UV-C irradiation is highly effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 replication

  1. Mara Biasin
  2. Andrea Bianco
  3. Giovanni Pareschi
  4. Adalberto Cavalleri
  5. Claudia Cavatorta
  6. Claudio Fenizia
  7. Paola Galli
  8. Luigi Lessio
  9. Manuela Lualdi
  10. Enrico Tombetti
  11. Alessandro Ambrosi
  12. Edoardo Maria Alberto Redaelli
  13. Irma Saulle
  14. Daria Trabattoni
  15. Alessio Zanutta
  16. Mario Clerici

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The potential virucidal effects of UV-C irradiation on SARS-CoV-2 were experimentally evaluated for different illumination doses and virus concentrations (1000, 5, 0.05 MOI). At a virus density comparable to that observed in SARS-CoV-2 infection, an UV-C dose of just 3.7 mJ/cm 2 was sufficient to achieve a more than 3-log inactivation without any sign of viral replication. Moreover, a complete inactivation at all viral concentrations was observed with 16.9 mJ/cm 2 . These results could explain the epidemiological trends of COVID-19 and are important for the development of novel sterilizing methods to contain SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-021-85425-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.05.20123463: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 (Virus Human 2019-nCoV strain 2019-nCoV/Italy-INMI1, Rome, Italy) at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 1000, 5 and 0.05 were treated with different doses of UV-C radiation (see the dedicated section) before inoculum into VeroE6 cells.
    VeroE6
    suggested: JCRB Cat# JCRB1819, RRID:CVCL_YQ49)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.05.20123463: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Viral"replication"of"UVTirradiated"SARSTCoVT2"virus"in"in"vitro"VeroE6"cells. "Vero"E6"cells"were"infected"with"UVTC"irradiated" SARSTCoVT2"virus"at"a"MOI"of"0.05"(A,"B"and"C),"5"(D,"E"and"F)"or"1000"(G,"H"and"I).
    VeroE6
    suggested: JCRB Cat# JCRB1819, CVCL_YQ49

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.05.20123463 on medRxiv