Al Haddrell Profile picture
Jun 26, 2024 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Given that the COVID numbers are on the rise, I thought I’d it useful to share some our research team’s work looking at the interplay between CO2, aerosol, SARS-CoV-2, and airborne transmission. 🧵 Image
SARSCoV2 is spread primarily through the air via aerosol. Meaning, the amount of aerosol a person produces will to some degree correlate with the amount of virus exhaled. Our group has done of studies into how different activities affect aerosol production
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
The amount of aerosol a person exhales is correlated with how loud they are talking/singing. Perhaps a reason why there have been no super spreader events reported in a library (?) Image
We’ve recently reported that the amount of CO2 in the air will affect how long SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious. Increasing CO2 to as little as 800ppm increases aerostability and transmission risk.
nature.com/articles/s4146…
Image
Both CO2 and infectious respiratory aerosol have a similar source, the exhaled breath. As a result, people have used CO2 monitors to measure the amount of CO2 in the air to get a sense of (a) how much exhaled breath is in an area, and (b) roughly how good is the ventilation. Image
Our group recently reported on the relationship between exhaled aerosol concentration and carbon dioxide across a range of activities.

thorax.bmj.com/content/78/Sup…
Sometimes the CO2 concentration correlated with the aerosol counts, and sometimes they did not. For example, when a person is silent, the amount of aerosol they produce largely correlates with the CO2 levels exhaled. Image
Conversely, the volume in which people talks or sings breaks this relationship down. When people are loud, the CO2 level is largely unchanged while the particle counts change dramatically. Image
So, what does this all mean? Collectively, these studies suggest that there are going to be specific environments where transmission would be much more likely to occur. Image
For example, in a poorly ventilated space, where the CO2 counts are high, any exhaled virus will remain infectious for much longer. If the people in the space are loud, they will be producing much more aerosol. With this combination, transmission is much more likely. Image
For example, this is not surprising. A stadium filled with people singing is a recipe for trouble.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. If you know you are entering an area of higher risk, adjust accordingly. For example, wear a high-quality mask. Image
I hope you find this helpful! If you have any questions about any of this, I'd be happy to try to answer them!
@CaliforniaCodes Because CO2 affects both the decay rate and physical removal of the aerosol, the relationship between CO2 and risk is non-linear.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Al Haddrell

Al Haddrell Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ukhadds

Feb 7
The risk of the airborne transmission of disease correlates with the amount of infectious exhaled aerosol. Since people exhale CO2 with aerosol, its conc has been used as proxy for exhaled aerosol

In this article, researchers propose a new way to estimate risk of transmission Image
Here’s a link to the article (the first author is Henry Oswin, a former PhD student from our group who is currently working with Lidia Morawska):

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
For a variety of reasons, CO2 may not be a good proxy for exhaled aerosol. eg, it will underestimate the risk when people are talking, or overestimate when filtration is used.

I walked through some of this in my explainer video (excerpt shown below):

Read 10 tweets
Jan 22
Not so fun fact: Tear gas isn’t a “gas”

If it’s not a gas, then what is it?

Answer: it’s an aerosol. And this distinction matters.

Let’s discuss 🧵 Image
The burning sensation of tear gas is caused by the compound 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile.

Rather than discussing how this chemical affects the body biologically, let’s go over how this chemical is dispersed physically, and why that matters (aerosol science!). Image
Tear gas is delivered a couple different ways.

1) Pyrotechnic canister where the device produces a cloud of hot smoke.

2) Aerosol spray devices where the chemical is dissolved in a solvent and then sprayed. Image
Read 18 tweets
Dec 30, 2025
In 2025, I’ve put together many threads discussing various aspects of science, science communication, aerosol science, or airborne disease transmission

With it being the end of the year, and social media being largely fleeting, I thought I’d highlight a few worth revisiting Image
A few of the threads discussed the fundamental challenges around measuring the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

In this thread I discuss some of the challenges around designing RCT studies.

In this thread, I discussed how poor experimental design leads to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of ventilation/filtration, etc. on disease mitigation.

Read 11 tweets
Dec 20, 2025
One of the reasons why I go so hard on science misinformation/disinformation, is that as a working scientist it is frustrating to see your research misreported to push an agenda.

For example, consider this piece of right-wing propaganda from The Telegraph that was just published Image
Here’s a link to the article (free to access on Yahoo).

Spoiler alert: it’s rubbish.

yahoo.com/news/articles/…
The article is an opinion piece masquerading as journalism. While this is typical of these sorts of trashy publications, what concerned me was that they highlighted my research specifically to push their message.

Consequently, I feel like I ought to respond. Image
Read 13 tweets
Nov 30, 2025
This question came up on BlueSky. While somewhat coy, the question isn’t actually that simple to answer.

Given that I’m an “aerosol scientist”, I figured I take a crack at answering it. Image
An aerosol scientist is simply a scientist that studies aerosol.

Aerosol are any liquid or solid particle that is suspended in the air. Typically, these objects aresmaller than 100 microns. In short, we study various small airborne things. Image
These “things” can be literally anything. From biological (viruses, bacteria), to environmental (particulate matter), to industrial (spray drying), and beyond.

Thus, when someone studies aerosol, there are countless systems they could be interested in. Image
Read 14 tweets
Nov 20, 2025
Counterpoint: you ABSOLUTELY can control an airborne virus.

Seriously, who says this kind of nonsense? We literally have numerous ways to control airborne spread.
Shoutout to @CDare10 for flagging up this idiot’s post.
@CDare10 Hey @ClareCraigPath , how do scientists study airborne viruses if they are “uncontrollable “? For example, how is airborne decay measured if it’s impossible to control an aerosol?
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(