Sampling and recovery of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from high-touch surfaces by sponge stick and macrofoam swab.

Effective sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a common approach for monitoring disinfection efficacy and effective environmental surveillance. This study evaluated sampling efficiency and limits of detection (LODs) of macrofoam swab and sponge stick sampling methods for recovering infectious SARS-CoV-2 and viral RNA (vRNA) from surfaces. Macrofoam swab and sponge stick methods were evaluated for collection of SARS-CoV-2 suspended in a soil load from 6-in2 coupons composed of four materials: stainless steel (SS), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, bus seat fabric, and Formica. Recovery of infectious SARS-CoV-2 was more efficient than vRNA recovery on all materials except Formica (macrofoam swab sampling) and ABS (sponge stick sampling). Macrofoam swab sampling recovered significantly more vRNA from Formica than ABS and SS, and sponge stick sampling recovered significantly more vRNA from ABS than Formica and SS, suggesting that material and sampling method choice can affect surveillance results. Time since initial contamination significantly affected infectious virus recovery from all materials, with vRNA recovery showing limited to no difference, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 vRNA can remain detectable after viral infectivity has dissipated. This study showed that a complex relationship exists between sampling method, material, time from contamination to sampling, and recovery of SARS-CoV-2. In conclusion, data show that careful consideration be used when selecting surface types for sampling and interpreting SARS-CoV-2 vRNA recovery with respect to presence of infectious virus.

Efficacy of chemical disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2 on high-touch surface materials.

AIMS: This study aimed to provide operationally relevant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surface disinfection efficacy information. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three EPA-registered disinfectants (Vital Oxide, Peroxide, and Clorox Total 360) and one antimicrobial formulation (CDC bleach) were evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 on material coupons and were tested using Spray (no touch with contact time) and Spray & Wipe (wipe immediately post-application) methods immediately and 2 h post-contamination. Efficacy was evaluated for infectious virus, with a subset tested for viral RNA (vRNA) recovery. Efficacy varied by method, disinfectant, and material. CDC bleach solution showed low efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (log reduction < 1.7), unless applied via Spray & Wipe. Additionally, mechanical wiping increased the efficacy of treatments against SARS-CoV-2. The recovery of vRNA post-disinfection suggested that vRNA may overestimate infectious virus remaining. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy depends on surface material, chemical, and disinfection procedure, and suggests that mechanical wiping alone has some efficacy at removing SARS-CoV-2 from surfaces. We observed that disinfectant treatment biased the recovery of vRNA over infectious virus. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY: These data are useful for developing effective, real-world disinfection procedures, and inform public health experts on the utility of PCR-based surveillance approaches.

Residual antimicrobial coating efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

AIMS: This study evaluated the residual efficacy of commercially available antimicrobial coatings or films against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on non-porous surfaces. METHODS AND RESULTS: Products were applied to stainless steel or ABS plastic coupons and dried overnight. Coupons were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of 5% soil load. Recovered infectious SARS-CoV-2 was quantified by TCID50 assay. Tested product efficacies ranged from <1.0 to >3.0 log10 reduction at a 2-h contact time. The log10 reduction in recovered infectious SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 0.44 to 3 log10 reduction on stainless steel and 0.25 to >1.67 log10 on ABS plastic. The most effective products tested contained varying concentrations (0.5%-1.3%) of the same active ingredient: 3-(trihydroxysilyl) propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride. Products formulated with other quaternary ammonium compounds were less effective against SARS-CoV-2 in this test. CONCLUSIONS: The residual antimicrobial products tested showed varied effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 as a function of product tested. Several products were identified as efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 on both stainless steel and ABS plastic surfaces under the conditions evaluated. Differences in observed efficacy may be due to variation in active ingredient formulation; efficacy is, therefore, difficult to predict based upon listed active ingredient and its concentration. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT: This study highlights the formulation-specific efficacy of several products against SARS-CoV-2 and may inform future development of residual antiviral products for use on non-porous surfaces. The identification of antimicrobial coatings or films showing promise to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 suggests that these products may be worth future testing and consideration.

Evaluation of multiplex assay platforms for detection of influenza hemagglutinin subtype specific antibody responses.

Influenza hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and virus microneutralization assays (MN) are widely used for seroprevalence studies. However, these assays have limited field portability and are difficult to fully automate for high throughput laboratory testing. To address these issues, three multiplex influenza subtype-specific antibody detection assays were developed using recombinant hemagglutinin antigens in combination with Chembio, Luminex®, and ForteBio® platforms. Assay sensitivity, specificity, and subtype cross-reactivity were evaluated using a panel of well characterized human sera. Compared to the traditional HI, assay sensitivity ranged from 87% to 92% and assay specificity in sera collected from unexposed persons ranged from 65% to 100% across the platforms. High assay specificity (86-100%) for A(H5N1) rHA was achieved for sera from exposed or unexposed to hetorosubtype influenza HAs. In contrast, assay specificity for A(H1N1)pdm09 rHA using sera collected from A/Vietnam/1204/2004 (H5N1) vaccinees in 2008 was low (22-30%) in all platforms. Although cross-reactivity against rHA subtype proteins was observed in each assay platform, the correct subtype specific responses were identified 78%-94% of the time when paired samples were available for analysis. These results show that high throughput and portable multiplex assays that incorporate rHA can be used to identify influenza subtype specific infections.