Disinfection of Phi6, MS2, and Escherichia coli by Natural Sunlight on Healthcare Critical Surfaces.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation systems, commonly used to disinfect surfaces, drinking water, and air, stem from historical practice to use sunlight to disinfect household items after contagious illness. Currently, it is still recommended in viral outbreak contexts such as COVID-19, Ebola, and Marburg to expose soft surfaces to sunlight after washing with detergent or disinfecting with chlorine. However, sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is in the UVA/UVB wavelengths, whereas UV disinfection systems typically rely on biocidal UVC. Our goal was to fill the evidence gap on the efficacy of sunlight disinfection on surface materials common in low-resource healthcare settings by seeding four surfaces (stainless steel, nitrile, tarp, cloth) with three microorganisms (viral surrogate bacteriophages Phi6 and MS2 and Escherichia coli bacteria), with and without soil load, and exposing to three sunlight conditions (full sun, partial sun, cloudy). We conducted 144 tests in triplicate and found: solar radiation averaged 737 W/m2 (SD = 333), 519 W/m2 (SD = 65), and 149 W/m2 (SD = 24) for full sun, partial sun, and cloudy conditions; significantly more surfaces averaged ≥ 4 log10 reduction value (LRV) for Phi6 than MS2 and E. coli (P < 0.001) after full sun exposure, and no samples achieved ≥ 4 LRV for partial sun or cloudy conditions. On the basis of our results, we recommend no change to current protocols of disinfecting materials first with a 0.5% chlorine solution then moving to sunlight to dry. Additional field-based research is recommended to understand sunlight disinfection efficacy against pathogenic organisms on healthcare relevant surfaces during actual outbreak contexts.

Chlorine efficacy against bacteriophage Phi6, a surrogate for enveloped human viruses, on porous and non-porous surfaces at varying temperatures and humidity.

While efficacy of chlorine against Phi6, a widely-used surrogate for pathogenic enveloped viruses, is well-documented, surfaces common to low-resource contexts are under-researched. We evaluated seven surfaces (stainless steel, plastic, nitrile, tarp, cloth, concrete, wood) and three environmental conditions-temperature (4, 25, 40 °C), relative humidity (RH) (23, 85%), and soiling-to determine Phi6 recoverability and the efficacy of disinfection with 0.5% NaOCl. Overall, Phi6 recovery was >4 log10 PFU/mL on most surfaces after drying 1 hour at all temperature/humidity conditions. After disinfection, all non-porous test conditions (48/48) achieved ≥4 LRV at 1 and 5 minutes of exposure; significantly more non-porous surfaces met ≥4 LRV than porous (p < 0.001). Comparing porous surfaces, significantly fewer wood samples met ≥4 LRV than cloth (p < 0.001); no differences were observed between concrete and either wood (p = 0.083) or cloth (p = 0.087). Lastly, no differences were observed between soil and no-soil conditions for all surfaces (p = 0.712). This study highlights infectious Phi6 is recoverable across a range of surfaces and environmental conditions, and confirms the efficacy of chlorine disinfection. We recommend treating all surfaces with suspect contamination as potentially infectious, and disinfecting with 0.5% NaOCl for the minimum contact time required for the target enveloped virus (e.g. Ebola, SARS-CoV-2).

Laboratory evaluation of the efficacy of bucket chlorination guidelines at inactivating Vibrio cholerae for waters of varying quality.

Bucket chlorination, where chlorine is dosed directly into water collection containers, is a point-of-source water treatment intervention commonly implemented in cholera outbreaks. There is little previous data on chlorine efficacy against Vibrio cholerae in different waters and appropriate dosage regimes. We evaluated V. cholerae reduction and free chlorine residual (FCR) in waters with four turbidities (1/5/10/50 NTU), two total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations (0.4, 1 mg/L), and two dosing schemes (fixed-dose of 2 or 4 mg/L, variable-dose based on jar testing) treated with three chlorine types (HTH, NaOCl, NaDCC). We found that chlorine was efficacious at reducing V. cholerae by ≥2.75 to ≥3.63 log reduction value (LRV); variably dosed reactors were dosed higher, met ≥0.5 mg/L FCR at 30 min, and had higher LRVs (p=0.024) than fixed doses; and low TOC reactors had more samples ≥0.2 mg/L FRC at 4 h (p=0.007). Our results are conservative, as internationally recommended additives to create test water increased chlorine demand, highlighting the challenge of replicating field conditions in laboratory testing. Overall, we found that chlorine can efficaciously reduce V. cholerae; we recommend further research on appropriate chlorine demand for test waters; and we recommend establishing appropriate chlorine doses based on source water and taste/odor acceptability in bucket chlorination programs.

Household Disinfection Interventions to Prevent Cholera Transmission: Facilitators, Barriers, Training, and Evidence Needs.

There are two common household disinfection interventions to prevent interhousehold transmission of cholera: household spraying, whereby a team disinfects cholera patients' households, and household disinfection kits (HDKs), whereby cleaning materials are provided to cholera patients' family members. Currently, both interventions lack evidence, and international agencies recommend HDK distribution; however, household spraying remains widely implemented. To understand this disconnect, we conducted 14 key informant interviews with international and national responders and a study in Haiti assessing HDK efficacy using two training modules including 20 household surveys and 327 surfaces samples before and after cleaning. During interviews, 80% of the international-level informants discussed evidence gaps for both interventions, and 60% preferred HDKs. Conversely, no national-level informants knew what an HDK was; therefore, they all preferred spraying. Informants discussed behavior changes, bleach perceptions, and implementation as facilitators and/or barriers to implementing both interventions. In households, training with demonstrations regarding the use of HDK led to increased reductions of Escherichia coli (P < 0.001) and Vibrio spp. (P < 0.001) on surfaces after participants cleaned the household compared with a hygiene promotion session only. These results emphasize the gap between the current international-level policy and the realities of cholera response programs, highlight the need for evidence to align household disinfection recommendations, and underscore the importance of the dissemination and training of responders and affected populations regarding methods to prevent intrahousehold cholera transmission.

Laboratory Efficacy of Locally Available Backwashing Methods at Removing Fouling in Hollow-Fiber Membrane Filters Used for Household Water Treatment.

Hollow-fiber membrane filters (HFMFs) for household water treatment (HWT) can efficaciously remove disease-causing organisms in laboratory settings. However, lower effectiveness in use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and humanitarian contexts (HCs) has been observed and attributed to membrane fouling and the associated cleaning. In LMICs/HCs, it is not possible to prevent and control fouling using commonly known methods (e.g., testing influent water, maintenance regimes), and the literature on fouling/cleaning of HFMFs distributed in LMICs is scarce. As such, controlled laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the efficacy of locally available (in LMICs/HCs) backwashing solutions at removing fouling using different influent waters and HFMF types. Four commonly distributed HFMFs were selected; fouling layers were developed by filtering three influent water compositions, representing LMIC/HC waters, for 10-days, and bleach, water, or vinegar backwashing solutions were used for daily backwashing. Filter performance indicators included: fiber mechanical properties (strain at break, break force), water quantity performance (flow), water quality performance (turbidity, E. coli), and imaging. The study found fouling developed rapidly and altered mechanical properties and water quantity indicators within 200 h of filtration. Fouling did not decrease water quality indicators. Backwashing improved the filter's mechanical properties and water quantity performance, but it did not fully recover the initial performance. Additionally, recovery differed between backwashing solutions, and no universal cleaning recommendation appropriate for HFMFs in LMICs/HCs was identified. Overall, fouling development and control depended on HFMF type, influent water quality, and backwashing solution type; thus, caution before distributing HFMFs for long-term use in LMICs/HCs is recommended.

Modeling of Hydraulic Performance in Disks and Full-Scale Ceramic Water Filters.

Ceramic filters for household water treatment can improve water quality and reduce diarrheal disease. Hydraulic performance is critical for quality control and user acceptability, and hydraulic models have previously been developed and tested with experimental full-scale filters. As filters are cumbersome, there is interest in using disks instead of filters in laboratory efficacy studies. To assess the validity of disk use, we collected experimental volume from three sets of full-scale frustum-shaped filters and matching disks with different burn-out material sieve sizes and firing temperatures. We compared the experimental and fitted data by calibrating hydraulic conductivities from filters and disks. Hydraulic conductivities increased with larger burn-out material and higher firing temperatures but were comparable between filters and disks (2.00-6.15 × 10-7m·s-1 and 2.69-6.32 × 10-7m·s-1, respectively). We found that previously described hydraulic models successfully predicted cumulative volumes for filters and disks with rRMSE ranging from 2.1 to 9.6% (filters) and 3.4 to 4.7% (disks). The error increased slightly (rRMSE: 5.0-15%) when predicting hydraulic parameters for filters from the hydraulic conductivity of disks. Our results validate a method to predict full-scale filter hydraulic performance from hydraulic conductivity of disks and can be used to simplify and increase testing capacity, resulting in higher quality, more acceptable filters that improve household drinking water quality.

