Survival of Viruses in Water

Abstract

Water, a frequent vehicle for the transmission of viruses, may permit their survival, but many environmental factors will have an adverse effect on the viral population. Risk evaluation requires identification of these factors and assessment of the inactivation rate of infectious viruses. A higher temperature means a faster reduction of the viral population, as do increased sunlight, higher antimicrobial concentration, or higher oxygen levels. Another documented impact is linked to the presence of indigenous microbial populations: virus survival is higher in sterile water. Environmental factors inactivate viruses through direct or indirect action on one part of the viral structure: genome, capsid, or envelope if present. Viral populations also have resistance mechanisms, generally involving physical shielding from adverse effects; such protective behaviors include aggregation, adhesion, or internalization inside living structures. Because of these phenomena, inactivation kinetics may deviate from traditional log-linear shapes. It is therefore important to account for all factors that may impact on survival, to carefully design experiments to ensure sufficient data, and to select the right modelling approach. Comparison between studies is difficult. It is suggested that laboratory studies include standard conditions of water, and analyze the impact of different factors as precisely as possible. Larger studies in natural environments, though more difficult, are also much needed.

Effects of environmental storage conditions on survival of indicator organisms in a blend of surface water and dual disinfected reclaimed water

“…; Bertrand et al . ; Pinon and Vialette ). Yet other researchers attribute observed increases in microbial concentrations to disaggregation, growth or ‘regrowth’ and resuscitation, the so‐called bottle effect and repair of UV induced damage (Hortnagl et al .…”

“…Bitton et al (1983) found that E. coli and f2 coliphage in groundwater declined at rates of 0Á0066 and 0Á059 h À1 respectively. Other researchers have suggested that observed decreases in the concentrations of bacteria in freshwater may be a result of inhibitory substances (Klein and Alexander 1986), the activities of predatory and lytic organisms, temperature effects, aggregation, adsorption, sedimentation and sunlight induced damage (Flint 1987;Gonzalez et al 1990;Characklis et al 2005;Bertrand et al 2012;Pinon and Vialette 2018). Yet other researchers attribute observed increases in microbial concentrations to disaggregation, growth or 'regrowth' and resuscitation, the so-called bottle effect and repair of UV induced damage (Hortnagl et al 2011).…”

The most eagerly awaited summer of the Anthropocene: A perspective of SARS-CoV-2 decay and seasonal change

“…As per the inactivation mechanism, environmental stressors disrupt the proteins and lipids of viral envelope more easily than the genome and the protein capsid (Pinon and Vialette, 2018). Thus, under the similar adverse conditions, non-enveloped viruses, like norovirus, are generally more resistant than enveloped viruses like SARS-CoV-2 (positive-stranded RNA viruses with nucleocapsid and envelope) (University of Cambridge, 2015; Gundy et al, 2009).…”

Where do we stand to oversee the coronaviruses in aqueous and aerosol environment? Characteristics of transmission and possible curb strategies

“…Regardless of the process applied, disinfection highly depends on wastewater physicochemical properties and operational conditions, especially the product of disinfectant concentration and contact time (CT value). A number of studies have been carried out and have demonstrated that the reduction in non-enveloped viruses, such as human adenovirus (HAdV), enterovirus (EV), in effluent treated with UV or chemical disinfection is more effective, with 0.1 to 5 log units, and point out coronaviruses are more sensitive to UV than non-enveloped viruses [107] , [109] , [112] , [113] . For the inactivation of coronaviruses in wastewater, a study to explore the inactivation of SARS virus in municipal wastewater by chlorine and chlorine dioxide showed that the chlorine dosage of 20 mg L -1 , a contact time of over 1 minute, and free chlorine residual of > 0.4 mg L -1 were found to complete coronaviruses inactivation, while chlorine dioxide needs to be using a dose of 40 mg L -1 with a required contact time of >5 minutes to achieve the same effect [58] .…”