Literature DB >> 34997928

SARS-CoV-2: low virus load on surfaces in public areas.

Konstantin Zedtwitz-Liebenstein1.   

Abstract

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led people to implement preventive measures, including surface and hand disinfection with a disinfectant to avoid viral transmission. The detection of coronaviruses on surfaces implies not always a high danger of infection. Different coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 can be detected under experimental conditions on surfaces for many days. However, there are no studies concerning the virus load and the risk for an infection. The aim of our study was to find out if we could detect SARS-CoV-2 with a virus load greater than 106 copies/mL in public areas under real-life conditions. A total of 1200 swabs were performed on different environmental surfaces in public areas: handholds, press buttons in buses, tramways, tubes, elevators, shops, doorknobs in public buildings, public restrooms, touchscreens in shops and public transportation services, supermarket trolleys, banknotes and coins and immediately tested. We used Rapid Covid-19 Antigen Test (Clinitest®) by Siemens Healthineers (Healgen Scientific Limited Liability Company, Houston, USA, respectively, Shanghai International Holding Corp. GmbH (Europe), Hamburg, Germany). During our study, we were not able to detect SARS-CoV-2 with a virus load greater than 106 copies/ml although we pooled the swabs. According to the negative antigen tests and with a theoretically probability calculation of 1/24.000, there seems no relevant risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 in public areas. For people with underlying diseases or immunosuppression, the risk of transmission respectively infectivity cannot be excluded with this study.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Low virus load; Public areas; SARS-CoV-2

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34997928      PMCID: PMC8742566          DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-18514-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   5.190


Introduction

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led people to implement preventive measures including surface and hand disinfection to avoid viral transmission. Environmental conditions can affect coronavirus survival for until 28 days on different surfaces (Marzoli et al. 2021). However, there are no studies concerning the virus load and the risk for an infection. The aim of our study was to find out if it is possible to detect SARS-CoV-2 with a virus load greater than 106 copies/ml in public areas under real-life conditions.

Material and methods

Study design

The study was performed between January and April 2021 during the rush hour in the morning and the evening in different public areas. The average outside temperature during this time was 4.7 °C (range -8.4 °C to 25.3 °C). The surface swabbing was performed on different environmental surfaces in public areas: handholds, press buttons in buses, tramways, tubes, elevators, shops, supermarket trolleys or doorknobs in public buildings, public restrooms, touchscreens in shops and public transportation services, banknotes and coins. Because of negative test results at the beginning of the study, we decided to pool 20 swabs in one extraction tube which contains 0.3 ml of the extraction buffer. The tests were performed in consideration with the sample preparation procedure. We used Rapid Covid-19 Antigen Test (Clinitest®) by Siemens Healthineers (Healgen Scientific Limited Liability Company, Houston, USA, respectively, Shanghai International Holding Corp. GmbH (Europe), Hamburg, Germany). This assays showed a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity Confidence Intervall 95 (CI) of 54.9% (43.3–65.9). This test was consequently able to detect 106 copies/mL (Olearo et al. 2021).

Results

During our study, 1200 swabs were performed but all antigen tests were negative. Although we pooled 20 swabs in one extraction tube, we were not able to detect SARS-CoV-2 with a virus load greater than 106 copies/mL. With a theoretically probability calculation of 1/24.000, we decided to stop this study. In summary, the high count of performed swabs with the pooling procedure could show that the probability to find a high virus load is rare.

Discussion

SARS-CoV-2 transmission like other coronaviruses occurs by direct or indirect contact with nasal, conjunctival or oral mucosa, when virus particles are inhaled or deposited on these mucous membranes. Virus receptors are found mainly in the human respiratory tract epithelium, including the oropharynx and upper airway. The conjunctiva and gastrointestinal tract are also susceptible to infection and may serve as transmission portals (Stadnytskyi et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). SARS-CoV RNA shedding persists in the upper respiratory tract and in faeces for more than 1 month after illness onset (Cevik et al. 2020a, 2020b). However, virus isolation has rarely been successful from the stool (Cevik et al. 2020a, 2020b) and faecal–oral transmission is not considered a primary driver of infection (Cevik et al. 2021). Evidence of viral transmission from contaminated surfaces has been shown in the case of enteric viruses (Boone and Gerba 2007), but in contrast, evidence specifically referring to SARS-CoV-2 is missing. Studies concerning survival time of different coronaviruses on surfaces showed that the virus can be detected under experimental conditions for many days (Table 1). In these studies, no virus load was performed which is necessary to evaluate the risk of transmission respectively infectivity.
Table 1

