pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sanitizer efficacy against murine norovirus, a surrogate for human norovirus, on stainless steel surfaces when using three application methods - PubMed

Sanitizer efficacy against murine norovirus, a surrogate for human norovirus, on stainless steel surfaces when using three application methods

Stephanie L Bolton et al. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1

Spray chamber (side view) converted for hydraulic spray and AAIC electrostatic spray application methods fabricated from a stainless steel smokehouse oven.

Fig 2
Fig 2

Front view of spray chamber used for hydraulic and AAIC electrostatic spray application methods, showing the spray nozzle and arched attachment point for target coupons.

Fig 3
Fig 3

Arched attachment point for virus-inoculated stainless steel target coupons, secured in place by alligator clips inside the spray chamber.

Fig 4
Fig 4

Robotic SAM fabricated for the wipe application method using premoistened towelettes.

Fig 5
Fig 5

Close-up view of the removable adaptor for attaching wipes to the robotic arm of a SAM.

Fig 6
Fig 6

Close-up view of a stainless steel target coupon held in position by vacuum on the stationary platform of a vacuum on the stationary platform of a SAM.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Patel MM, Hall AJ, Vinje J, Parashara UD. 2009. Noroviruses: a comprehensive review. J. Clin. Virol. 44:1–8 - PubMed
    1. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL, Jones JL, Griffin PM. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States: major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17:7–15 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atmar RL, Opekun AR, Gilger MA, Estes MK, Crawford SE, Neill FH, Graham DY. 2008. Norwalk virus shedding after experimental human infection. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 14:1553–1557 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teunis PF, Moe CL, Liu P, Miller SE, Lindesmith L, Baric RS, Le Pendu J, Calderon RL. 2008. Norwalk virus: how infectious is it? J. Med. Virol. 80:1468–1476 - PubMed
    1. Lopman B, Gastañaduy P, Park GW, Hall AJ, Parashar UD, Vinjé J. 2012. Environmental transmission of norovirus gastroenteritis. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2:96–102 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances