ArticlePloS one2023
Validation of the efficacy of air purifiers using molecular techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of air purifiers has increased in recent years, especially with the "coronavirus disease 2019" pandemic. The efficacy of air purifiers is usually determined under laboratory conditions before widespread application. The standard procedure for testing depends on virus cultivation and titration on cell culture. This, however, requires several days to deliver results. The aim of this study was to establish a rapid molecular assay which can differentiate between intact infectious and distorted non-infectious virus particles. Feline Coronavirus was selected as model for screening. First the samples were pretreated with enzymes (universal nuclease and RNase cocktail enzyme mixture) or viability dye (propidium monoazide) to eliminate any free nucleic acids. The ribonucleic acid (RNA) from intact virus was released via magnetic beads-based extraction, then the amount of the RNA was determined using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification (RT-RAA). All results were compared to the infectivity assay based on the calculation of the 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50). The nuclease has eliminated 100% of the free Feline Coronavirus RNA, while propidium monoazide underperformed (2.3-fold decrease in free RNA). Both RT-RAA and real-time RT-PCR produced similar results to the infectivity assay on cell culture with limit of detection of 102 TCID50/mL. Two UV-C air purifiers with prosperities of 100% inactivation of the viruses were used to validate the established procedure. Both real-time RT-PCR and RT-RAA were able to differentiate between intact virus particles and free RNA. To conclude, this study revealed a promising rapid method to validate the efficacy of air purifiers by combining enzymatic pretreatment and molecular assays.
Indexed as
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.