Survival of different coronaviruses on different surfaces

SurfaceType of virusSurvival (days)References
Metal, surfaces of polymer and paper banknotesSARS-CoV-228Riddell et al. 2020
Glass and paperSARS-CoV-228Riddell et al. 2020
Face mask daysSARS-CoV-27Chin et al. 2020
BanknotesSARS-CoV-24Chin et al. 2020
Polymer and plastic banknotesSARS-CoV-228Riddell et al. 2020
Mosaic and soilSARS-CoV3–4Duan et al. 2003
Polymer surfacesSARS-CoV13Chan et al. 2011
SpongeCoronavirus1Sizun et al. 2000
CeramicCoronavirus5Warnes et al. 2015
Glass surfaces at 20 °CCoronavirus14Chan et al. 2020
Survival of different coronaviruses on different surfaces Generally, surface and environment disinfection is necessary in hospital settings because the possibility of coronavirus transmission from contaminated dry surfaces to individuals exists (Dowell et al. 2004; Otter et al. 2016). Environmental factors such as temperature, moisture, exposure to UV and surface characteristics also affect virus survival on surfaces (Boone and Gerba 2007). High temperature and high relative humidity have a synergistic effect on inactivation of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viability, while low temperatures and low relative humidity support prolonged survival of these viruses on contaminated surfaces (Biryukov et al. 2020; Chan et al. 2020, 2011; Van Doremalen et al. 2013). In the beginning of the study, we had to decide which test should be the best for this investigation. PCR or Antigen test. The PCR test has a high sensitivity and specificity that can detect small numbers of viral RNA. Recent studies involving upper respiratory swab specimens reported no cases of COVID19 transmission with SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA loads < 104 copies/mL. Others showed that specimens with viral RNA loads ≤ 106 copies/mL have a low probability of having culturable SARS-CoV-2 virus (Pekosz et al. 2021). We decided to use a rapid antigen test, which implies current infection with SARS-CoV-2 (Verma et al. 2020). The sensitivity of this rapid antigen detection test (Ag-RDT) increases when testing samples with higher RNA virus concentration (Warnes et al. 2015). Although the correlation between virus load and transmissibility is not entirely clear, several studies showed that samples with a virus load ≥ 106 RNA copies/mL were likely to correlate with infectivity in cell culture models (Kohmer et al. 2021). We stopped this study because all antigen tests were negative. The high count of performed swabs with the pooling procedure could show that the probability to find infectious SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA with a virus load ≥ 106 copies/mL must be rare or improbably. Further studies concerning transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA with a virus load < 106 copies/mL in people with a limited immune system, underlining diseases or immunosuppressive therapy are necessary. The risk of transmission respectively infectivity cannot be excluded for these people with this study.

Conclusion

With a theoretically probability calculation of 1/24.000 and the missing detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA with a virus load ≥ 106 copies/mL, there seems no relevant risk of infection in public areas. For people with underlying diseases or immunosuppression, the risk of transmission respectively infectivity cannot be excluded with this study.
  22 in total

1.  Virology, transmission, and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Muge Cevik; Krutika Kuppalli; Jason Kindrachuk; Malik Peiris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-10-23

2.  The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus.

Authors:  K H Chan; J S Malik Peiris; S Y Lam; L L M Poon; K Y Yuen; W H Seto
Journal:  Adv Virol       Date:  2011-10-01

3.  Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19.

Authors:  Renyi Zhang; Yixin Li; Annie L Zhang; Yuan Wang; Mario J Molina
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Increasing Temperature and Relative Humidity Accelerates Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on Surfaces.

Authors:  Jennifer Biryukov; Jeremy A Boydston; Rebecca A Dunning; John J Yeager; Stewart Wood; Amy L Reese; Allison Ferris; David Miller; Wade Weaver; Nathalie E Zeitouni; Aaron Phillips; Denise Freeburger; Idris Hooper; Shanna Ratnesar-Shumate; Jason Yolitz; Melissa Krause; Gregory Williams; David G Dawson; Artemas Herzog; Paul Dabisch; Victoria Wahl; Michael C Hevey; Louis A Altamura
Journal:  mSphere       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.389

5.  The Comparative Clinical Performance of Four SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests and Their Correlation to Infectivity In Vitro.

Authors:  Niko Kohmer; Tuna Toptan; Christiane Pallas; Onur Karaca; Annika Pfeiffer; Sandra Westhaus; Marek Widera; Annemarie Berger; Sebastian Hoehl; Martin Kammel; Sandra Ciesek; Holger F Rabenau
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Muge Cevik; Matthew Tate; Ollie Lloyd; Alberto Enrico Maraolo; Jenna Schafers; Antonia Ho
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2020-11-19

7.  Antigen-Based Testing but Not Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Correlates With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral Culture.

Authors:  Andrew Pekosz; Valentin Parvu; Maggie Li; Jeffrey C Andrews; Yukari C Manabe; Salma Kodsi; Devin S Gary; Celine Roger-Dalbert; Jeffry Leitch; Charles K Cooper
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 9.079

8.  Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

Authors:  Flaminia Olearo; Dominik Nörz; Fabian Heinrich; Jan Peter Sutter; Kevin Roedl; Alexander Schultze; Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch; Platon Braun; Lisa Oestereich; Benno Kreuels; Dominic Wichmann; Martin Aepfelbacher; Susanne Pfefferle; Marc Lütgehetmann
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 3.168

9.  Human Coronavirus 229E Remains Infectious on Common Touch Surface Materials.

Authors:  Sarah L Warnes; Zoë R Little; C William Keevil
Journal:  MBio       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 7.867

10.  Factors affecting stability and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  K-H Chan; S Sridhar; R R Zhang; H Chu; A Y-F Fung; G Chan; J F-W Chan; K K-W To; I F-N Hung; V C-C Cheng; K-Y Yuen
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 3.926

View more
  1 in total

1.  Assessment of Surface Disinfection Effectiveness of Decontamination System COUNTERFOG® SDR-F05A+ Against Bacteriophage ɸ29.

Authors:  Cristina Del Álamo; Ángela Vázquez-Calvo; Antonio Alcamí; Juan Sánchez-García-Casarrubios; José Luis Pérez-Díaz
Journal:  Food Environ Virol       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 4.034

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.