Disinfection of Animal Viruses

Evans, Dhanajay; Stuart, Patrick M.; Roberts, Deborah

doi:10.1016/s0007-1935(17)34035-6

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many authors have reached the same conclusion regarding the susceptibility of viruses to chemical agents, i.e. the presence of lipids is associated with a high susceptibility to all disinfectants (Klein and Deforest, 1965, 1983; Evans et al., 1977; Scott, 1979; Maris, 1986, 1990).…”

Section: Chemical Agentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Inactivation of Avian Influenza Viruses by Chemical Agents and Physical Conditions: A Review

Benedictis¹,

Beato²,

Capua³

2007

Zoonoses and Public Health

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent outbreaks of avian influenza (AI) worldwide have highlighted the difficulties in controlling this disease both in developed and in developing countries. Biosecurity is considered the most important tool to prevent and control AI. In certain areas of the world, AI has become endemic and the recent outbreaks in Europe and Africa show that the epidemiological situation is evolving in an unprecedented way. The consequences of this situation are economic losses to the poultry industry, food security issues in developing countries and a serious threat to human health, due to the direct consequences of AI infection in humans, and more alarmingly due to the risk of the generation of a new pandemic virus from the animal reservoir. In this paper, the physical and chemical methods of inactivating AI viruses are reviewed, with particular emphasis on the practicalities of using such methods in the poultry industry.

show abstract

Section: Chemical Agentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Inactivation of Avian Influenza Viruses by Chemical Agents and Physical Conditions: A Review

Benedictis¹,

Beato²,

Capua³

2007

Zoonoses and Public Health

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The enterovirusespolio, echo and coxsackie-showed greater resistance to disinfection with glutaraldehyde than other virus groups (Klein & Deforest 1963). Subsequent studies have confirmed the virucidal activity of glutaraldehyde even in the presence of high levels of organic matter (Saitanu & Lund 1975;Evans et al 1977). Saitanu & Lund (1975) have commented, however, that papovaviruses and parvoviruses might be expected to be even more resistant to chemical inactivation than enteroviruses, as they are more stable.…”

Section: Antiviral Activitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Antimicrobial Activity, Uses and Mechanism of Action of Glutaraldehyde

Gorman

Scott

Russell

1980

Journal of Applied Bacteriology

238

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our findings are in agreement with those of other studies in which disinfectants with lipophilic properties (phenol homologues) were not active against small (20 to 30 nm), non-enveloped viruses belonging to Picornaviridae and Parvoviridae. [25][26][27] Quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) are reported to be less effective against hydrophilic, non-enveloped viruses, eg, feline calicivirus, canine parvovirus, and poliovirus. 23,28,29 In the present study, a combination of QAC and glutaraldehyde inactivated 93.54% to 99.81% of SVA, but only after a contact time of 60 minutes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of three disinfectants against Senecavirus A on five surfaces and at two temperatures

Singh,

Mor,

Aboubakr

et al. 2017

JSHAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the virucidal efficacy of three commercial disinfectants against Senecavirus A (SVA) on five different surfaces at ~25°C and 4°C. Materials and methods: Household bleach, a phenolic disinfectant, and a quaternary ammonium-aldehyde disinfectant were tested at manufacturer’s recommended concentrations against a contemporary strain of SVA on aluminum, stainless steel, rubber, cement, and plastic surfaces at ~25°C and 4°C. Virus propagation and titration were performed on swine testicular cells. Viral titers were calculated before and after exposure to the disinfectant being tested. Results: At ~25°C, household bleach at 1:20 dilution inactivated ≥ 99.99% of the virus within 10 to 15 minutes on aluminum, rubber, and plastic. On stainless steel and cured cement, it inactivated 99.97% and 99.98% of the virus, respectively. At 4°C, bleach inactivated ≥ 99.99% of the virus within 5 to15 minutes on all surfaces except rubber; on rubber, inactivation was 99.91% after 15 minutes. The phenolic disinfectant at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration inactivated only ≤ 82.41% of the virus at either temperature and on any surface, even after a 60-minute contact time. Results for the quaternary ammonium disinfectant were intermediate: 78.12% to 99.81% of the virus was inactivated within 60 minutes at both temperatures and on all surfaces. To detect differences between disinfectants, paired Wilcoxon tests were performed. At 10- and 15-minute time points, efficacies of the three disinfectants differed significantly. Implications: Significant variation exists in the antiviral efficacies of different disinfectants. Hence, they should be tested against various pathogens before use in the field.

show abstract

Disinfection of Animal Viruses

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Inactivation of Avian Influenza Viruses by Chemical Agents and Physical Conditions: A Review

Inactivation of Avian Influenza Viruses by Chemical Agents and Physical Conditions: A Review

Antimicrobial Activity, Uses and Mechanism of Action of Glutaraldehyde

Efficacy of three disinfectants against Senecavirus A on five surfaces and at two temperatures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About