ArticleFood and environmental virology2025
Optimization of An Enveloped Virus Surrogate, Bacteriophage Phi6, Recovery from Hands.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2025. 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.
- Product formulation and rubbing time impact the inactivation of enveloped and non-enveloped virus surrogates by foam-based hand sanitizers.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Design of experiments-guided membrane capture facilitates integration of continuous virus inactivation using Phi6 as a surrogate virus in an intensified downstream process.Biotechnology progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surfaces contaminated with enveloped viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and influenza virus, can potentially spread illness via hand contact. Often, the efficacy of hand hygiene interventions relies on virus recovery from hands. However, the recovery of bacteriophage phi6 (Φ6), a recommended surrogate for enveloped viruses, from the entire hands using the ASTM E2011-21 standard has not been optimized. For Φ6 recovery from the hands, three eluents [lysogeny broth (LC), tryptic soy broth (TSB), and 1.5% beef extract (BE)] and three recovery methods [glove juice method (GJM), hand rinsing, and modified dish method] were examined. The effects of inoculum application on either the palmar surface or the whole hand were compared, and virus recovery was assessed under wet and dry conditions to identify the optimal combinations for maximizing Φ6 recovery. Statistical differences among methods, inoculum application, and recovery types were identified. While no statistical difference was observed among the eluents (P = 0.281), LC demonstrated the highest Φ6 recovery efficiency, while TSB and BE had comparable recoveries. Two-way interaction effects were observed between method type vs. application type (P ≤ 0.05), method type vs. recovery type (P ≤ 0.05), and application type vs. recovery type (P ≤ 0.05), indicating these factors influencing one another. Additionally, no Φ6 recovery was obtained for the dry basis recovery type and the GJM method type. Based on the present study, to maximize Φ6 recovery from the hands during hand hygiene studies, inoculum should be applied to the palmar surface and recovered while it is still wet using LC.
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.