Given the unusually high number of swimmers catching Covid in the Olympics, many have hypothesized as to why. I’ve seen a few people point to some work we published on how environmental factors affect SARS-CoV-2’s aerostability.
When respiratory aerosol is exhaled, the dissolved CO2 in the fluid (in the form of HCO3) leaves the aerosol over the course of a couple of minutes. When the CO2 leaves, the pH of the aerosol reaches >10.3.
The high pH drives viral decay.
We have reported that anything that can limit this increase in aerosol pH, such as nitric acid or CO2, slows the airborne viral decay rate. This, in turn, will increase the risk of transmission.
The net effect is more impactful over longer time periods. Elevating the CO2 from 500 to 3000 ppm leads to a 10-fold increase in the airborne viral load over 40 minutes. Likewise, increasing nitric acid from 0 to ~50 ppb leads to 2-fold increase.
The decay rate of the virus in the aerosol slows over time (left). The reason for this is that the trace acidic vapor in the air (normal air pollution) will slowly neutralize the aerosol. As this happens, the aerosol becomes more and more hospitable for the virus (right).
Okay, so what does this have to do with a swimming pool? Well, the swimming pools are disinfected with chlorine. Chlorine vapourwill react with the water in the respiratory aerosol to form acid. This will reduce the aerosol pH.
This suggests that the chlorine in the air around the pool will lead to the virus remaining infectious in the air longer, leading to higher transmission risk.
Theory 1: The chlorine above the pool neutralizes the aerosol, leading to the virus remaining infectious in the air longer.
Theory 2: The concentration of chlorine above the pool is so high that the pH in the aerosol actually becomesacidic, and the acidity inactivates the virus.
Which theory is correct? 1 or 2?
Unfortunately, currently, we simply don’t know. The measurements have yet to be made. I could speculate, but that wouldn’t be all that helpful (if not harmful).
A link to the study where we first explore the interplay between air acidity and aerostabilityis here:
It’s also important to note that there are numerous factors that ALL play a role in airborne viral transmission. What is happening in the Olympic pool could be due a factor other than aerostability, or even a combination of multiple factors. We need to make measurements to know.
Since there were people discussing this, I thought it would be helpful for people to have a better understanding of the underlying processes that are in play.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them.
I suppose? Humidity is known to affect mucosal immunity, perhaps this is something similar(?).
Maybe someone more familiar with this end of things can add some insights… 🙏
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A preprint came out that measured how acidic vapour affects influenza aerostability.
How the pH of exhaled aerosol evolves over time will dictate both how long microbes remain viable in the air, but also how effective different mitigation strategies will work.
Context: Our team has studied how long numerous microbes remain viable in the air. In these studies, we found that the alkalinity of exhaled aerosol drove the decay of SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, elevated levels of CO2 results in SC2 remaining viable in the air for a longer period.
An article came out recently that looked at the effect of CO2 on influenza decay in sessile saliva droplets.
The study confirms what we have been saying since 2022: respiratory fluids become highly alkaline when they leave the body, and this in turn affects microbe viability
Given that this is a research area where our team has made a lot of waves, I thought I should share my thoughts.
Context: Prior to 2020, the assumption in the literature around respiratory aerosol pH was that was acidic. There were a few reasons for this, but it largely came down to the fact that almost all environmental aerosol is acidic, so it was assumed respiratory would be the same
I got this question over on BlueSky that I thought some might find interesting.
In short, why does the CO2 levels in a hockey arena trend upwards even though it has an upgraded HVAC?
When HVAC systems are installed, certain assumptions are made, largely because they need to be. One is that the air within the space is evenly mixed.
The problem is that it rarely is.
In a perfectly designed space, for every litre of fresh air brought into a space, 1 litre of air would be removed. For this to occur, a room would have be essentially a pipe.
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.