Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Dirk Bockmühl
 -- 2027 2022-11-13 19:17:28 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 Meta information modification 2027 2022-11-14 03:32:10 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Merettig, N.;  Bockmühl, D.P. Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34257 (accessed on 01 July 2024).
Merettig N,  Bockmühl DP. Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34257. Accessed July 01, 2024.
Merettig, Nadine, Dirk P. Bockmühl. "Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34257 (accessed July 01, 2024).
Merettig, N., & Bockmühl, D.P. (2022, November 13). Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34257
Merettig, Nadine and Dirk P. Bockmühl. "Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering." Encyclopedia. Web. 13 November, 2022.
Virucidal Efficacy of Laundering
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/pathogens11090993

Viruses contribute significantly to the burden of infectious diseases worldwide. Although there are multiple infection routes associated with viruses, it is important to break the chain of infection and thus consider all possible transmission routes. Consequently, laundering can be a means to eliminate viruses from textiles, in clinical settings well as for domestic laundry procedures. Several factors influence the survival and inactivation of microorganisms, including viruses on hard surfaces and textiles. Therefore, textiles should be regarded as potential fomites. While in clinical and industrial settings laundry hygiene is ensured by standardized processes, temperatures of at least 60 °C and the use of oxidizing agents, domestic laundry is not well defined. Thus, the parameters affecting viral mitigation must be understood and prudently applied, especially in domestic laundering. Laundering can serve as a means to break the chain of infection for viral diseases by means of temperature, time, chemistry and mechanical action.

virus laundry detergent

1. Introduction

When trying to control the spread of viral pathogens it is crucial to consider all means suitable for breaking the potential chain of infection. In this regard, the virucidal performance of domestic laundry processes might act as one important parameter to reduce virus transmission [1][2], although surfaces have been shown only to play a minor role in the transmission of respiratory viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2 [3][4]. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly created a growing demand for an effective hygiene framework to deal with viral pathogens in everyday life settings. Although common domestic hygiene standards should always be applied in a targeted way [5], e.g., hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and general home hygiene, hard surfaces and textiles can be regarded as fomites and thus need to be addressed to lower the infection risk by viral pathogens including enteric viruses (norovirus and rotavirus), respiratory viruses (influenza and coronavirus) and other viruses, e.g., herpes simplex virus and poliovirus [6]. The main building blocks of the viral structure are the nucleic acid core and the surrounding protein capsid for non-enveloped viruses and an additional lipid bilayer for enveloped viruses, harboring surface proteins or glycoproteins which mediate the connection to specific receptor sites on susceptible host cell surfaces. The structure of surface proteins is determined by the viral nucleic acid, while the lipid bilayer is derived from the host cell membrane.

2. Factors Influencing the Antiviral Efficacy of Laundering

Like the cleaning performance, the antimicrobial effect of laundering follows the principle introduced by Herbert Sinner (1960) according to which a washing process is determined by four variables: temperature, mechanical action, chemistry and time [7].

2.1. Temperature

Temperature directly affects the inactivation of microbial cells and viral particles on reduction on laundry items by thermal impact; it also helps in physico-chemical removal of organic matter and plays a role in the activation of peracids. Studies suggest that temperatures of 60 °C might be able to completely reduce the vast majority range of microorganisms on textiles, including non-enveloped viruses, even without the use of activated oxygen bleach [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. For decades, a trend towards lower temperatures has been observed, which comprises the major means to save energy during the washing process and to promote clothes longevity; however, this also has been shown to decrease the antimicrobial performance of laundering; moreover, it has been shown that particularly enveloped viruses are readily inactivated even when lower temperatures and a bleach-free detergent is used [2]. In North America laundering conditions typically are much lower than European with the cold wash being on average 16 °C compared 30 °C for Europe with minimal impact on overall health. Thus, laundering at lower temperatures can considered to deliver a sufficient hygiene level, unless non-enveloped viruses are concerned.

