Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-jkvpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T10:17:54.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of relative humidity on hydrogen peroxide production in water droplets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Maria T. Dulay
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Carlos Alberto Huerta-Aguilar
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Christian F. Chamberlayne
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Richard N. Zare*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Adriaan Davidse
Affiliation:
PO Box 93167 Headon PO Burlington, ON L7M 4A3, Canada
Sinisa Vukovic
Affiliation:
MineRP, 333 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5H 2T6, Canada
*
*Author for correspondence: Richard N. Zare, E-mail: zare@stanford.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A plot of H2O2 concentration as a function of %RH in the laboratory during the generation of mist using Biograde water. Each point represents a single measurement.

Mist is generated by ultrasonic cavitation of water (Fisher Biograde, pH 5.5–6.5) at room temperature (20–25 °C) in open air with nearly constant temperature (22–25 °C) but varying relative humidity (RH; 24–52%) over the course of many months. Water droplets in the mist are initially about 7 μm in diameter at about 50% RH. They are collected, and the concentration of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is measured using commercial peroxide test strips and by bromothymol blue oxidation. The quantification method is based on the Fenton chemistry of dye degradation to determine the oxidation capacity of water samples that have been treated by ultrasonication. It is found that the hydrogen peroxide concentration varies nearly linearly with RH over the range studied, reaching a low of 2 parts per million (ppm) at 24% RH and a high of 6 ppm at 52% RH. Some possible public health implications concerning the transmission of respiratory viral infections are suggested for this threefold change in H2O2 concentration with RH.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Scheme 1. Setup for droplet size measurements. The photo shows the laser light scattering off the droplets in the mist as they travelled through the tube while being suctioned under vacuum.

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Plot of droplet distribution density as a function of droplet diameter in mist generated by a mist maker immersed in approximately 300 ml Biograde water. Each plot represents 1 s of data acquisition: trial 1 (blue circles) with mist maker on for 2 min prior to measurement; trial 2 (orange circles) with mist maker on for 4 min prior to measurement; and trial 3 (grey circles) with mist maker on for 2 min prior to measurement. Trials 1 and 3 were acquired under identical conditions to test reproducibility.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. (a) Plot of time versus 1/[BTB] for 0–8 ppm H2O2. (b) Calibration curve created by plotting the rate constant k. as a function of [H2O2].

Figure 3

Fig. 3. A plot of H2O2 concentration as a function of %RH in the laboratory during the generation of mist using Biograde water. Each point represents a single measurement.

Review: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R0/PR1

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The manuscript expands on the earlier QRB report by Dulay, Zare, and co-workers on the antimicrobial effect of spontaneously generated H2O2 in microdroplets.Here, the authors demonstrate that the H2O2 concentration in fluid from condensed droplets scales roughly linearly with room relative humidity (RH_room) and interpret this observation as a potential (perhaps plausible) explanation for the seasonality of respiratory diseases.Indeed, virus viability lifetime in aerosolized droplets is known to depend on RH_room and solution chemistry is likely to play a role in this viral inactivation.The alternate explanationthat RH_room-dependent osmotic bursting (Marr) applies is likely also true, but would lead to a very rapid inactivation during the first few seconds that a virus-droplet reaches its pseudo-equilibrium size after becoming airborne, but not to the slow decay in virus viability that has been documented for much longer time scales.Hence, H2O2-mediated inactivation which only will take place if the aerosolized droplet doesn't fully desiccate plausibly plays a plausible role in this process.

The authors correctly point out that the effective humidity in the droplet cloud differs from RH_room but argue that there is a relation between the two, which is undoubtedly true.The authors also argue that differential evaporation of the droplet would increase at lower RH_room (because the vapor pressure of H2O2 is far lower than that of H2O), opposite to what is observed, and that therefore the H2O2 generation must occur at equilibrium, in a size-dependent manner, within the microdroplets, and that the levels generated can be extremely high (in the absence of light!).

The authors (correctly) point out that the details of the physics of H2O2 generation at the surface of the microdroplets are not fully understood, but that the observed correlation is compelling and has a plausible link to the seasonality of respiratory diseases.Although I feel excited about this potentially exciting link between fundamental science and the current COVID-19 pandemic, I have some hesitations on whether alternate explanations of the observations can be fully excluded:

1.A primary concern with the current observations is that RH_room (24-52%) and RH_mist (>99%) are very different. All droplet chemistry is taking place in the mist cloud, whereas conclusions relate to RH_room (where an isolated droplet would fully evaporate in a small fraction of a second).

2.The measurements were carried out over a period of many months and one wonders whether variables other than RH_room could have impacted the measurements.This reviewer would be less concerned if the data had been collected in a well-defined environment (e.g. glove box) while varying RH (in a randomized sequence) and keeping room temperature constant, while keeping track of the total amount of collected condensate per unit of time.

