172: 147–154.
8.
Flórez-AcostaOTobón-ZapataGValencia-VelasquezJ. Categorization of the main descriptors of different ampicillin crystal habits. Braz J Pharm Sci2010; 46: 679–685.
9.
Almeida-PrietoSBlanco-MéndezJOtero-EspinarFJ. Microscopic image analysis techniques for the morphological characterization of pharmaceutical particles: influence of the software, and the factor algorithms used in the shape factor estimation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2007; 67: 766–776.
10.
IgathinathaneCPordesimoLOColumbusEPBatchelorWDMethukuSR. Shape identification and particles size distribution from basic shape parameters using ImageJ. Comput Electron Agric2008; 63: 168–182.
11.
BlottSJPyeK. Particle shape: a review and new methods of characterization and classification. Sedimentology2008; 55: 31–63.
12.
WongLTChanWYMuiKWLaiACK. An experimental and numerical study on deposition of bioaerosols in a scaled chamber. Aerosol Sci Technol2010; 44: 117–128.
13.
ASTM. Standard guide for statistical evaluation of atmospheric dispersion model performance D6589-05(2010)e1. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2010.
14.
RoachePJ. Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J1998; 36: 696–702.
15.
HusseinTHruskaADohanyosovaPDzumbovaLHemerkaJKulmalaMSmolikJ. Deposition rates on smooth surfaces and coagulation of aerosol particles inside a test chamber. Atmos Environ2009; 43: 905–914.
16.
RimDGreenMWallaceLPersilyAChoiJI. Evolution of ultrafine particle size distributions following indoor episodic releases: relative importance of coagulation, deposition and ventilation. Aerosol Sci Technol2012; 46: 494–503.
17.
Cox CS and Wathes CM. Bioaerosols handbook. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 1995.
18.
LaiACKWongLTMuiKWChanWYYuHC. An experimental study of bioaerosol (1–10 µm) deposition in a ventilated chamber. Build Environ2012; 56: 118–126.
19.
PastuszkaJSKyaw Tha PawULisDOWlazloAUlfigK. Bacterial and fungal aerosol in indoor environment in Upper Silesia, Poland. Atmos Environ2000; 34: 3833–3842.
20.
SuHJChenHLHuangCFLinCYLiFCMiltonDK. Airborne fungi and endotoxin concentrations in different areas within textile plants in Taiwan: a 3-year study. Environ Res2002; 89: 58–65.
21.
SheltonBGKirklandKHFlandersWDMorrisGK. Profiles of airborne fungi in buildings and outdoor environments in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol2002; 68: 1743–1753.
22.
KempPCNeumeister-KempHGEspositoBLysekGMurrayF. Changes in airborne fungi from the outdoors to indoor air; large HVAC systems in nonproblem buildings in two different climates. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J2003; 64: 269–275.
23.
BouillardLMichelODramaixMDevleeschouwerM. Bacterial contamination of indoor air, surfaces, and settled dust, and related dust endotoxin concentrations in healthy office buildings. Ann Agric Environ Med2005; 12: 187–192.
24.
SeinoKTakanoTNakamuraKWatanabeM. An evidential example of airborne bacteria in a crowded, underground public concourse in Tokyo. Atmos Environ2005; 39: 337–341.
25.
WuPCLiYYChiangCMHuangCYLeeCCLiFCSuHJ. Changing microbial concentrations are associated with ventilation performance in Taiwan’s air-conditioned office buildings. Indoor Air2005; 15: 19–26.
26.
KimKYKimCN. Airborne microbiological characteristics in public buildings of Korea. Build Environ2007; 42: 2188–2196.
27.
AydogduHAsanATatmanOM. Indoor and outdoor airborne bacteria in child day-care centers in Edirne City (Turkey), seasonal distribution and influence of meteorological factors. Environ Monit Assess2010; 164: 53–66.
28.
ChanPLYuPHFChengYWChanCYWongPK. Comprehensive characterization of indoor airborne bacterial profile. J Environ Sci2009; 21: 1148–1152.
29.
Chan WY. A study of bio-risk assessment, control and evaluation (BRACE) for indoor environment. Build Service Eng Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2012.
30.
WagnerJMacherJ. Automated spore measurements using microscope, image analysis, and peak recognition of near-monodisperse aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol2003; 46: 862–873.