2.2. Chemistry

Even without the use of antimicrobial agents, the detergency effect will lead to a considerable decrease of the microbial cells on a fabric surface, which can be attributed to the mechanical removal rather than a killing effect; however, adding commonly used biocidal substances such as bleaching agents or quaternary ammonium compounds might increase the antimicrobial efficacy [2][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Gerba et al. reported the effect of washing and drying in a home washing machine on enteric viruses (Adenovirus, Rotavirus, and Hepatitis A virus) [25]. The enteric viruses remained infectious throughout laundering without bleach and transmission from contaminated to uncontaminated swatches occurred, while a great impact on 99.99% virus reduction by bleach was observed [25]; furthermore coronaviruses are effected by bleach (concentration 0.1%), either Ethanol (62–71%) showed to be quite effective (>4 log) [27]. Especially SARS-CoV-1 und SARS-CoV-2 are described as unusually stable beside the envelope, even though they are rather lipophilic and sensitive to solvents and surfactants [28]; moreover, a wide pH stability could be shown for SARS-CoV-2 [28]. The virucidal efficiency of current laundering processes for enveloped viruses is due to the virion sensitivity to detergents and aided by bleach and they can be inactivated even at 20–30 °C [2][29]. Virus particles, enveloped or not are able to survive washing at 30 °C without detergent and can contribute for transmission, so that recommendations for the inactivation, use detergents or elevated temperatures [2][8][28][29]. Traditionally, in many parts of the world, chlorine bleach has been used for this purpose, whereas in other countries activated oxygen bleach (AOB) can be predominately found. The active ingredient percarbonate releases hydrogen peroxide in aqueous solutions at higher temperatures. Using bleach activators such as TAED (tetraacetylethylenediamine) or NOBS (sodium nonanoyloxybenzenesulfonate) can push this reaction below 60 °C and can thus significantly increase the antimicrobial efficacy even at lower temperatures [11][15][18]. The use of quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) like benzalkonium chloride (BAC) and dimethyl didecyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) is common for hygiene rinse aids since anionic surfactants which are widely used in laundry detergents are not compatible with those. QACs can interact with the surface of negatively charged textiles, and thus providing a persisting antimicrobial effect. The exerted antimicrobial efficacy highly depends on the type of microorganism and residual detergent left in the rinse. While the use of QACs results in a high reduction of gram-positive bacteria even at low concentrations, fungi or Pseudomonads are much less affected by these biocides [30]. There is no comprehensive data on the antiviral efficacy of QACs in laundering, although these substances are active against certain viruses as well [31]. Chin et al. described the viral reduction below levels of detection, when 0.10% of benzalkonium chloride is used against SARS-CoV-2 [32].

2.3. Time

As proposed in the Sinner’s principle, it has been shown that a decrease in temperature can be compensated by increasing other variables, in particular the wash cycle time [11]; however longer washing cycles cannot completely restore the antimicrobial performance of laundering for certain microorganisms at very low temperatures [11]; it must be noted that this has been proven using bacterial and fungal test strains, but has not applied to virucidal effects so far. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that at least a limited compensation of lower temperatures by longer times will also be seen for virucidal effects. Honisch et al. described the interplay between time and temperature in current washing machines that aim to decrease the washing temperatures in order to save energy and in turn exhibit very long programme durations [11][33].

2.4. Mechanical Action

Finally, the construction type of the washing machine (i.e., horizontal vs. vertical axis) can be regarded a factor influencing the antimicrobial efficacy by mechanical action. Although evidence is still poor, it was shown by Honisch et al., that the mechanical action of the washing machine might help to physically remove microbial cells from textiles [21]. At least for enveloped viruses, carrying a cell membrane as the outer layer, these principles may apply as well.

