Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40623698›Full record

GuidelineRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025

Managing infectious aerosols to counter engineered pandemics: Current recommendations and future research.

Adam Lerner, Gediminas Mainelis, William Hallman, Howard Kipen, Monica Magalhaes, Brian Buckley, José Guillermo Cedeño Laurent, Nir Eyal

Abstract readGuideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Managing infectious aerosols to counter engineered pandemics: Current recommendations and future research.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Guideline
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Adam LernerInstitute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6699-7785
Gediminas MainelisDepartment of Environmental Sciences, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5837-0413
William HallmanDepartment of Human Ecology, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4524-9876
Howard KipenEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6608-3126
Monica MagalhaesFundação José Luiz Egydio Setúbal, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5527-8622
Brian BuckleyEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7336-4321
José Guillermo Cedeño LaurentEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7098-0954
Nir EyalInstitute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1056-6609

Funding

Translational Research Support CoreP30ES005022 · NIEHS · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI HELMUT ZARBL · 1988 to 2026
$47.4M
Longview Philanthropy 2039320National Institutes of Health P30 ES05022NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES005022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the increasingly likely event of an engineered-virus outbreak or pandemic of catastrophic potential, managing infectious aerosols to reduce transmission will be crucial. Now is the time to start preparing our buildings, public opinion, and regulatory environments for the infectious aerosol management interventions necessary to protect the public. But which interventions should governments and institutions invest in the most? We review the leading candidate methods for infectious aerosol management and discuss their respective advantages, disadvantages, and suitable settings. There is strong emerging evidence that two recently explored technologies, direct exposure to far-ultraviolet-C (UVC) light and triethylene glycol, are particularly efficacious and safe, but there remain open questions about the long-term safety and efficacy of these interventions. In the meantime, we recommend other interventions-especially upper-room UVC and in-room air cleaners-for settings where most occupants regularly spend more than a small fraction of their day. We conclude by listing research questions about these interventions that still need to be researched in social science, product development, medicine, engineering, economics, and ethics.

Indexed as

PandemicsAerosolsCOVID-19HumansSARS-CoV-2Ultraviolet RaysAerosolsairborne disease transmissionethicshealth communicationindoor air qualitySARS‐CoV‐2ventilation

Identifiers

PMID40623698
PMCPMC12516682

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.