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. 🧵
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 (?)
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…
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.
Our group recently reported on the relationship between exhaled aerosol concentration and carbon dioxide across a range of activities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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):
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):
Answer: it’s an aerosol. And this distinction matters.
Let’s discuss 🧵
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!).
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.
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
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.
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
Here’s a link to the article (free to access on Yahoo).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?