3. Studies on the Antiviral Efficacy of Laundering

In terms of their role in the transmission of infectious diseases, textiles and laundering have not been studied intensively so far. Bloomfield et al. (2011) compiled available studies on the potential infection risk associated with contaminated textiles, also regarding viruses, resuming that textiles are considered potential fomites, also for viral diseases [25][34]; however, due to the low frequency of association it may not be a large source of transmission. Some studies described the microbial community associated with laundry as a resulting consortia from skin-associated bacteria, microorganisms from the environment and from washing machine biofilms [35][36][37][38]. As mentioned before, laundering can be used to disinfect contaminated textiles; however, when addressing a laundry-related risk of virus infections, not only the reduction by the laundering process itself has to be considered. Likewise, the specific interaction between virus and textile and the viral survival vary significantly depending on the virus species and the way of handling textiles in the laundry process [33]. Parameters like ambient organic matter or the ability to associate with surfaces via connection by the spike glycoproteins as anchors, stabilize the virion [26]. Enteric viruses are far more resistant to laundering procedures and antimicrobial agents. In general, non-enveloped viruses are more difficult to inactivate, whereas enveloped viruses are easier to inactivate in a washing process, because the phospholipid envelope can be disrupted by the detergent. Some non-enveloped enteric viruses have been proven to survive longer on textiles, and Poliovirus survives at room temperature on cotton up to 84 days [39]. Higher temperatures (30–40 °C) decreases the duration of persistence of coronaviruses, i.e., MERS-CoV, Alphacoronavirus 1 (TGEV), MHV, while lower temperature (4 °C) increase the persistence of MHV and Alphacoronavirus 1 (TGEV) up to 28 days [27]. HCoV 229E seems to be stable at room temperature and 50% relative humidity (RH) [27], whereas temperature at 6 °C seems to have a greater impact on enhanced survival rates than RH [40]. In general the influence of humidity on persistence has been described inconsistently [41].
Scientific studies on laundry hygiene are mostly focused on bacteria and fungi, whereas viral pathogens have been considered much less [33][42]; however, there are some studies dealing with viruses on textiles in particular and the antiviral efficacy of laundry-associated processes.
Apart from a direct transmission to humans, a transfer of viruses from contaminated textiles to other textiles in a common household laundry process has been described as well [2][26][29][43], presumably during laundering; however, this phenomenon might also take place on dry textile and might especially concern non-enveloped viruses. For instance, Herpes simplex virus (HSV) seems to be more stable in low humidity and at low temperatures [44], so cross-contamination may even occur outside the washing machine, e.g., when handling insufficiently decontaminated laundry. In contrast to that, a complete inactivation of HSV in common household laundry was observed when using a detergent containing activated oxygen bleach [29][41]. Heinzel et al. confirmed a good virucidal efficacy even at 40 °C by conventional household laundry detergents (0.4%) for enveloped viruses like Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV), Vaccinavirus (VACV) as well as for non-enveloped viruses, such as Bovine Parvovirus (BPV), Poliovirus and Simianvirus (SV40); it was shown that the virus particles were not only completely removed from the textiles, but chemically inactivated, leading to a reduction of >5 log [2]. Belonging to the most difficult viruses to inactivate, Noroviruses (NoV) have been shown to be resistant against a great range of chemical agents, thus detergents containing activated oxygen bleach and washing temperatures above 50 °C are required for a complete inactivation when taking the washing machine only into consideration [8][45]. Rotaviruses are inactivated by a common disinfectant ingredients including 70% ethanol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, povidone—iodine, hypochlorite (without faecal matter), ultraviolet radiation and heat, not all of them being applicable in laundry. Professional and domestic laundry is mostly followed by a drying cycle at high temperatures (e.g., in a tumble dryer), this means can be considered as well, when estimating the antiviral efficacy of a common laundry process. In some studies, processing steps using heat (80 °C) or even high pressure have also been investigated [46]. Tests on the stability of SARS-CoV on surfaces (polystyrene) showed that SARS-Coronavirus remains infectious for up to six days, in particular in presence of protein load; however, at 56 °C a quick and complete inactivation was observed [47], suggesting the efficacy of laundering and/or drying at high temperatures is sufficient. After a potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from contaminated dry surfaces has been discussed [48], MacIntyre et.al. investigated the efficacy of laundering on medical face masks and non-medical face masks (two- layered cotton mask) in a randomised trial [49]. The masks were reused and cleaned on a daily base, either by hand-wash with soap, tap water and air-dried, or by hospital laundry. The study showed that non-medical face masks can be as protective as medical masks, if washed as recommended by WHO (≥60 °C, with detergent) [49][50].

