4.7 Article

SARS-CoV-2 removal with a polyurethane foam composite

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 8, Pages 22024-22032

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-23758-3

Keywords

COVID-19; RT-q PCR; Biofoam

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented impacts on health and the economy, emphasizing the importance of basic sanitation and social equality. This study developed a low-cost and efficient polyurethane biofoam material for the removal of SARS-CoV-2 from water, showing promising results.
The pandemic of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 disease) has been causing unprecedented health and economic impacts, alerting the world to the importance of basic sanitation and existing social inequalities. The risk of the spread and appearance of new diseases highlights the need for the removal of these pathogens through efficient techniques and materials. This study aimed to develop a polyurethane (PU) biofoam filled with dregs waste (leftover from the pulp and paper industry) for removal SARSCoV-2 from the water. The biofoam was prepared by the free expansion method with the incorporation of 5wt% of dregs as a filler. For the removal assays, the all materials and its isolated phases were incubated for 24 h with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viral suspension. Then, the RNA was extracted and the viral load was quantified using the quantitative reverse transcription (RT-qPCR) technique. The biofoam (polyurethane/dregs) reached a great removal percentage of 91.55%, whereas the isolated dregs waste was 99.03%, commercial activated carbon was 99.64%, commercial activated carbon/polyurethane was 99.30%, and neat PU foam reached was 99.96% for this same property and without statistical difference. Those new materials endowed with low cost and high removal efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 as alternatives to conventional adsorbents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available