4.5 Article

Survival of influenza virus on hands and fomites in community and laboratory settings

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 590-594

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.09.006

关键词

H1N1; Transmission; Detection; Viability

资金

  1. Clorox Services Company, Oakland, CA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transmission dynamics modeling provides a practical method for virtual evaluation of the impact of public health interventions in response to prospective influenza pandemics and also may help determine the relative contribution of different modes of transmission to overall infection rates. Accurate estimates of longevity for all forms of viral particles are needed for such models to be useful. Methods: We conducted a time course study to determine the viability and longevity of H1N1 virus on naturally contaminated hands and household surfaces of 20 individuals with laboratory-confirmed infection. Participants coughed or sneezed into their hands, which were sampled immediately and again after 5, 10, and 30 minutes. Samples also were obtained from household surfaces handled by the participants immediately after coughing/sneezing. Clinically obtained H1N1 isolates were used to assess the viability and longevity of the virus on various artificially inoculated common household surfaces and human hands in a controlled laboratory setting. Viral detection was achieved by culture and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Results: The results suggest that H1N1 does not survive long on naturally contaminated skin and fomites, and that secretions deposited on hands by coughing or sneezing have a concentration of <2.15 x 10 to 2.94 x 10 TCID50/mL. Conclusions: These data can be used to estimate the relative contribution of direct and indirect contact transmission on overall infection rates. Copyright (C) 2012 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据