Inactivation of Human Coronavirus by FATHHOME’s Dry Sanitizer Device: Rapid and Eco-Friendly Ozone-Based Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2

Uppal, Timsy; Khazaieli, Amir; Snijders, Antoine M.; Verma, Subhash C.

doi:10.3390/pathogens10030339

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Amongst all the reviewed and included studies, 28 articles were categorised in disinfection methods with potential activity on environmental surfaces [ 12 , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] ]. A summary of this category is provided in table II .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exposure of the same materials to higher concentrations of ozone was effective in reducing viral titres in a shorter period. Uppal et al demonstrated that ozone gas of at least 25ppm can optimally eliminate ≥99% of HCoV deposited on glass in 15 minutes while 80ppm of ozone and 90% relative humidity from another study obtained significant viral inactivation after 60 minutes [ 44 , 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Martins

Xavier

Cobrado

2022

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The novel SARS-CoV-2, responsible for the most recent pandemic faced by humanity, has become a global crisis causing millions of deaths. The virus is transmitted by inhalation of infectious particles suspended in the air, direct deposition on mucous membranes and indirect contact via contaminated surfaces. Therefore, disinfection methods that can halt such transmission are important in this pandemic and in future viral infections. Aim Highlight the efficacy of several disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2, based on up-to-date evidence found in literature. Methods A research was conducted through two databases to assess the disinfection methods used against SARS-CoV-2. From a total of 1229 studies found, 60 were included. Quality assessment was evaluated by the OHAT risk of bias tool. Findings Disinfection methods on environmental surfaces were approached by 28 studies; 16 articles addressed disinfection methods used on biological surfaces; 4 articles presented disinfection methods for airborne coronavirus and 16 studies demonstrated methods used to recondition PPEs. Conclusions Several household and hospital disinfection agents and UV-C irradiation were effective in inactivating 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 effectively reduce airborne viral particles. The decontamination of PPEs can be conducted safely by heat and ozone treatment.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Martins

Xavier

Cobrado

2022

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since gaseous ozone treatment is inexpensive and easily accessible, it has become a widely used tool for the decontamination of offices, classrooms, and other public spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic. Up to this point, several studies investigated the efficiency of gaseous ozone treatment on coronavirus contaminated fomites [ 24 , 26 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. However, all these experimental works were performed under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, with the application of airtight and low-volume chambers, which may not directly translate into a realistic environment [ 24 , 26 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Up to this point, several studies investigated the efficiency of gaseous ozone treatment on coronavirus contaminated fomites [ 24 , 26 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. However, all these experimental works were performed under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, with the application of airtight and low-volume chambers, which may not directly translate into a realistic environment [ 24 , 26 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. To our knowledge, this is the first report investigating the efficacy of gaseous ozone treatment against SARS-CoV-2 surrogate in conditions mimicking its actual use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ozone Treatment Is Insufficient to Inactivate SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate under Field Conditions

Mazur-Panasiuk

Botwina

Kutaj³

et al. 2021

Antioxidants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 caused a worldwide crisis, highlighting the importance of preventive measures in infectious diseases control. SARS-CoV-2 can remain infectious on surfaces for up to several weeks; therefore, proper disinfection is required to mitigate the risk of indirect virus spreading. Gaseous ozone treatment has received particular attention as an easily accessible disinfection tool. In this study, we evaluated the virucidal effectiveness of gaseous ozone treatment (>7.3 ppm, 2 h) on MHV-contaminated stainless-steel surface and PBS-suspended virus under field conditions at ambient (21.8%) and high (49.8–54.2%) relative humidity. Surficial virus was soiled with 0.3 g/l of BSA. Parallelly, a half-hour vaporization with 7.3% hydrogen peroxide was performed on contaminated carriers. The obtained results showed that gaseous ozone, whilst quite effective against suspended virus, was insufficient in sanitizing coronavirus contaminated surfaces, especially under low RH. Increased humidity created more favorable conditions for MHV inactivation, resulting in 2.1 log titre reduction. Vaporization with 7.3% hydrogen peroxide presented much better virucidal performance than ozonation in a similar experimental setup, indicating that its application may be more advantageous regarding gaseous disinfection of surfaces contaminated with other coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2.

show abstract

“…Other recent studies have also used HCoV-OC43 as a model to facilitate our understanding of the SARS-CoV-2, though they did not involve aerosolization. Uppal et al (2021) utilized HCoV-OC43 for testing the inactivation of human coronavirus on PPE and surfaces by a disinfection device. A low-cost method to titrate human coronavirus was developed by Bracci et al (2020) by utilizing both HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of sampling and storage stress on the recovery of airborne SARS-CoV-2 virus surrogate captured by filtration

Myers

Han

et al. 2021

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental air sampling of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in occupational and community settings is pertinent to reduce and monitor the spread of the COVID pandemic. However, there is a general lack of standardized procedures for airborne virus sampling and limited knowledge of how sampling and storage stress impact the recovery of captured airborne viruses. Since filtration is one of the commonly used methods to capture airborne viruses, this study analyzed the effect of sampling and storage stress on SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus (human coronavirus OC43, or HCoV-OC43) captured by filters. HCoV-OC43, a simulant of the SARS-CoV-2, was aerosolized and captured by PTFE-laminated filters. The impact of sampling stress was evaluated by comparing the RNA yields recovered when sampled at 3 L/min and 10 L/ min and for 10 min and 60 min; in one set of experiments, additional stress was added by passing clean air through filters with the virus for 1, 5, and 15 hr. The impact of storage stress was designed to examine RNA recovery from filters at room temperature (25 C) and refrigerated conditions (4 C) for up to 1 week of storage. To our knowledge, this is the first report on using HCoV-OC43 aerosol in air sampling experiments, and the mode diameter of the virus aerosolized from the growth medium was 40-60 nm as determined by SMPS þ CPC system (TSI Inc.) and MiniWRAS (Grimm Inc.) measurements. No significant difference was found in virus recovery between the two sampling flow rates and different sampling times (p > 0.05). However, storage at room temperature (25 C) yielded $2x less RNA than immediate processing and storage at refrigerated conditions (4 C). Therefore, it is recommended to store filter samples with viruses at 4 C up to 1 week if the immediate analysis is not feasible. Although the laminated PTFE filter used in this work purposefully does not include a non-PTFE backing, the general recommendations for handling and storing filter samples with viral particles are likely to apply to other filter types.

show abstract

Inactivation of Human Coronavirus by FATHHOME’s Dry Sanitizer Device: Rapid and Eco-Friendly Ozone-Based Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2

Cited by 24 publications

References 63 publications

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

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

Ozone Treatment Is Insufficient to Inactivate SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate under Field Conditions

Impact of sampling and storage stress on the recovery of airborne SARS-CoV-2 virus surrogate captured by filtration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About