Lessons learned from conducting six multi-country mixed-methods effectiveness research studies on water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in humanitarian response.

BACKGROUND: Provision of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to affected populations in humanitarian emergencies is necessary for dignity and communicable disease control. Additional evidence on WASH interventions is needed in humanitarian settings. Between 2008 and 2019, we completed six multi-country, mixed-methods effectiveness studies in humanitarian response on six different WASH interventions. In each evaluation, we conducted: key informant interviews; water point observations and water quality testing; household surveys with recipients, including survey and water quality testing; focus group discussions; and/or, secondary data analysis. The research questions were: "What is the effectiveness of [intervention] in reducing the risk of diarrhea/cholera transmission; and, what programmatic factors lead to higher effectiveness?" DISCUSSION: In all six multi-country, mixed-methods evaluations, policy-relevant outcomes were obtained. We found, in our individual research results, that: interventions could reduce the risk of disease in humanitarian contexts; this reduction of risk did not always occur, as there were large ranges in effectiveness; and, implementation factors were crucial to intervention effectiveness. When collaboratively reviewing our research process across evaluations, we found strategies for successfully conducting this research included: 1) working with partners to identify and evaluate programs; 2) rapidly obtaining approvals to deploy; and, 3) conducting research methodologies consistently. Personal connections, in-person communication, trust, and experience working together were key factors for success in identifying partners for evaluation. Successes in evaluation deployment occurred with flexibility, patience, commitment of adequate time, and understanding of processes; although we note access and security concerns in insecure contexts precluded deployment. Consistent and robust protocols, flexibility, and a consistent researcher on the ground in each context allowed for methodological consistency and high-quality results. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have found multi-country, mixed-methods results to be one crucial piece of the WASH evidence base in humanitarian contexts. This is particularly because evaluations of reductions in risk from real-world programming are policy-relevant, and are directly used to improve programming. In future, we need to flexibly work with donors, agencies, institutions, responders, local governments, local responders, and beneficiaries to design safe and ethical research protocols to answer questions related to WASH interventions effectiveness in humanitarian response, and, improve WASH programming.

A Systematic Review of Surface Contamination, Stability, and Disinfection Data on SARS-CoV-2 (Through July 10, 2020).

We conducted a systematic review of hygiene intervention effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2, including developing inclusion criteria, conducting the search, selecting articles for inclusion, and summarizing included articles. Overall, 96 268 articles were screened and 78 articles met inclusion criteria with outcomes in surface contamination, stability, and disinfection. Surface contamination was assessed on 3343 surfaces using presence/absence methods. Laboratories had the highest percent positive surfaces (21%, n = 83), followed by patient-room healthcare facility surfaces (17%, n = 1170), non-COVID-patient-room healthcare facility surfaces (12%, n = 1429), and household surfaces (3%, n = 161). Surface stability was assessed using infectivity, SARS-CoV-2 survived on stainless steel, plastic, and nitrile for half-life 2.3-17.9 h. Half-life decreased with temperature and humidity increases, and was unvaried by surface type. Ten surface disinfection tests with SARS-CoV-2, and 15 tests with surrogates, indicated sunlight, ultraviolet light, ethanol, hydrogen peroxide, and hypochlorite attain 99.9% reduction. Overall there was (1) an inability to align SARS-CoV-2 contaminated surfaces with survivability data and effective surface disinfection methods for these surfaces; (2) a knowledge gap on fomite contribution to SARS-COV-2 transmission; (3) a need for testing method standardization to ensure data comparability; and (4) a need for research on hygiene interventions besides surfaces, particularly handwashing, to continue developing recommendations for interrupting SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Selection of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate for Use in Surface Disinfection Efficacy Studies with Chlorine and Antimicrobial Surfaces.

