Sanitizer Efficacy against Murine Norovirus on Stainless Steel Surfaces
Abstract
Human noroviruses are major etiologic agents of epidemic gastroenteritis. Outbreaks are often accompanied by contamination of environmental surfaces, but since these viruses cannot be routinely propagated in laboratory cultures, their response to surface disinfectants is predicted by using surrogates, such as murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1). This study compared the virucidal efficacies of various liquid treatments (three sanitizer liquids, 5% levulinic acid plus 2% SDS [LEV/SDS], 200 ppm chlorine, and an isopropanol-based quaternary ammonium compound [Alpet D2], and two control liquids, sterile tap water and sterile tap water plus 2% SDS) when delivered to MNV-1-inoculated stainless steel surfaces by conventional hydraulic or air-assisted, induction-charged (AAIC) electrostatic spraying or by wiping with impregnated towelettes. For the spray treatments, LEV/SDS proved effective when applied with hydraulic and AAIC electrostatic spraying, providing virus reductions of 2.71 and 1.66 log PFU/ml, respectively. Alpet D2 provided a 2.23-log PFU/ml reduction with hydraulic spraying, outperforming chlorine (1.16-log PFU/ml reduction). Chlorine and LEV/SDS were equally effective as wipes, reducing the viral load by 7.05 log PFU/ml. Controls reduced the viral load by <1 log with spraying applications and by >3 log PFU/ml with wiping. Results indicated that both sanitizer type and application methods should be carefully considered when choosing a surface disinfectant to best prevent and control environmental contamination by noroviruses.
REFERENCE:
Human noroviruses are major etiologic agents of epidemic gastroenteritis. Outbreaks are often accompanied by contamination of environmental surfaces, but since these viruses cannot be routinely propagated in laboratory cultures, their response to surface disinfectants is predicted by using surrogates, such as murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1). This study compared the virucidal efficacies of various liquid treatments (three sanitizer liquids, 5% levulinic acid plus 2% SDS [LEV/SDS], 200 ppm chlorine, and an isopropanol-based quaternary ammonium compound [Alpet D2], and two control liquids, sterile tap water and sterile tap water plus 2% SDS) when delivered to MNV-1-inoculated stainless steel surfaces by conventional hydraulic or air-assisted, induction-charged (AAIC) electrostatic spraying or by wiping with impregnated towelettes. For the spray treatments, LEV/SDS proved effective when applied with hydraulic and AAIC electrostatic spraying, providing virus reductions of 2.71 and 1.66 log PFU/ml, respectively. Alpet D2 provided a 2.23-log PFU/ml reduction with hydraulic spraying, outperforming chlorine (1.16-log PFU/ml reduction). Chlorine and LEV/SDS were equally effective as wipes, reducing the viral load by 7.05 log PFU/ml. Controls reduced the viral load by <1 log with spraying applications and by >3 log PFU/ml with wiping. Results indicated that both sanitizer type and application methods should be carefully considered when choosing a surface disinfectant to best prevent and control environmental contamination by noroviruses.
REFERENCE:
Bolton SL, Kotwal G, Harrison MA, Law SE, Harrison JA, Cannon JL. Sanitizerefficacy against murine norovirus, a surrogate for human norovirus, on stainless steel surfaces when using three application methods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Feb;79(4):1368-77. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02843-12. Epub 2012 Dec 21. PubMed PMID: 23263949; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3568589.
Comentarios