Decontamination of SARS-CoV-2 contaminated N95 filtering facepiece respirators using artificial sun lamps

Evaluation of steam heat as a decontamination approach for SARS-CoV-2 when applied to common transit-related materials

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of steam heat for inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 when applied to materials common in mass transit installations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SARS CoV-2 (USA-WA1/2020) was resuspended in either cell culture media or synthetic saliva, inoculated (∼1 × 106 TCID50) onto porous and nonporous materials and subjected to steam inactivation efficacy tests as either wet or dried droplets. The inoculated test materials were exposed to steam heat ranging from 70°C to 90°C. The amount of infectious SARS-CoV-2 remaining after various exposure durations ranging from 1 to 60 s was assessed. Higher steam heat application resulted in higher inactivation rates at short contact times. Steam applied at 1-inch distance (∼90°C at the surface) resulted in complete inactivation for dry inoculum within 2 s of exposure (excluding two outliers of 19 test samples at the 5-s duration) and within 2-30 s of exposure for wet droplets. Increasing the distance to 2 inches (∼70°C) also increased the exposure time required to achieve complete inactivation to 15 or 30 s for materials inoculated with saliva or cell culture media, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Steam heat can provide high levels of decontamination (>3 log reduction) for transit-related materials contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 using a commercially available steam generator with a manageable exposure time of 2-5 s.

Efficacy of chemical disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 on high-touch surface materials

AIMS

This study aimed to provide operationally relevant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surface disinfection efficacy information.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three EPA-registered disinfectants (Vital Oxide, Peroxide, and Clorox Total 360) and one antimicrobial formulation (CDC bleach) were evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 on material coupons and were tested using Spray (no touch with contact time) and Spray & Wipe (wipe immediately post-application) methods immediately and 2 h post-contamination. Efficacy was evaluated for infectious virus, with a subset tested for viral RNA (vRNA) recovery. Efficacy varied by method, disinfectant, and material. CDC bleach solution showed low efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (log reduction < 1.7), unless applied via Spray & Wipe. Additionally, mechanical wiping increased the efficacy of treatments against SARS-CoV-2. The recovery of vRNA post-disinfection suggested that vRNA may overestimate infectious virus remaining.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy depends on surface material, chemical, and disinfection procedure, and suggests that mechanical wiping alone has some efficacy at removing SARS-CoV-2 from surfaces. We observed that disinfectant treatment biased the recovery of vRNA over infectious virus.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY

These data are useful for developing effective, real-world disinfection procedures, and inform public health experts on the utility of PCR-based surveillance approaches.

Evaluation of environmental conditions as a decontamination approach for SARS‐CoV ‐2 when applied to common library, archive, and museum related materials

Aims

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ambient or altered environmental conditions on the inactivation of SARS‐CoV‐2 applied to materials common in libraries, archives and museums.

Methods and Results

Porous and non‐porous materials (e.g. paper, plastic protective book cover) were inoculated with approximately 1 × 10⁵ TCID₅₀ SARS CoV‐2 (USA‐WA1/2020), dried, placed within test chamber in either a stacked or unstacked configuration, and exposed to environmental conditions ranging from 4 to 29°C at 40 ± 10% relative humidity. The amount of infectious SARS‐CoV‐2 was then assessed at various timepoints from 0 to 10 days. Ambient conditions resulted in varying inactivation rates per material type. Virus inactivation rate decreased when materials were stacked or at colder temperatures. Virus inactivation rate increased when materials were unstacked or at warmer temperatures.

Conclusions

SARS‐CoV‐2 at ambient conditions resulted in the inactivation of virus below limit of quantitation (LOQ) for all materials by Day 8. Warmer temperatures, for a subset of materials, increased SARS‐CoV‐2 inactivation, and all were <LOQ by Day 3.

Significance and Impact of the Study

These results provide information for the library, archives and museum community regarding the inactivation of SARS‐CoV‐2, showing that inactivation is possible using prescribed environmental conditions and is a potential method of decontamination for items not compatible with common liquid disinfectants.

Disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The virus is transmitted by inhalation of infectious particles suspended in the air, direct deposition on mucous membranes and indirect contact via contaminated surfaces. Disinfection methods that can halt such transmission are important in this pandemic and in future viral infections.

Aim

To highlight the efficacy of several disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2 based on up-to-date evidence found in the literature.

Methods

Two databases were searched to identify studies that assessed disinfection methods used against SARS-CoV-2. In total, 1229 studies were identified and 60 of these were included in this review. Quality assessment was evaluated by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation's risk-of-bias tool.

Findings

Twenty-eight studies investigated disinfection methods on environmental surfaces, 16 studies investigated disinfection methods on biological surfaces, four studies investigated disinfection methods for airborne coronavirus, and 16 studies investigated methods used to recondition personal protective equipment (PPE).

Conclusions

Several household and hospital disinfection agents and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation were effective for inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on environmental surfaces. Formulations containing povidone-iodine can provide virucidal action on the skin and mucous membranes. In the case of hand hygiene, typical soap bars and alcohols can inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Air filtration systems incorporated with materials that possess catalytic properties, UV-C devices and heating systems can reduce airborne viral particles effectively. The decontamination of PPE can be conducted safely by heat and ozone treatment.