Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42293518›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2026

Glycol vapor pathogen disinfection: a defensive technology for emerging biothreats.

Sarah Siddiqui, Jaspreet Pannu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sarah SiddiquiCenter for Health Security, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Jaspreet PannuCenter for Health Security, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Airborne transmission of respiratory pathogens has substantial societal and economic burdens during seasonal epidemics and pandemics. Therefore, there is a need for built environment interventions that prevent pathogen spread indoors. Glycol vapors were historically investigated as air disinfectants and have recently regained attention. Yet their mechanism of action, effectiveness across different environments, and safety remains incompletely defined. Here we describe historical and modern evidence on glycol vapor-mediated pathogen inactivation in the air. Experimental studies have shown rapid reductions in airborne microbial viability under controlled conditions. The data suggest that antimicrobial activity arises from humidity-dependent partitioning of glycol vapors into respiratory droplets, altering droplet chemistry and destabilizing pathogen structures. Indoor environment parameters including humidity, temperature, ventilation, and droplet lifetime were found to strongly influence efficacy. Translating findings from chamber studies into real-world indoor occupied spaces remains challenging. Here, we discuss how sensor-informed modeling and machine-learning approaches could support control of glycol vapor systems by integrating environmental measurements. Existing occupational exposure data from glycol-based theatrical fogs provides useful safety information, however further dedicated exposure studies are still needed. Overall, glycol vapors represent a plausible non-pharmaceutical airborne infection control strategy whose value depends on defining environmental operating conditions and safety limits for continuous deployment.

Indexed as

aerosolized anti-microbialsair-borne transmissionenvironmental inactivationnon-pharmaceutical interventionspandemic preparedness

Identifiers

PMID42293518
PMCPMC13261506

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.