References

  1. Duan, G. Intuition on virology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and control of COVID-19. Nov. Res. Microbiol. J. 2020, 4, 955–967.
  2. Heinzel, M.; Kyas, A.; Weide, M.; Breves, R.; Bockmühl, D.P. Evaluation of the virucidal performance of domestic laundry procedures. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2010, 213, 334–337.
  3. Tharayil, A.; Rajakumari, R.; Mozetic, M.; Primc, G.; Thomas, S. Contact transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on fomite surfaces: Surface survival and risk reduction. Interface Focus 2021, 12, 20210042.
  4. Gonçalves, J.; da Silva, P.G.; Reis, L.; Nascimento, M.S.J.; Koritnik, T.; Paragi, M.; Mesquita, J.R. Surface contamination with SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149231.
  5. Bloomfield, S.F.; Exner, M.; Fara, G.M.; Scott, E.A. Perspectives prevention of the spread of infection-the need for a family-centred approach to hygiene promotion. Eurosurveillance 2008, 13, 18889.
  6. Bloomfield, S.F.; Exner, M.; Signorelli, C.; Nath, K.J.; Scott, E.A. The Infection Risks Associated with Clothing and Household Linens in Home and Everyday Life Settings, and the Role of Laundry. International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene. 2011. Available online: http://www.ifh-homehygiene.org/best-practice-review/infection-risks-associated-clothing-and-household-linens-home-and-everyday-life (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  7. Sinner, H. Über Das Waschen Mit Haushaltswaschmaschinen; Haus und Heim Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1960.
  8. Lemm, D.; Merettig, N.; Lucassen, R.; Bockmühl, D.P. Inactivation of Human Norovirus by Common Domestic Laundry Procedures. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2014, 51, 304–306.
  9. Bloomfield, S.F.; Exner, M.; Signorelli, C.; Scott, E.A. Effectiveness of laundering Processes Used in Domestic (Home) Settings; International Forum on Home Hygiene 2013. pp. 1–62. Available online: https://www.ifh-homehygiene.org/review/effectiveness-laundering-processes-used-domestic-home-settings-2013 (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  10. Bellante, S.; Engel, A.; Hatice, T.; Neumann, A.; Okyay, G.; Vossebein, L. Hygienische Aufbereitung von Textilien in Privathaushalten-eine Studie aus der Praxis pdf. Hyg. Med. 2011, 36, 300–305.
  11. Honisch, M.; Stamminger, R.; Bockmühl, D. Impact of wash cycle time, temperature and detergent formulation on the hygiene effectiveness of domestic laundering. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1787–1797.
  12. Ossowski, B.; Duchmann, U. Der Einfluß des haushalts- üblichen Waschprozesses auf mykotisch kontaminierte Textilien. Der Hautarzt 1997, 48, 397–401.
  13. Wiksell, J.C.; Pickett, M.S.; Hartman, P.A. Survival of microorganisms in laundered polyester-cotton sheeting. Appl. Microbiol. 1973, 25, 431–435.
  14. Walter, W.G.; Schillinger, J.E. Bacterial survival in laundered fabrics. Appl. Microbiol. 1975, 29, 368–373.
  15. Lichtenberg, W.; Girmond, F.; Niedner, R.; Schulze, I. Hygieneaspekte beim Niedrigtemperaturwaschen. SÖFW-J. 2006, 132, 28–34.
  16. Fijan, S.; Koren, S.; Cencic, A.; Šostar-Turk, S. Antimicrobial disinfection effect of a laundering proceedure for hospital textiles against various indicator bacteria and fungi using different substrates for simulating human excrements. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2007, 57, 251–257.
