SARS-CoV-2 医院消毒方法,体外观察

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Dora E. Corzo-Leon , Hadeel Mohammed Abbood , Rosa A. Colamarino , Markus F.C. Steiner , Carol Munro , Ian M. Gould , Karolin Hijazi
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2 医院消毒方法,体外观察","authors":"Dora E. Corzo-Leon ,&nbsp;Hadeel Mohammed Abbood ,&nbsp;Rosa A. Colamarino ,&nbsp;Markus F.C. Steiner ,&nbsp;Carol Munro ,&nbsp;Ian M. Gould ,&nbsp;Karolin Hijazi","doi":"10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Escalation of chemical disinfection during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised occupational hazard concerns. Alternative and potentially safer methods such as ultraviolet-C (UVC) irradiation and ozone have been proposed, notwithstanding the lack of standardized criteria for their use in the healthcare environment.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>Compare the virucidal activity of 70% ethanol, sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), chlorhexidine, ozonated water, UVC-222 nm, UVC-254 nm against three SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern cultured <em>in vitro</em>.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Inactivation of three SARS-CoV-2 variants (alpha, beta, gamma) by the following chemical methods was tested: ethanol 70%, NaDCC (100 ppm, 500 ppm, 1000 ppm), chlorhexidine (2%, 1% and 0.5%), ozonated water 7 ppm. For irradiation, a je2Care 222nm UVC Lamp was compared to a Sylvania G15 UV254 nm lamp.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Viral inactivation by &gt;3 log was achieved with ethanol, NaDCC and chlorhexidine. The minor virucidal effect of ozonated water was &lt;1 log. Virus treatment with UVC-254 nm reduced viral activity by 1–5 logs with higher inactivation after exposure for 3 minutes compared to 6 seconds. For all three variants, under equivalent conditions, exposure to UVC-222 nm did not achieve time-dependent inactivation as was observed with treatment with UVC-254 nm.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The virucidal activity on replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 by conventional chemical methods, including chlorhexidine at concentrations as low as 0.5%, was not matched by UVC irradiation, and to an even lesser extent by ozonated water treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33492,"journal":{"name":"Infection Prevention in Practice","volume":"6 1","pages":"Article 100339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000039/pdfft?md5=1ea058ce00977f63f2f5aa090475c0c5&pid=1-s2.0-S2590088924000039-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for SARS-CoV-2 hospital disinfection, in vitro observations\",\"authors\":\"Dora E. Corzo-Leon ,&nbsp;Hadeel Mohammed Abbood ,&nbsp;Rosa A. Colamarino ,&nbsp;Markus F.C. Steiner ,&nbsp;Carol Munro ,&nbsp;Ian M. Gould ,&nbsp;Karolin Hijazi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Escalation of chemical disinfection during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised occupational hazard concerns. Alternative and potentially safer methods such as ultraviolet-C (UVC) irradiation and ozone have been proposed, notwithstanding the lack of standardized criteria for their use in the healthcare environment.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>Compare the virucidal activity of 70% ethanol, sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), chlorhexidine, ozonated water, UVC-222 nm, UVC-254 nm against three SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern cultured <em>in vitro</em>.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Inactivation of three SARS-CoV-2 variants (alpha, beta, gamma) by the following chemical methods was tested: ethanol 70%, NaDCC (100 ppm, 500 ppm, 1000 ppm), chlorhexidine (2%, 1% and 0.5%), ozonated water 7 ppm. For irradiation, a je2Care 222nm UVC Lamp was compared to a Sylvania G15 UV254 nm lamp.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Viral inactivation by &gt;3 log was achieved with ethanol, NaDCC and chlorhexidine. The minor virucidal effect of ozonated water was &lt;1 log. Virus treatment with UVC-254 nm reduced viral activity by 1–5 logs with higher inactivation after exposure for 3 minutes compared to 6 seconds. For all three variants, under equivalent conditions, exposure to UVC-222 nm did not achieve time-dependent inactivation as was observed with treatment with UVC-254 nm.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The virucidal activity on replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 by conventional chemical methods, including chlorhexidine at concentrations as low as 0.5%, was not matched by UVC irradiation, and to an even lesser extent by ozonated water treatment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Prevention in Practice\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000039/pdfft?md5=1ea058ce00977f63f2f5aa090475c0c5&pid=1-s2.0-S2590088924000039-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Prevention in Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Prevention in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590088924000039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言在 COVID-19 大流行期间,化学消毒的减少引起了人们对职业危害的担忧。目的比较 70% 乙醇、二氯异氰尿酸钠 (NaDCC)、洗必泰、臭氧水、UVC-222 纳米和 UVC-254 纳米对体外培养的三种 SARS-CoV-2 变异株的杀病毒活性。方法测试了以下化学方法对三种 SARS-CoV-2 变体(α、β、γ)的灭活作用:70% 乙醇、NaDCC(100 ppm、500 ppm、1000 ppm)、洗必泰(2%、1% 和 0.5%)、臭氧水 7 ppm。在照射方面,将 je2Care 222nm 紫外线灯与 Sylvania G15 UV254nm 灯进行了比较。臭氧水的杀毒效果为 1 log。用波长为 254 纳米的紫外线处理病毒可使病毒活性降低 1-5 个对数,与 6 秒钟相比,暴露 3 分钟后的灭活率更高。对于所有三种变体,在同等条件下,紫外线-222 纳米照射不能达到与紫外线-254 纳米处理相同的随时间变化的灭活效果。结论:传统化学方法(包括浓度低至 0.5%的洗必泰)对复制能力强的 SARS-CoV-2 的杀病毒活性无法与紫外线照射相媲美,臭氧水处理的效果甚至更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods for SARS-CoV-2 hospital disinfection, in vitro observations

Introduction

Escalation of chemical disinfection during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised occupational hazard concerns. Alternative and potentially safer methods such as ultraviolet-C (UVC) irradiation and ozone have been proposed, notwithstanding the lack of standardized criteria for their use in the healthcare environment.

Aim

Compare the virucidal activity of 70% ethanol, sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), chlorhexidine, ozonated water, UVC-222 nm, UVC-254 nm against three SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern cultured in vitro.

Methods

Inactivation of three SARS-CoV-2 variants (alpha, beta, gamma) by the following chemical methods was tested: ethanol 70%, NaDCC (100 ppm, 500 ppm, 1000 ppm), chlorhexidine (2%, 1% and 0.5%), ozonated water 7 ppm. For irradiation, a je2Care 222nm UVC Lamp was compared to a Sylvania G15 UV254 nm lamp.

Results

Viral inactivation by >3 log was achieved with ethanol, NaDCC and chlorhexidine. The minor virucidal effect of ozonated water was <1 log. Virus treatment with UVC-254 nm reduced viral activity by 1–5 logs with higher inactivation after exposure for 3 minutes compared to 6 seconds. For all three variants, under equivalent conditions, exposure to UVC-222 nm did not achieve time-dependent inactivation as was observed with treatment with UVC-254 nm.

Conclusion

The virucidal activity on replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 by conventional chemical methods, including chlorhexidine at concentrations as low as 0.5%, was not matched by UVC irradiation, and to an even lesser extent by ozonated water treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infection Prevention in Practice
Infection Prevention in Practice Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信