Context: When considering airborne transmission of a respiratory virus, numerous factors are involved.
They ALL matter.
Moreover, they are all independent. Meaning, a certain parameter may affect each factor differently.
Since the dawn of the field (1950s/60s), the airborne survival of viruses has been measured as a function of relative humidity (RH) and temperature. There are numerous reasons for this, such as to understand viral transmission and to inform about why the virus decays.
Another reason there was a focus on temperature and humidity was that people can both feel, as well as control, them. By understanding transmission via these parameters, it becomes readily possible to mitigate spread.
For SARS-CoV-2, numerous epidemiological studies have shown that transmission INCREASES at HIGH humidity.
So, what is going on here? Both of thesethings can not be true.
More curious is the specificity of the claims. For example, there has been reported both a strong increase and decrease below an RH of ~70%.
To understand what is happening, consider the following figure. Of the numerous processes involved in airborne transmission of a virus, RH affects a significant fraction. Moreover, the effect is often contradictory.
Consider just what is happening within the aerosol.
At high humidity:
-SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious longer
-the aerosol itself is larger
-the larger size causes it to settle out of the air faster
These processes are contradictory
Consider the effect of RH on behavior. It the room gets too humid (or even too dry), people will proactively change their environment. For example, they may open a window leading to improved ventilation which in turn lowers the risk.
The body’s first line of defense to stop a respiratory infection is the layer of mucus and cilia on the surface of the bronchus epithelia. In dry air, the efficiency of this defense mechanism is lowered.
Mechanistically, there are reasons that high humidity both increases, and decreases, SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Likewise for low humidity.
As a result, it is unsurprising that both positive and negative correlations have been reported.
In short, the effect of humidity on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a mess.
If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
I should also add that each of these general factors can be massively expanded. For example, "Immunity" encompasses all of the myriad of different virus/cell interactions.
@serehfas For example, people will turn on the AC in hot/humid conditions. Some AC units ventilate, others just push the, now cooler, air around more. Same action, wildly different changes in long distance transmission risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.