ArticleMicroorganisms2025
An Assessment of the Efficacy of Commercial Air Ionizer Systems Against a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate.
Article in Microorganisms, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Airborne transmission has been implicated as a major route for the spread of microorganisms, causing infectious disease outbreaks worldwide. This has been emphasized by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is thus an unmet need to develop technologies that arrest the spread of airborne infectious diseases by inactivating viruses in the air. In this study, the efficacy of two commercially available air ionizer systems for inactivating the bacteriophage MS2, which has been utilized as a surrogate of SARS-CoV-2 as well as a surrogate of noroviruses, was assessed. An experimental test apparatus similar to an HVAC duct system was utilized for the efficacy testing. Each of the two ionizer devices was challenged with viral aerosols of the bacteriophage MS2. The results indicate that the two ionizers were able to reduce the concentration of bacteriophage MS2 virus in the air by 82.02% and 81.72%, respectively. These results point to the efficacy of these ionizer devices in inactivating airborne microorganisms and thus making them an important tool in arresting the spread of infectious diseases. More studies are needed to assess their efficacy against other important airborne viruses such as influenza and strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
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.