TY - JOUR
AU - Corzo-Leon, Dora E.
AU - Abbood, Hadeel Mohammed
AU - Colamarino, Rosa Angela
AU - Steiner, Markus
AU - Munro, Carol A.
AU - Gould, Ian
AU - Hijazi, Karolin
PY - 2024
DA - January
TI - Methods for SARS-CoV-2 hospital disinfection, in vitro observations
JO - Infection Prevention in Practice
VL - 6
IS - 1
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2024.100339
AB - 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.
PB - Elsevier
UR - https://hdl.handle.net/2164/22719
KW - Coronavirus (COVID-19)
KW - Hospital care
ER