Initial recommendations for surface disinfection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission were developed using previous evidence from potential surrogates. To the best of our knowledge, no appropriate surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 has been identified or confirmed for chlorine and antimicrobial surface disinfection. We completed a study to evaluate the efficacy of two hypothesized antimicrobial surfaces, and four chlorine solutions on nonporous and porous surfaces, against SARS-CoV-2 and three potential SARS-CoV-2 surrogates [coronavirus mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and bacteriophages Phi6 and MS2], to identify a BSL-1 or BSL-2 virus to use in future studies. We found SARS-CoV-2 can be reduced >4 log10 on porous and nonporous surfaces within 30 s upon exposure to 0.5% NaOCl. The results indicate coronavirus MHV-GFP is inactivated faster than SARS-CoV-2 (MHV-GFP ≥ 6.08 log10; SARS-CoV-2 = 0.66 log10 at 30 s with 0.05% NaOCl on steel) and MS2 is inactivated more slowly. Phi6 is inactivated like SARS-CoV-2, and we propose Phi6 as a slightly conservative surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 chlorine disinfection. Additionally, disinfection of bacteriophages on wood was challenging, and exposure to antimicrobial surfaces had no disinfection efficacy as tested. We recommend using 0.5% chlorine on surfaces for a minimum of 30 s of contact to disinfect SARS-CoV-2 and recommend additional research on Phi6 disinfection with varied surfaces and conditions.

Laboratory efficacy of surface disinfection using chlorine against Vibrio cholerae.

Disinfecting surfaces with chlorine is commonly conducted in cholera outbreaks to prevent ongoing fomite-based transmission, yet evidence gaps have led to contradictory guidance. In this study, we tested the efficacy of spraying and wiping chlorine on five representatives non-porous and five porous surfaces to remove Vibrio cholerae. In total, 120 disinfection tests were run in replicate on carriers inoculated with 1.02 × 107-1.73 × 108 V. cholerae CFU/cm2. Surfaces disinfected by spraying 0.2% chlorine had >3 log reduction value (LRV) on 7/10 and 9/10 surfaces at 1 and 10 min, respectively; and 2.0% chlorine on 9/10 and 10/10 surfaces at 1 and 10 min, respectively. Surfaces disinfected by wiping 0.2% chlorine had >3 LRV on 3/10 and 7/10 surfaces at 1 and 10 min, respectively; and 2.0% chlorine on 8/10 surfaces at 1 and 10 min. We found no significant differences between chlorine types (p < 0.05), higher reductions with spraying compared to wiping (p = 0.001), and lower reductions on porous compared to non-porous surfaces (p = 0.006 spraying and p < 0.001 wiping). Our results support using 0.2% chlorine sprayed on all surfaces, or wiped on most non-heavily soiled surfaces, and a 2.0% concentration on contaminated porous surfaces; and emphasize surfaces must be visibly wetted to achieve disinfection.

Household spraying in cholera outbreaks: Insights from three exploratory, mixed-methods field effectiveness evaluations.

Household spraying is a commonly implemented, yet an under-researched, cholera response intervention where a response team sprays surfaces in cholera patients' houses with chlorine. We conducted mixed-methods evaluations of three household spraying programs in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti, including 18 key informant interviews, 14 household surveys and observations, and 418 surface samples collected before spraying, 30 minutes and 24 hours after spraying. The surfaces consistently most contaminated with Vibrio cholerae were food preparation areas, near the patient's bed and the latrine. Effectiveness varied between programs, with statistically significant reductions in V. cholerae concentrations 30 minutes after spraying in two programs. Surface contamination after 24 hours was variable between households and programs. Program challenges included difficulty locating households, transportation and funding limitations, and reaching households quickly after case presentation (disinfection occurred 2-6 days after reported cholera onset). Program advantages included the concurrent deployment of hygiene promotion activities. Further research is indicated on perception, recontamination, cost-effectiveness, viable but nonculturable V. cholerae, and epidemiological coverage. We recommend that, if spraying is implemented, spraying agents should: disinfect surfaces systematically until wet using 0.2/2.0% chlorine solution, including kitchen spaces, patients' beds, and latrines; arrive at households quickly; and, concurrently deploy hygiene promotion activities.

Effectiveness of water chlorination programs along the emergency-transition-post-emergency continuum: Evaluations of bucket, in-line, and piped water chlorination programs in Cox's Bazar.

Supplying safe drinking water in humanitarian emergencies is critical, and source water chlorination is a commonly implemented intervention to provide safe water. We evaluated three different source water chlorination programs (bucket, in-line, and piped water chlorination) in the ongoing humanitarian response in Cox's Bazar refugee camps in Bangladesh. We used a mixed-methods research protocol including key informant interviews, water point observations, focus group discussions, household surveys, and water quality testing. The three evaluated programs were implemented at different response stages and required different levels of staffing, infrastructure, and community mobilization work. In the bucket chlorination program, highly contaminated open well water was chlorinated, in in-line and piped water chlorination programs, groundwater was treated. Overall, 71% of bucket, 36% of in-line, and 60% of piped water chlorination households had stored water that met free chlorine residual (FCR) criteria, respectively. Additionally, 71% of bucket, 86% of in-line, and 91% of piped water chlorination households had stored water that met Escherichia coli (E. coli) criteria (<10 E. coli CFU/100 mL). Regression results indicate presence of FCR, serving water by pouring, and higher source water pH were associated with meeting E. coli criteria. Our results highlight: no individual program fully met international standards as implemented, although each partially met standards; the importance of understanding beneficiary preferences and behavior change campaigns; and, the benefits and drawbacks of each source water chlorination program must be considered before implementation. Overall, we found appropriate source water chlorination program choice is a continuum, depending on humanitarian phase and context. Therefore, we recommend continuing context- and phase-appropriate source water chlorination programs, emphasizing consistent and acceptable chlorine dosage, implementing programmatic improvements, and incorporating user preferences to reduce microbial contamination and consequently the risk of waterborne diseases.

Delivering Drinking Water by Truck in Humanitarian Contexts: Results from Mixed-Methods Evaluations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bangladesh.

Water trucking is a commonly implemented, but severely under-researched, drinking water supply intervention in humanitarian response. To fill this research gap, we conducted three mixed-methods water trucking program evaluations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bangladesh, including interviews, water point observations, household surveys, focus groups, and water quality testing. Results indicated that the programs had complex implementation structures involving multiple agencies and limited infrastructure to properly collect, treat, and deliver water. All programs met queueing time and distance indicators, did not meet water quantity indicators, and inconsistently met water quality indicators. Free chlorine residual (FCR) declined through the water chain, and household water Escherichia coli concentrations were associated with household FCR, receiving behavior change messages, storage container type, and distance from the distribution point. Users appreciated water trucking, especially compared to previous water sources, and expressed desires for increased quantity, improved quality, and consistent delivery. If water trucking programs are implemented, it is recommended to have the financial resources to install sanitary collection and distribution infrastructure, establish a management team of all implementation partners, ensure sufficient water quantity is delivered, ensure recommended FCR levels at distribution points, monitor FCR throughout distribution, and complete behavior change communication activities about the program and safe water storage with users.

Operational research on rural, community-managed Water Safety Plans: Case study results from implementations in India, DRC, Fiji, and Vanuatu.

Water Safety Plans (WSPs) are internationally recommended risk assessment and management strategies for water delivery. However, documented outcomes and impacts from implementing WSPs are lacking, particularly for community-managed supplies. In this research, previously implemented, community-managed WSPs were evaluated in four countries through a mixed-methods protocol assessing: WSP implementation quality, WSP management via key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD), household characteristics, and collection-point and stored household water quality in WSP and non-WSP communities. Overall, 256 KIIs and FGDs, 816 household surveys, and 1,099 water quality samples were completed. The quality of WSP implementations scored 6-13 out of 18 possible points. KIIs and FGDs found WSP communities had improved capacity to manage water supplies and identify key risks to safe water delivery. Fewer non-WSP community households reported paying for water in DRC and Vanuatu (p < 0.001). WSP community water collection-points had more E. coli contamination than non-WSP community collection-points in DRC (p = 0.009), Fiji (p = 0.020), and Vanuatu (p = 0.004); household results varied, although exploratory analysis revealed that non-WSP communities were imperfectly matched to WSP communities. Overall, we found: 1) incomplete WSP implementations; 2) small improvements in water supply operations; and, 3) no documented microbiological water quality improvements from WSPs. These results highlight that WSPs implemented in rural, community-managed supplies are challenging and question their effectiveness; if implemented additional technical and financial resources are necessary to support community-managed WSPs.