Rethinking Air Sanitizer Testing: Harnessing the Building's Natural Microbiome for Accurate Pathogen Reduction Assessment -

Air sanitizers are increasingly vital in maintaining healthy indoor environments, particularly as concerns about airborne pathogens and allergens grow. However, real-world testing of these products often involves complex methodologies that may lead to misleading or inconclusive results. A common practice in testing involves using surrogate organisms to simulate pathogen behavior, but this approach, while controlled, raises questions about its real-world applicability. Instead, leveraging a building’s natural microbiome for testing could provide a more reliable and intuitive measure of pathogen reduction

the challenge of surrogate testing for air sanitizers

Surrogates are stand-ins for actual pathogens, chosen for their similarity in characteristics such as size, structure, or susceptibility to sanitizing methods. While useful in standardized laboratory tests, surrogate-based studies often struggle to replicate real-world conditions.

For instance:

- Time Adjustments: Many tests require extrapolation of short-term data to predict long-term effects, introducing potential inaccuracies.

- Controlled Environments: Laboratory conditions often fail to mimic the complexity of real-world airflows, temperature changes, and human activity in buildings.

- Questionable Relevance: Surrogates may not behave identically to actual pathogens under real-world conditions, leading to results that over- or underestimate efficacy

The case for using a building's natural microbiome

A building's microbiome—the community of microorganisms naturally present in its environment—offers a more representative testing framework. Here's why this approach could be a game-changer:

1. Realistic Pathogen Interactions:

Testing air sanitizers against the natural microbial population of a building captures a more authentic picture of their effectiveness. These microorganisms include bacteria, fungi, and viruses that are commonly encountered, making the results immediately relevant.

2. No Need for Surrogates:

By analyzing how the existing microbiome changes after applying an air sanitizer, there’s no need to
introduce surrogate pathogens. This eliminates a layer of uncertainty in interpreting results.

3. Time-Integrated Results:

Monitoring the microbiome over time provides dynamic insights into how effectively an air sanitizer performs in reducing or neutralizing harmful organisms in real-world conditions.

4. Easier Public Understanding:

Results derived from a natural microbiome are inherently relatable. Communicating reductions in familiar terms, such as the prevalence of mold spores or specific bacterial strains, can resonate more with end users.

Implementing Microbiome-Based Testing

Transitioning to microbiome-based testing:

· Baseline
Microbiome Mapping: Before testing, researchers must establish a baseline profile of a building's microbiome using tools like air sampling and genetic sequencing.

· Intervention
Monitoring: Air sanitizers can be applied, and subsequent changes to the microbiome can be monitored over days or weeks, offering insights into both immediate and long-term effects.

· Data Analysis:
Advanced bioinformatics can help quantify changes in microbial diversity, abundance, and the presence of potential pathogens.

conclusion:

By utilizing a building's natural microbiome, air sanitizer testing can move closer to real-world relevance. This approach not only addresses the limitations of surrogate-based testing but also provides results that are easier to interpret and more meaningful for building owners, managers, and he occupants. As indoor air quality becomes a growing public health priority, adopting innovative testing methodologies will ensure we can trust the products designed to protect the built environment.