  17. Hammer, T.R.; Mucha, H.; Hoefer, D. Infection Risk by Dermatophytes During Storage and After Domestic Laundry and Their Temperature-Dependent Inactivation. Mycopathologia 2010, 171, 43–49.
  18. Linke, S.; Gemein, S.; Koch, S.; Gebel, J.; Exner, M. Orientating investigation of the inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus in the laundry process. Hyg. Med. 2011, 36, 8–12.
  19. Lucassen, R.; Merettig, N.; Bockmühl, D.P. Antimicrobial Efficacy of Hygiene Rinsers under Consumer-Related Conditions. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2013, 50, 259–262.
  20. Honisch, M.; Brands, B.; Stamminger, R.; Bockmühl, D.P. Impact of the Organic Soil Matrix on the Antimicrobial Effect of Laundering. In Proceedings of the the 62nd SEPAWA Congress and European Detergents Conference in Fulda, Fulda, Germany, 14–16 October 2015.
  21. Honisch, M.; Brands, B.; Weide, M.; Speckmann, H.-D.; Stamminger, R.; Bockmühl, D.P. Antimicrobial Efficacy of Laundry Detergents with Regard to Time and Temperature in Domestic Washing Machines. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2016, 53, 547–552.
  22. Schages, L.; Lucassen, R.; Wichern, F.; Kalscheuer, R.; Bockmühl, D. The Household Resistome: Frequency of β-Lactamases, Class 1 Integrons, and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in the Domestic Environment and Their Reduction during Automated Dishwashing and Laundering. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, 1–17.
  23. Sidwell, R.W.; Dixon, G.J.; Mcneil, E. Quantitative studies on fabrics as disseminators of viruses. 3. Persistence of vaccinia virus on fabrics impregnated with a virucidal agent. Appl. Microbiol. 1967, 15, 921–927.
  24. Gerba, C.P. Application of quantitative risk assessment for formulating hygiene policy in the domestic setting. J. Infect. 2001, 43, 92–98.
  25. Gerba, C.P.; Kennedy, D. Enteric Virus Survival during Household Laundering and Impact of Disinfection with Sodium Hypochlorite. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 4425–4428.
  26. Gerhardts, A.; Wilderer, C.; Mucha, H.; Höfer, D. Prüfung der Wirksamkeit Desinfizierender Waschverfahren Gegen Viren Mittels Einsatz Phagenhaltiger Bioindikatoren mit dem Surrogatvirus MS2 Teil 1: Niedertemperaturverfahren. Hyg. Med. 2009, 34, 272–281.
  27. Kampf, G.; Todt, D.; Pfaender, S.; Steinmann, E. Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 104, 246–251.
  28. Scheller, C.; Krebs, F.; Minkner, R.; Astner, I.; Gil-Moles, M.; Wätzig, H. Physicochemical properties of SARS-CoV-2 for drug targeting, virus inactivation and attenuation, vaccine formulation and quality control. Electrophoresis 2020, 41, 1137–1151.
  29. Gerhardts, A.; Bockmühl, D.; Kyas, A.; Hofmann, A.; Weide, M.; Rapp, I.; Höfer, D. Testing of the Adhesion of Herpes Simplex Virus on Textile Substrates and Its Inactivation by Household Laundry Processes. J. Biosci. Med. 2016, 04, 111–125.
  30. Fredell, D. Biological properties and applications of cationic surfactants. In Cationic Surfactants; Cross, J., Singer, E.J., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  31. Gerba, C.P. Quaternary ammonium biocides: Efficacy in application. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 464–469.
  32. Chin, H.A.W.; Chu, S.J.T.; Perera, A.M.R.; Hui, Y.K.P.; Yen, H.-L.; Chan, W.M.C.; Peiris, M.; Poon, M.L.L. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. Lancet Microbe 2020, 1, e10.
  33. Bockmühl, D.P. Laundry hygiene—How to get more than clean. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 1124–1133.
