Survival of human enteric viruses in the environment and food

Rzeżutka, Artur; Cook, Nigel

doi:10.1016/j.femsre.2004.02.001

Cited by 271 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

162

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is still unclear how many food-borne disease outbreaks are a direct result of transmission of HuNoVs to foodstuffs via contaminated food contact surfaces. However, because of the extremely low infectious dose (as few as 18 infectious virus particles) (49), high number of viruses shed during infection (10 11 and 10 6 genomic copies per gram of stool or vomit, respectively), and ability to persist, fomite surfaces are considered to be a major route in the spread of HuNoV gastroenteritis (27,36). Cleaning with chemical disinfectants and sanitizers is considered an important step in preventing the transmission of HuNoVs from contaminated surfaces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Gibson

Crandall

Ricke

2012

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTContamination of food contact surfaces with pathogens is considered an important vehicle for the indirect transmission of food-borne diseases. Five different cleaning cloths were assessed for the ability to remove viruses from food contact surfaces (stainless steel surface and nonporous solid surface) and to transfer viruses back to these surfaces. Cleaning cloths evaluated include two different cellulose/cotton cloths, one microfiber cloth, one nonwoven cloth, and one cotton terry bar towel. Four viral surrogates (murine norovirus [MNV], feline calicivirus [FCV], bacteriophages PRD1 and MS2) were included. Removal of FCV from stainless steel was significantly greater (P≤ 0.05) than that from nonporous solid surface, and overall removal of MNV from both surfaces was significantly less (P≤ 0.05) than that of FCV and PRD1. Additionally, the terry towel removed significantly fewer total viruses (P≤ 0.05) than the microfiber and one of the cotton/cellulose cloths. The cleaning cloth experiments were repeated with human norovirus. For transfer of viruses from cloth to surface, both cellulose/cotton cloths and microfiber transferred an average of 3.4 and 8.5 total PFU, respectively, to both surfaces, and the amounts transferred were significantly different (P≤ 0.05) from those for the nonwoven cloth and terry towel (309 and 331 total PFU, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference (P> 0.05) in the amount of virus transfer between surfaces. These data indicate that while the cleaning cloths assessed here can remove viruses from surfaces, some cloths may also transfer a significant amount of viruses back to food contact surfaces.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Gibson

Crandall

Ricke

2012

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in concordance with data reported previously by Molenkamp and colleagues (35), who found no difference in the quantitation of four different synthetic DNA constructs in a multiplex qPCR even when three of the four target DNAs were in a 1,000-fold excess. However, interpretations of quantitative data in MST studies are challenging because variable host-specific rates of virus shedding (47), seasonal or geographic variations in viral infections (37), and virus survival in the environment (1,23,39) can all influence the presence and concentration of enteric viruses in the environment. Virus detection by molecular methods does not show virus infectivity, and so it is not possible to estimate the impact of various virus types on human and animal health from the quantitative data generated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viral Multiplex Quantitative PCR Assays for Tracking Sources of Fecal Contamination

Wolf

Hewitt

Greening

2010

Appl Environ Microbiol

155

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human and animal fecal pollution of the environment presents a risk to human health because of the presence of pathogenic viruses and bacteria. To distinguish between human and animal sources of pollution, we designed specific real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assays for human and animal enteric viruses, including norovirus genogroups I, II, and III; porcine adenovirus types 3 and 5; ovine adenovirus; atadenovirus; and human adenovirus species C and F, which are excreted by infected humans, pigs, cattle, sheep, deer, and goats, and for the detection of F؉ RNA bacteriophage genogroups I to IV, which are associated with human and animal wastes. The sensitivity of this viral toolbox (VTB) was tested against 10-fold dilution series of DNA plasmids that carry the target sequences of the respective viruses and was shown to detect at least 10 plasmid copies for each assay. A panel of human and animal enteric and respiratory viruses showed these assays to be highly sensitive and specific to their respective targets. The VTB was used to detect viruses in fecal and environmental samples, including raw sewage and biosolids from municipal sewage treatment plants, abattoir sewage, and fecally contaminated shellfish and river water, which were likely to contain animal or human viruses.It is important that sources of fecal pollution are rapidly and accurately identified so that environmental managers can develop strategies to eliminate the source of the pollution in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The identification of fecal sources also allows the potential risk to human health following the consumption of or exposure to contaminated food or water to be estimated. For this purpose, numerous fecal source tracking methods have been developed. Among these are library-dependent methods such as antibiotic resistance testing or molecular fingerprinting (e.g., terminal restriction length fragment polymorphism [T-RFLP] or ribotyping) and library-independent approaches, including the detection of human-specific bacteriophages by plaque assay (e.g., Bacteroides fragilis bacteriophages), the detection of certain chemicals associated with human and nonhuman wastes (e.g., caffeine, laundry brighteners, fecal sterols, and stanols), and the detection of specific genetic markers by PCR. The molecular detection of human and animal viruses and bacteriophages falls into the latter category. Each method has advantages and disadvantages depending on the circumstances and the questions at hand. To date, none has been proposed as a standard method (9,34,40,45).The detection and genotyping of Fϩ RNA bacteriophages have been widely used as a tool for microbial source tracking (MST) (5,8,17,18,31,44). Fϩ RNA bacteriophage genogroup I (GI) and GIV have been associated with animal contamination, and genogroups II and III indicate predominantly human fecal contamination or domestic sewage-associated in-

show abstract

“…Low infectious doses [1], prolonged asymptomatic shedding [80], environmental stability [121] and great strain diversity [47,51] increase the risk of infections by this virus family. Moreover, the identification of closely related animal enteric caliciviruses in pigs and cattle, and the existence of recombinants within human NoVs [48,60], porcine NoVs [15], bovine NoVs [63,122], and also within the human and the porcine SaVs [43,50] raises concerns for possible infections or co-infections of humans with animal or with human and animal enteric caliciviruses, respectively.…”

Section: Porcine Novs and Savs In Shellfishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Porcine enteric caliciviruses: Genetic and antigenic relatedness to human caliciviruses, diagnosis and epidemiology

Wang

Costantini

Saif

2007

Vaccine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Porcine enteric caliciviruses include sapoviruses and noroviruses. Porcine sapoviruses infect pigs of all ages and cause diarrhea in young pigs, whereas porcine noroviruses were detected exclusively from adult pigs without clinical signs. Importantly, certain porcine norovirus strains were genetically and antigenically related to human noroviruses. This raises public health concerns that pigs may be reservoirs for emergence of epidemic human norovirus strains. This article reviews the discovery of porcine noroviruses and sapoviruses, their classification, diagnosis, epidemiology and genetic and antigenic relatedness to human caliciviruses.

show abstract

Survival of human enteric viruses in the environment and food

Cited by 271 publications

References 68 publications

Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Removal and Transfer of Viruses on Food Contact Surfaces by Cleaning Cloths

Viral Multiplex Quantitative PCR Assays for Tracking Sources of Fecal Contamination

Porcine enteric caliciviruses: Genetic and antigenic relatedness to human caliciviruses, diagnosis and epidemiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About