Fomites can represent a reservoir for pathogens, which may be subsequently transferred from surfaces to skin. In this study we aim to understand how different factors (including virus type, surface type, time since last handwash, and direction of transfer) affect virus transfer rates, defined as the fraction of virus transferred, between fingerpads and fomites. To determine this, 360 transfer events were performed with 20 volunteers using Phi6 (a surrogate for enveloped viruses) and MS2 (a surrogate for non-enveloped viruses), and three clean surfaces (stainless steel, painted wood, and plastic). Considering all transfer events (all surfaces and both transfer directions combined), the mean transfer rates of Phi6 and MS2 were 0.17 and 0.26, respectively. Transfer of MS2 was significantly higher than Phi6 (P<0.05). Surface type was a significant factor that affected the transfer rate of Phi6: Phi6 is more easily transferred to and from stainless steel and plastic than to and from painted wood. Direction of transfer was a significant factor affecting MS2 transfer rates: MS2 is more easily transferred from surfaces to fingerpads than from fingerpads to surfaces. Data from these virus transfer events, and subsequent transfer rate distributions, provide information which can be used to refine quantitative microbial risk assessments. This study provides a large-scale data set of transfer events with a surrogate for enveloped viruses, which extends the reach of the study to the role of fomites in the transmission of human enveloped viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Importance This study created a large-scale data set for the transfer of enveloped viruses between skin and surfaces. The data set produced by this study provides information on modelling the distribution of enveloped and non-enveloped virus transfer rates, which can aid in the implementation of risk assessment models in the future. Additionally, enveloped and non-enveloped viruses were applied to experimental surfaces in an equivalent matrix to avoid matrix effects, so results between different viral species can be directly compared without confounding effects of different matrices. Our results indicating how virus type, surface type, time since last handwash, and direction of transfer affect virus transfer rates can be used in decision-making processes to lower the risk of viral infection from transmission through fomites.
Fomites can represent a reservoir for pathogens, which may be subsequently transferred from surfaces to skin. In this study we aim to understand how different factors (including virus type, surface type, time since last handwash, and direction of transfer) affect virus transfer rates, defined as the fraction of virus transferred, between fingerpads and fomites. To determine this, 360 transfer events were performed with 20 volunteers using Phi6 (a surrogate for enveloped viruses) and MS2 (a surrogate for non-enveloped viruses), and three clean surfaces (stainless steel, painted wood, and plastic). Considering all transfer events (all surfaces and both transfer directions combined), the mean transfer rates of Phi6 and MS2 were 0.17 and 0.26, respectively. Transfer of MS2 was significantly higher than Phi6 (P<0.05). Surface type was a significant factor that affected the transfer rate of Phi6: Phi6 is more easily transferred to and from stainless steel and plastic than to and from painted wood. Direction of transfer was a significant factor affecting MS2 transfer rates: MS2 is more easily transferred from surfaces to fingerpads than from fingerpads to surfaces. Data from these virus transfer events, and subsequent transfer rate distributions, provide information which can be used to refine quantitative microbial risk assessments. This study is the first to provide a large-scale data set of transfer events with a surrogate for enveloped viruses, which extends the reach of the study to the role of fomites in the transmission of human enveloped viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2.
Respiratory and diarrheal diseases are leading causes of death worldwide. Handwashing may reduce disease; however, recommended methods (soap and water for 20 seconds) are not always possible, particularly in low-resource settings. The aim of this study is to evaluate handwashing when recommended methods are not feasible, including washing with water only, washing with soapy water, washing for a short duration, using alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), and cleaning hands with towels. To evaluate laboratory efficacy, we seeded MS2 (a non-enveloped virus) and Phi6 (an enveloped virus) onto the hands of volunteers who then washed their hands. Viruses remaining were recovered and quantified using culture-based and molecular methods to determine the log reduction value (LRV) after washing. Results indicated that washing with water only and with soapy water were similar to washing with soap and water for 20 seconds for both viruses (median LRV for MS2 = 2.8; Phi6 = 3.2). Most towel alternative conditions had LRVs significantly smaller than LRVs from washing with soap and water for either virus. LRVs of ABHS and soap and water for 5 seconds were similar to soap and water for 20 seconds for Phi6 but less for MS2 (median MS2 LRV differences = 2.5 and 0.51 for ABHS and soap and water for 5 seconds, respectively). Additionally, LRVs determined using molecular methods were in agreement with those obtained using culture-based methods. These results suggest some handwashing alternatives were as effective as recommended methods whereas others were not, and inform recommendations and future research on handwashing alternatives in low-resource settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.