ArticleVaccines2023
Inactivation Performance of Pseudorabies Virus as African Swine Fever Virus Surrogate by Four Commercialized Disinfectants.
Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the killing effects of UVFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Mitigation Strategies for African Swine Fever Virus Biosecurity: From Virus Inactivation to Pig Health.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was based on similar physicochemical characteristics of pseudorabies virus (PRV) and African swine fever virus (ASFV). A cellular model for evaluation of disinfectants was established with PRV as an alternative marker strain. In the present study, we evaluated the disinfection performance of commonly used commercialized disinfectants on PRV to provide a reference for the selection of good ASFV disinfectants. In addition, the disinfection (anti-virus) performances for four disinfectants were investigated based on the minimum effective concentration, onset time, action time, and operating temperature. Our results demonstrated that glutaraldehyde decamethylammonium bromide solution, peracetic acid solution, sodium dichloroisocyanurate, and povidone-iodine solution effectively inactivated PRV at concentrations 0.1, 0.5, 0.5, and 2.5 g/L on different time points 30, 5, 10, and 10 min, respectively. Specifically, peracetic acid exhibits optimized overall performance. Glutaraldehyde decamethylammonium bromide is cost effective but requires a long action time and the disinfectant activity is severely affected by low temperatures. Furthermore, povidone-iodine rapidly inactivates the virus and is not affected by environmental temperature, but its application is limited by a poor dilution ratio such as for local disinfection of the skin. This study provides a reference for the selection of disinfectants for ASFV.
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.