3.Can we fully exclude that differential evaporation of the condensed fluid became more efficient during later measurements, leading to artificial H2O2 enrichment not related to the droplet concentration (https://rasirc.com/resources/whitepapers/article-Cheating-Raoults-Law.pdf)?

4.The equilibrium H2O2 concentrations measured for the mist condensate are far higher than what is observed in atmospheric clouds in the absence of sunlight and it is not clear why this would be the case.

Review: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: This manuscript describes the observation of increasing hydrogen peroxide concentrations as a function of relative humidity (RH) in microdroplets produced by ultrasonication. The authors surmise that this phenomenon may contribute to increased decay of microorganisms in droplets in a certain range of RH. The writing is very clear.

1. This is an interesting observation, although the data beg for additional points at higher RHs, which could readily be achieved by running the experiment in something like a Sigma Atmosbag with a humidifier inside it. Additional data points could support the purported relationship between RH and microorganism viability and could support arguments about size–dependence.

2. This seems like a simple experiment, but there could be a lot going on, as acknowledged in the discussion on p. 7 about the “Goldilocks effect.” Partitioning to the gas phase, the Kelvin effect, and differences in pH within droplets and between those of different sizes might also be considered. Additionally, do we know that the H2O2 concentration measured in mist collected in bulk equals that in the individual droplets?

3. p. 5: “The size of water droplets in the ultrasonically generated mist was characterized by light scattering…” Is the size distribution constant over the range of RH considered here? This is critical for trying to understand the RH effect on H2O2. The discussion of the Goldilocks effect seems to assume that the droplets are smaller at lower RH. We need to know how much smaller they are in this experiment.

4. p. 6: “It is possible that the higher hydrogen peroxide concentration reported in this study arises in part from ultrasonic cavitation…” This seems very likely. The claim “this should only enhance the background” suggests that the background is higher than anything added by ultrasonication. How do you know? I agree that this does not explain the variation with RH.

Recommendation: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R0/PR3

Comments

Comments to Author: Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes the observation of increasing hydrogen peroxide concentrations as a function of relative humidity (RH) in microdroplets produced by ultrasonication. The authors surmise that this phenomenon may contribute to increased decay of microorganisms in droplets in a certain range of RH. The writing is very clear.

1. This is an interesting observation, although the data beg for additional points at higher RHs, which could readily be achieved by running the experiment in something like a Sigma Atmosbag with a humidifier inside it. Additional data points could support the purported relationship between RH and microorganism viability and could support arguments about size–dependence.

2. This seems like a simple experiment, but there could be a lot going on, as acknowledged in the discussion on p. 7 about the “Goldilocks effect.” Partitioning to the gas phase, the Kelvin effect, and differences in pH within droplets and between those of different sizes might also be considered. Additionally, do we know that the H2O2 concentration measured in mist collected in bulk equals that in the individual droplets?

3. p. 5: “The size of water droplets in the ultrasonically generated mist was characterized by light scattering…” Is the size distribution constant over the range of RH considered here? This is critical for trying to understand the RH effect on H2O2. The discussion of the Goldilocks effect seems to assume that the droplets are smaller at lower RH. We need to know how much smaller they are in this experiment.

4. p. 6: “It is possible that the higher hydrogen peroxide concentration reported in this study arises in part from ultrasonic cavitation…” This seems very likely. The claim “this should only enhance the background” suggests that the background is higher than anything added by ultrasonication. How do you know? I agree that this does not explain the variation with RH.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript expands on the earlier QRB report by Dulay, Zare, and co-workers on the antimicrobial effect of spontaneously generated H2O2 in microdroplets.Here, the authors demonstrate that the H2O2 concentration in fluid from condensed droplets scales roughly linearly with room relative humidity (RH_room) and interpret this observation as a potential (perhaps plausible) explanation for the seasonality of respiratory diseases.Indeed, virus viability lifetime in aerosolized droplets is known to depend on RH_room and solution chemistry is likely to play a role in this viral inactivation.The alternate explanationthat RH_room-dependent osmotic bursting (Marr) applies is likely also true, but would lead to a very rapid inactivation during the first few seconds that a virus-droplet reaches its pseudo-equilibrium size after becoming airborne, but not to the slow decay in virus viability that has been documented for much longer time scales.Hence, H2O2-mediated inactivation which only will take place if the aerosolized droplet doesn't fully desiccate plausibly plays a plausible role in this process.

The authors correctly point out that the effective humidity in the droplet cloud differs from RH_room but argue that there is a relation between the two, which is undoubtedly true.The authors also argue that differential evaporation of the droplet would increase at lower RH_room (because the vapor pressure of H2O2 is far lower than that of H2O), opposite to what is observed, and that therefore the H2O2 generation must occur at equilibrium, in a size-dependent manner, within the microdroplets, and that the levels generated can be extremely high (in the absence of light!).

