Virucidal activity of olanexidine gluconate against SARS-CoV-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction: Antiseptics have been used for infection control against SARS-CoV-2. Ethanol (EtOH) was effective against SARS-CoV-2, while chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) was less effective. Therefore, there may be differences in virucidal activity between classes of antiseptic agents. Aim: In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 and identified effective agents for infection control. Methods: The following antiseptics were used in this study: 1.5% olanexidine gluconate (OLG); 80% EtOH; 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaClO); 0.2% benzalkonium chloride (BKC); 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I); 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG); and 0.5% alkyldiaminoethylglycine hydrochloride (AEG). Virucidal activity was evaluated at 0, 30 s, 1, 2, and 3 min according to EN14476. Results: After 30 s of exposure, 1.5% OLG, 80% EtOH, 1% NaClO, 0.2% BKC, and 1% PVP-I inactivated SARS-CoV-2 below the detection limit. In contrast, the virus was survived in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and 0.5% AEG after 3 min of exposure. However, the virucidal activity of 1.5% CHG was insufficient after 30 s of exposure. Conclusion: This study showed that the virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 differs depending on the class of antiseptic agent. Despite belonging to the same class of biguanide antiseptics, OLG was more effective against SARS-CoV-2 than CHG.
Article activity feed
-
Comments to Author
SARS-CoV-2 infection has posed big challenges for public health and it is very important to find effective disinfectants and evaluated their virucidal activity carefully. The authors evaluated several clinically used antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 under clean conditions in this manuscript according to EN14476. But more people want to know how about their virucidal activities under the dirty condition with interfering substances which are not a small effect to results. I think the authors could do such evaluation, and it would be meaningful for public health. Moreover, the conclusion should be made carefully before that. The description of methods and results is clear in this manuscript. But please tell us the results according to EN14476, that is, xxx (antiseptic agent) inactivated SARS-CoV-2 under …
Comments to Author
SARS-CoV-2 infection has posed big challenges for public health and it is very important to find effective disinfectants and evaluated their virucidal activity carefully. The authors evaluated several clinically used antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 under clean conditions in this manuscript according to EN14476. But more people want to know how about their virucidal activities under the dirty condition with interfering substances which are not a small effect to results. I think the authors could do such evaluation, and it would be meaningful for public health. Moreover, the conclusion should be made carefully before that. The description of methods and results is clear in this manuscript. But please tell us the results according to EN14476, that is, xxx (antiseptic agent) inactivated SARS-CoV-2 under clean conditions when RF>3 (or 4) according to EN14476. And please make sure the CPE (cell morphology is normal or not) even the virus sample treated with some disinfectant were passaged 2-3 times. Some minor revisions: Line 21: Therefore, the virucidal activity may differ between different classes of antiseptic agents. Line 29: Please delete "In contrast". Line 30: Please delete "However". Please add "under clean conditions" when make a conclusion.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Access Microbiology. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of Access Microbiology. However, a minor revision of this manuscript will be required before a decision can be made on its publication. I will be pleased to consider a revised manuscript along with a document including a point by point response to each of the reviewers comments. Your revised manuscript may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers, along with your itemised response to the reviewers’ comments.
-
Comments to Author
In this short paper, Watanabe et al describe an experiment to test the relative virucidal activity of several virucides against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro in a liquid test (not on a solid). In this simple experiment, they identify slight differences in activity. This is an extremely very short paper with the results being 2 paragraphs. This compound has been published before on enveloped and non-enveloped viruses but not SARS-CoV-2. The authors report financial conflicts of interest. 1. The chemical names need spelled out in abstract (e.g. OLG) 2. Line 59, suggest changing to: " OLG has activity against bacteria including XXX, and viruses including XXX " 3. They say no interfering substances were used but was there serum in the cell media/virus stock? 4. Figure legends need much more detail and at present are …
Comments to Author
In this short paper, Watanabe et al describe an experiment to test the relative virucidal activity of several virucides against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro in a liquid test (not on a solid). In this simple experiment, they identify slight differences in activity. This is an extremely very short paper with the results being 2 paragraphs. This compound has been published before on enveloped and non-enveloped viruses but not SARS-CoV-2. The authors report financial conflicts of interest. 1. The chemical names need spelled out in abstract (e.g. OLG) 2. Line 59, suggest changing to: " OLG has activity against bacteria including XXX, and viruses including XXX " 3. They say no interfering substances were used but was there serum in the cell media/virus stock? 4. Figure legends need much more detail and at present are only a sentence. 5. It is unclear how reproducible the effects are and how many times the experiment was carried out. 6. What is the rationale for including 3 concs of CHG? 7. Need to swap to actual titres to see the l.o.d rather than log reduction as it seems likely this has been maxed out due to the relatively low titre of SARS-CoV-2. 8. What is the molarity of each active compound? 9. There are few minor English issues that need correcting.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-