ArticleViruses2023
Inactivation of Bacteriophage ɸ6 and SARS-CoV-2 in Antimicrobial Surface Tests.
Article in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing non-porous antimicrobial surfaces against bacteria, phages and fungi: a comparative study under varied normative conditions using glass as a benchmark for microbial persistence.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Phage Stability Across Conditions: Ensuring Accurate Use of Viral Surrogates in Antiviral Testing.Viruses · 2026Article
- The comparison of the antioxidant, antibacterial and antiviral potential of Polish fir honeydew and Manuka honeys.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Benefits of Core-Shell Particles over Single-Metal Coatings: Mechanical and Chemical Exposure and Antimicrobial Efficacy.Polymers · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial non-porous surfaces: a comparison of the standards ISO 22196:2011 and the recently published ISO 7581:2023.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have focused on new preventive measures to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. One promising application is the usage of antimicrobial materials on often-touched surfaces to reduce the load of infectious virus particles. Since tests with in vitro-propagated SARS-CoV-2 require biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratories with limited capacities and high costs, experiments with an appropriate surrogate like the bacteriophage ɸ6 are preferred in most studies. The aim of this study was to compare ɸ6 and SARS-CoV-2 within antiviral surface tests. Different concentrations of copper coatings on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were used to determine their neutralizing activity against ɸ6 and SARS-CoV-2. The incubation on the different specimens led to similar inactivation of both SARS-CoV-2 and ɸ6. After 24 h, no infectious virus particles were evident on any of the tested samples. Shorter incubation periods on specimens with high copper concentrations also showed a complete inactivation. In contrast, the uncoated PET foils resulted only in a negligible reduced inactivation during the one-hour incubation. The similar reduction rate for ɸ6 and SARS-CoV-2 in our experiments provide further evidence that the bacteriophage ɸ6 is an adequate model organism for SARS-CoV-2 for this type of testing.
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.