Skip to main content

Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model

Abstract

Objective

In metropolitan areas in Japan, train commute is very popular that trains are over-crowded with passengers during rush hour. The purpose of this study is to quantify public health risk related to the inhalation of airborne infectious agents in public vehicles during transportation based on a mathematical model.

Methods

The reproduction number for the influenza infection in a train (RA) was estimated using a model based on the Wells-Riley model. To estimate the influence of environmental parameters, the duration of exposure and the number of passengers were varied. If an infected person will not use a mask and all susceptible people will wear a mask, a reduction in the risk of transmission could be expected.

Results

The estimated probability distribution of RA had a median of 2.22, and the distribution was fitted to a log-normal distribution with a geometric mean of 2.22 and a geometric standard deviation of 1.53, under the condition that there are 150 passengers, and that 13 ventilation cycles per hour, as required by law, are made. If the exposure time is less than 30 min, the risk may be low. The exposure time can increase the risk linearly. The number of passengers also increases the risk. However, RA is fairly insensitive to the number of passengers. Surgical masks are somewhat effective, whereas High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) masks are quite effective. Doubling the rate of ventilation reduces RA to almost 1.

Conclusions

Because it is not feasible for all passengers to wear a HEPA mask, and improvement in the ventilation seems to be an effective and feasible means of preventing influenza infection in public trains.

References

  1. (1)

    Olsen SJ, Chang HL, Cheung TY, Tang AF, Fisk TL, Ooi SP, et al. Transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome on aircraft. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2416–2422.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. (2)

    Mangili A, Gendreau MA. Transmission of infectious diseases during commercial air travel. Lancet. 2005;365:989–996.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. (3)

    Leder K, Newman D, Respiratory infections during air travel. Intern Med J. 2005;35:50–55.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. (4)

    Moore M, Valway SE, Ihle W, Onorato IM. A train passenger with pulmonary tuberculosis: evidence of limited transmission during travel. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28:52–56.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. (5)

    Aihara K, Ohkusa Y, Maeda H. http://www.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/2006/060111.pdf, 2006. (in Japanese)

  6. (6)

    Yasuda H, Yoshizawa N, Suzuki K. Spread of influenza, in case of a suburban railroad of Tokyo. The second international symposium on transmission models for infectious diseases. 2006.

  7. (7)

    Hayden FG, Palese P. Influenza virus. In: Richman DD, Whitley RJ, Hayden FG editors. Clinical Virology. Washington: ASM Press: 2002. p. 891–920.

    Google Scholar 

  8. (8)

    Treanor JJ. Influenza virus. In: Mandell BJ, Bennett JE, Dolin GL editors. Douglas and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. Elsevier New York: Churchill Livingstone: 2005. p. 2060–2085.

    Google Scholar 

  9. (9)

    Riley EC, Murphy G, Riley RL. Airborne spread of measles in a suburban elementary school. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;107: 421–432.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. (10)

    Rudnick SN, Milton DK. Risk of indoor airborne infection transmission estimated from carbon dioxide concentration. Indoor Air. 2003;13:237–245.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. (11)

    Ko G, Thompson KM, Nardell EA. Estimation of tuberculosis risk on a commercial airliner. Risk Anal. 2004;24:379–388.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. (12)

    Liao CM, Chang CF, Liang HM. A probabilistic transmission dynamic model to assess indoor airborne infection risks. Risk Anal. 2005;25:1097–1107.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. (13)

    Wells WF. On air-borne infection: II-Droplets and droplet nuclei. Am J Hyg. 1934;20:611–618.

    Google Scholar 

  14. (14)

    A railroad carriage Tips. http://wwwl.odn.ne.jp/-aaa81350/chusyo/tx/tx1000.htm. 2006. (in Japanese).

  15. (15)

    Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The ministerial ordinance related with train. http://wwwl.odn.ne.jp/-aaa81350/kaisetu/law/law.htm. 2001. (in Japanese)

  16. (16)

    Noakes CJ, Beggs CB, Sleigh PA, Kerr KG. Modeling the transmission of airborne infections in enclosed spaces. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;14:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  17. (17)

    Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Metropolitan traffic census survey in 2000. 2002. (in Japanese)

  18. (18)

    Tellier R. Review of aerosol transmission of influenza A virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:1657–1662.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. (19)

    Al-Jahdali H, Memish ZA, Menzies D. Tuberculosis in association with travel. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2003;21:125–130.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. (20)

    Kenyon TA, Valway SE, Ihle WW, Onorato IM, Castro KG. Transmission of multidrug-resistantMycobacterium tuberculo-sis during a long airplane flight. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:933–938.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroyuki Furuya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furuya, H. Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model. Environ Health Prev Med 12, 78–83 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898153

Download citation

Key words

  • airborne infection
  • influenza
  • train car
  • Wells-Riley model
  • enclesed space