ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2020
Enveloped Virus Inactivation on Personal Protective Equipment by Exposure to Ozone.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Ozone is a highly oxidizing gas easily generated from atmospheric oxygen with inexpensive equipment and is commonly used for the disinfection of municipal water, foods, and surfaces. We report tests of the ability of ozone to inactivate enveloped respiratory viruses (influenza A virus and respiratory syncytial virus), chosen as more easily handled surrogates for SARS-CoV-2, on N95 respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE) commonly used in hospitals. At 20 ppm, an ozone concentration easily achieved by standard commercial equipment, the viruses were inactivated with high efficiency as long as the relative humidity was above a threshold value of approximately 50%. In the absence of humidity control, disinfection is more variable and requires considerably longer exposure under relatively dry conditions. This report extends the observations of a previous publication (http://doi.org/10.1080/01919510902747969) to hospital-relevant materials and provides additional details about the relationship of humidity to the antiviral activity of ozone. Home CPAP disinfection devices using ozone can provide effective results for individuals. Ozone did not appear to degrade any of the materials tested except for elastic bands if strained during treatment (such as by the pressure exerted by stapled attachment to N95 respirators). The filtration efficiency of N95 respirator material was not compromised. Overall, we recommend exposures of at least 40 minutes to 20 ppm ozone and >70% relative humidity at ambient temperatures (21-24°C) for 4-log (99.99%) reduction of viral infectivity on a variety of PPE, including gowns, face shields, and respirators. Shorter exposure times are likely to be effective under these conditions, but at the risk of some variability for different materials. Higher ozone concentrations and higher humidity levels promoted faster inactivation of viruses. Our work suggests that ozone exposure can be a widely accessible method for disinfecting PPE, permitting safer re-use for healthcare workers and patients alike in times of shortage.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.