  34. Casanova, L.; Alfano-Sobsey, E.; Rutala, W.A.; Weber, D.J.; Sobsey, M. Virus Transfer from Personal Protective Equipment to Healthcare Employees’ Skin and Clothing. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 1291–1293.
  35. Blaser, M.J.; Smith, P.F.; Cody, H.J.; Wang, W.-L.L.; LaForce, F.M. Killing of Fabric-Associated Bacteria in Hospital Laundry by Low-Temperature Washing. J. Infect. Dis. 1984, 149, 48–57.
  36. Smith, J.; Neil, K.; Davidson, C.; Davidson, R. Effect of Water Temperature on Bacterial Killing in Laundry. Infect. Control 1987, 8, 204–209.
  37. Callewaert, C.; Van Nevel, S.; Kerckhof, F.-M.; Granitsiotis, M.S.; Boon, N. Bacterial Exchange in Household Washing Machines. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1381.
  38. Nix, I.D.; Frontzek, A.; Bockmühl, D.P. Characterization of Microbial Communities in Household Washing Machines. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2015, 52, 432–440.
  39. Yeargin, T.; Buckley, D.; Fraser, A.; Jiang, X. The survival and inactivation of enteric viruses on soft surfaces: A systematic review of the literature. Am. J. Infect. Control 2016, 44, 1365–1373.
  40. Geller, C.; Varbanov, M.; Duval, R.E. Human Coronaviruses: Insights into Environmental Resistance and Its Influence on the Development of New Antiseptic Strategies. Viruses 2012, 4, 3044–3068.
  41. Kramer, A.; Schwebke, I.; Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2006, 6, 130.
  42. Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Chemical-Thermal Textile Disinfection—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 2, Step 2), German Version. BS EN 16616:2015, 31 August 2015.
  43. Sidwell, R.W.; Dixon, G.J.; Westbrook, L.; Forziati, F.H. Quantitative Studies on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses. Appl. Microbiol. 1971, 21, 227–234.
  44. Kramer, A.; Guggenbichler, P.; Heldt, P.; Jünger, M.; Ladwig, A.; Thierbach, H.; Weber, U.; Daeschlein, G. Hygienic Relevance and Risk Assessment of Antimicrobial-Impregnated Textiles. In Biofunctional Textiles and the Skin; Karger: Basel, Switzerland, 2006; pp. 78–109.
  45. Tung, G.; Macinga, D.; Arbogast, J.; Jaykus, L.-A. Efficacy of Commonly Used Disinfectants for Inactivation of Human Noroviruses and Their Surrogates. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 1210–1217.
  46. Chemical Disinfection of Human Rotavirus-Contaminated Inanimate Surfaces on JSTOR. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3863221?seq=1 (accessed on 8 February 2021).
  47. Rabenau, H.F.; Cinatl, A.J.; Morgenstern, A.B.; Bauer, A.G.; Preiser, W.; Doerr, A.H.W. Stability and inactivation of SARS coronavirus. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 2005, 194, 1–6.
  48. Otter, J.A.; Donskey, C.; Yezli, S.; Douthwaite, S.; Goldenberg, S.D.; Weber, D.J. Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: The possible role of dry surface contamination. J. Hosp. Infect. 2015, 92, 235–250.
  49. MacIntyre, C.R.; Dung, T.C.; Chughtai, A.A.; Seale, H.; Rahman, B. Contamination and washing of cloth masks and risk of infection among hospital health workers in Vietnam: A post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e042045.
  50. WHO. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Waste Management for SARS-CoV-2, the Virus That Causes COVID-19: Interim Guidance, 29 July 2020; Report No. WHO/2019-nCoV/IPC_WASH/2020.4; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Nadine Merettig
,
Dirk P. Bockmühl
View Times: 448
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Nov 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback