@article{Corzo-Leon_D-2024_167272,
title = {Methods for SARS-CoV-2 hospital disinfection, in vitro observations},
author = {Corzo-Leon, D. and Abbood, H. and Colamarino, R. and Steiner, M. and Munro, C. and Gould, I. and Hijazi, K.},
month = {jan},
year = {2024},
abstract = {IntroductionEscalation 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.AimCompare 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 culturedin vitro.MethodsInactivation 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.ResultsViral inactivation by &gt;3 log was achieved with ethanol, NaDCC and chlorhexidine. The minor virucidal effect of ozonated water was &lt;1 log.Virustreatment 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.ConclusionThe 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.},
volume = {6},
issue = {1},
journal = {Infection Prevention in Practice},
publisher = {Elsevier},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100339},
}
