Yan Runan, Fraser Angela, Jiang Xiuping
Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2025 Sep 8:e0133725. doi: 10.1128/aem.01337-25.
Disinfectant wipes are widely used to reduce microbial contamination on surfaces, yet there is limited information on how viruses are physically removed or chemically inactivated during wiping. This study aimed to address this gap by comparing the contributions of physical removal and chemical inactivation to overall disinfection efficacy. Glass and vinyl coupons were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 surrogates, bovine coronavirus (BCoV), or human coronavirus OC43, at an initial titer of 5-6 log TCID/surface with 5% soil load. After air drying, coupons were wiped using one of the following treatments: (i) pre-wetted blank polypropylene wipe, (ii) hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-based disinfectant wipe, or (iii) quaternary ammonium compound (QAC)-based disinfectant wipe. Wiping was performed manually by hand or mechanically using a Gardco Gardner-scrub. The wiping process followed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency protocol. After a 1 min exposure, residual disinfectant on both coupons and wipes was neutralized separately. Viruses were recovered by sonication for 30 s and quantified using the TCID assay with HRT-18G cells. Using blank wipe, more virus was transferred to the wipe from glass (23%-59%) than vinyl (21%-30%), while less virus remained on glass (2%-5%) than vinyl (16%-24%). No significant difference in virus titers was observed between hand wiping and machine wiping, either on the surfaces or in the used wipes. Both disinfectant wipes reduced >3 log TCID of virus from surfaces, with virus remaining on used wipes below the limit of detection. These results suggest that disinfectant wipes can significantly and rapidly reduce coronavirus contamination and cross-contamination risk.IMPORTANCESurfaces contaminated with respiratory viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, pose a potential risk for indirect transmission in public and healthcare settings. This study evaluated the effectiveness of disinfectant wipes in reducing two SARS-CoV-2 surrogates from different surface types within a 1 min contact time. Results showed that both hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-based and quaternary ammonium compound (QAC)-based disinfectant wipes reduced infectious virus levels by more than 3 logs. Physical removal of viruses was more efficient on hard, nonporous surfaces (glass) compared to soft, non-porous surfaces (vinyl). No significant difference was observed between hand wiping and mechanical wiping, indicating that standard wiping procedures can be consistently effective regardless of method. Importantly, our findings highlight that disinfectant wipes function through both physical removal and chemical inactivation mechanisms. These data support evidence-based recommendations for surface disinfection practices to mitigate coronavirus contamination and reduce the risk of fomite-mediated viral transmission.
消毒湿巾被广泛用于减少物体表面的微生物污染,但关于擦拭过程中病毒是如何被物理去除或化学灭活的信息却很有限。本研究旨在通过比较物理去除和化学灭活对整体消毒效果的贡献来填补这一空白。玻璃片和乙烯基试片被接种了严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)的替代病毒——牛冠状病毒(BCoV)或人冠状病毒OC43,初始滴度为每表面5-6 log TCID,土壤负载量为5%。空气干燥后,使用以下处理方法之一擦拭试片:(i)预湿的空白聚丙烯擦拭布,(ii)基于过氧化氢(H₂O₂)的消毒湿巾,或(iii)基于季铵化合物(QAC)的消毒湿巾。擦拭通过手动或使用Gardco Gardner擦洗机进行机械操作。擦拭过程遵循美国环境保护局的规程。暴露1分钟后,分别中和试片和擦拭布上的残留消毒剂。通过超声处理30秒回收病毒,并使用HRT-18G细胞的TCID试验进行定量。使用空白擦拭布时,从玻璃片转移到擦拭布上的病毒(23%-59%)比从乙烯基试片上转移的(21%-30%)更多,而留在玻璃片上的病毒(2%-5%)比留在乙烯基试片上的(16%-24%)更少。在表面或用过的擦拭布上,手动擦拭和机器擦拭之间未观察到病毒滴度的显著差异。两种消毒湿巾都使表面上的病毒滴度降低了>3 log TCID,用过的擦拭布上残留的病毒低于检测限。这些结果表明,消毒湿巾可以显著且迅速地降低冠状病毒污染和交叉污染风险。
被呼吸道病毒如SARS-CoV-2污染的表面在公共和医疗环境中构成间接传播的潜在风险。本研究评估了消毒湿巾在1分钟接触时间内从不同表面类型减少两种SARS-CoV-2替代病毒的效果。结果表明,基于过氧化氢(H₂O₂)和基于季铵化合物(QAC)的消毒湿巾都使感染性病毒水平降低了超过3个对数。与柔软的无孔表面(乙烯基)相比,在坚硬的无孔表面(玻璃)上物理去除病毒更有效。手动擦拭和机械擦拭之间未观察到显著差异,这表明无论方法如何,标准擦拭程序都能始终有效。重要的是,我们的研究结果突出了消毒湿巾通过物理去除和化学灭活机制发挥作用。这些数据支持基于证据为表面消毒实践提出的建议,以减轻冠状病毒污染并降低通过污染物介导的病毒传播风险。