The authors (correctly) point out that the details of the physics of H2O2 generation at the surface of the microdroplets are not fully understood, but that the observed correlation is compelling and has a plausible link to the seasonality of respiratory diseases.Although I feel excited about this potentially exciting link between fundamental science and the current COVID-19 pandemic, I have some hesitations on whether alternate explanations of the observations can be fully excluded:

1.A primary concern with the current observations is that RH_room (24-52%) and RH_mist (>99%) are very different. All droplet chemistry is taking place in the mist cloud, whereas conclusions relate to RH_room (where an isolated droplet would fully evaporate in a small fraction of a second).

2.The measurements were carried out over a period of many months and one wonders whether variables other than RH_room could have impacted the measurements.This reviewer would be less concerned if the data had been collected in a well-defined environment (e.g. glove box) while varying RH (in a randomized sequence) and keeping room temperature constant, while keeping track of the total amount of collected condensate per unit of time.

3.Can we fully exclude that differential evaporation of the condensed fluid became more efficient during later measurements, leading to artificial H2O2 enrichment not related to the droplet concentration (https://rasirc.com/resources/whitepapers/article-Cheating-Raoults-Law.pdf)?

4.The equilibrium H2O2 concentrations measured for the mist condensate are far higher than what is observed in atmospheric clouds in the absence of sunlight and it is not clear why this would be the case.

Review: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R1/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The revised manuscript largely addresses my prior concerns and the authors correctly point out the caveats and open questions that remain to be addressed in future work.It is beyond doubt that the manuscript describes new and very interesting findings regarding conditions that impact H2O2 concentrations in microdroplets, which could have important consequences for virus viability in airborne respiratory droplets.Whether to go ahead with publishing the current work before carrying out the possibly pain-staking measurements in a more controlled environment (I don't expect much of a change in the results) is an editorial decision.I'm sure the readership of QRD will find the work of high interest, although I'm also sure the opinions on it will span the entire spectrum.

A few trivial points:

1. P.5 "maximum droplet diameter is 6.71 um".I presume the authors mean to say that the size distribution fits a lognormal function that peaks at 6.71 um?

2. The statement "production of hydrogen peroxide in droplets formed by spraying water (Lee et al., 2019)" strictly speaking is not really experimentally demonstrated by Lee et al.That study demonstrates that H2O2 is generated when water condenses and forms microdroplets, a non-equilibrium process.

3. The statement "The %RH in the mist is not expected to be the same as the %RH in the surrounding air" is strictly speaking correct but suggests that the difference may be minor.If the mist is near equilibrium, it most certainly must be above 99%.So perhaps it would be more appropriate to write something like "The %RH in the mist is expected to be much higher than the %RH in the surrounding air, but its rate of evaporation, and thereby its deviation from being saturated, must depend on %RH of the surrounding air"?

Review: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R1/PR5

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily. The new paragraph at the beginning of the Results and Discussion is helpful for interpreting the study. The expanded discussion of the dynamics of microdroplets in the system aids interpretation of the results.

Recommendation: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R1/PR6

Comments

Comments to Author: Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments satisfactorily. The new paragraph at the beginning of the Results and Discussion is helpful for interpreting the study. The expanded discussion of the dynamics of microdroplets in the system aids interpretation of the results.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript largely addresses my prior concerns and the authors correctly point out the caveats and open questions that remain to be addressed in future work.It is beyond doubt that the manuscript describes new and very interesting findings regarding conditions that impact H2O2 concentrations in microdroplets, which could have important consequences for virus viability in airborne respiratory droplets.Whether to go ahead with publishing the current work before carrying out the possibly pain-staking measurements in a more controlled environment (I don't expect much of a change in the results) is an editorial decision.I'm sure the readership of QRD will find the work of high interest, although I'm also sure the opinions on it will span the entire spectrum.

A few trivial points:

1. P.5 "maximum droplet diameter is 6.71 um".I presume the authors mean to say that the size distribution fits a lognormal function that peaks at 6.71 um?

2. The statement "production of hydrogen peroxide in droplets formed by spraying water (Lee et al., 2019)" strictly speaking is not really experimentally demonstrated by Lee et al.That study demonstrates that H2O2 is generated when water condenses and forms microdroplets, a non-equilibrium process.

3. The statement "The %RH in the mist is not expected to be the same as the %RH in the surrounding air" is strictly speaking correct but suggests that the difference may be minor.If the mist is near equilibrium, it most certainly must be above 99%.So perhaps it would be more appropriate to write something like "The %RH in the mist is expected to be much higher than the %RH in the surrounding air, but its rate of evaporation, and thereby its deviation from being saturated, must depend on %RH of the surrounding air"?

Recommendation: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R2/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Effect of Relative Humidity on Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Water Droplets — R3/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.