###### Abstract
[17] derived an average droplet concentration of up to 3.80 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\) kg/m\({}^{3}\) nearest to the infected person at a wind speed of 7 m/s using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques, verifying that installing barriers in front of personal seats can prevent infection to some extent. [PERSON] et al. [18] gave a barrier height of 60 cm above the desktop in a densely populated, open-plan office environment as being effective in preventing the transmission of the virus. The significance of the effect of physical barriers depends greatly on the height of the barrier. [PERSON] et al. [19] modeled the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a high-speed train by taking into account a combination of temperature and humidity, ventilation rate, virus ejector source, exhaust location and capacity, and the addition of a physical barrier, proposing the use of physical barriers and high ventilation rates for personal protection. However, some studies have shown that physical barriers are somewhat limited in their ability to block droplet transmission on the path and protect surrounding susceptible individuals. [PERSON] et al. [20] simulated the contribution of installing partitions between beds in a hospital emergency department to reducing airborne pathogen concentrations and found that this approach was not as effective as increasing ventilation efficiency. [PERSON] et al. [21] conducted an experimental study on space partitioning with dividers in a cafeteria, and the results of Phi6 virus detection as an alternative showed that spatial partitioning may adversely affect localized levels. [PERSON] et al. [22] confirmed that desktop dividers in the canteen can cause aerosols to accumulate in the partitioned space, which poses a risk of infection to diners following the previous infected person who was seated at that seat. Nevertheless, this suggests that desktop partitions hinder the spread of particles to other surrounding individuals, so exploring the mechanism by which physical barriers impede virus transmission remains of practical significance. At present, studies on physical isolation are relatively homogenous in form, with most of them placing partitions directly on the floor or on tabletops, which, to a certain extent, affect human activities. On the other hand, although some studies have evaluated the effectiveness of physical barriers, further research is needed to investigate whether measures such as transparent barriers and screens can be effectively introduced in different locations, such as in confined spaces. Obtaining the interception effects of differently placed physical isolation on droplet transport will help assess the utility of physical masking measures and provide insights into the mechanisms by which barriers impede virus transmission. In terms of methods for studying particle trajectories, there are two main approaches: CFD simulations and experimental measurements. Due to the high cost, long duration, and unavailability of data from experiments, CFD techniques have become the preferred choice of most researchers as they consider the complex mechanisms of airflow, heat transfer, and mass transfer to provide a three-dimensional distribution of pollutants in indoor space (concentration, velocity, pressure, etc.) [23; 24; 25]. In terms of methods for analyzing the probability of individual infection, the main methods are the Wells-Riley equation [26], the Dose-response model [27], and the Monte Carlo model [28]. The Wells-Riley equation calculates the average risk of infection in a population by taking into account the respiratory volume and ventilation rates as well as exposure time. Combining these two methods with CFD techniques can more accurately model the diffusion and deposition processes of airborne pollutants and provide a more comprehensive assessment of obtaining information such as the spatial distribution of pollutants and localized infections.