Evaluation of the efficacy of chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution against SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of organic matter
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
Chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution are effective disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent studies have shown that both compounds have equivalent inactivation effects when tested on purified viruses. However, in practical applications, the presence of organic matter is common and can significantly affect disinfectant performance. We conducted several experiments comparing these two disinfectants under different conditions to better understand their practical efficacy. When an infected cell culture medium (serum-free) was used as the test virus, chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution showed reduced efficacy. This decrease was attributed to the presence of amino acids in the medium. Notably, sodium hypochlorite solution showed a more pronounced reduction in potency compared to chlorous acid water. In addition, we evaluated the SARS-CoV-2 inactivation effects of chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution under various organic loading conditions simulating real-world contamination scenarios such as blood, vomit, and saliva. The organic materials used included bovine serum albumin, sheep red blood cells, polypeptone, fetal bovine serum, and artificial saliva. The results showed that chlorous acid water demonstrated superior resistance to organic matter interference compared to sodium hypochlorite solution. These results suggest that chlorous acid water may be more effective than sodium hypochlorite solution in inactivating viruses on contaminated surfaces, particularly in healthcare settings where organic contamination is common. In summary, our research suggests that chlorous acid water may be a more effective disinfectant in practical settings.
Article activity feed
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature.
-
Comments to Author
1. The study is well-structured, employing a clear experimental design to compare the efficacy of chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution against SARS-CoV-2 under realistic contamination conditions. However, the methodology lacks essential details regarding statistical validation, including error bars, confidence intervals, and significance testing. The absence of a dedicated Data Analysis section makes it unclear how IC50, IC99, and related values were calculated, which statistical models were used, and whether any software, such as GraphPad Prism or SPSS, was employed. Additionally, replication details should be explicitly stated to improve transparency. Including these details would enhance the study's reproducibility and reliability. 2. Presentation of Results The tables and figures …
Comments to Author
1. The study is well-structured, employing a clear experimental design to compare the efficacy of chlorous acid water and sodium hypochlorite solution against SARS-CoV-2 under realistic contamination conditions. However, the methodology lacks essential details regarding statistical validation, including error bars, confidence intervals, and significance testing. The absence of a dedicated Data Analysis section makes it unclear how IC50, IC99, and related values were calculated, which statistical models were used, and whether any software, such as GraphPad Prism or SPSS, was employed. Additionally, replication details should be explicitly stated to improve transparency. Including these details would enhance the study's reproducibility and reliability. 2. Presentation of Results The tables and figures effectively summarize key findings; however, they lack essential statistical indicators such as error bars, confidence intervals, or measures of statistical significance. This omission makes it difficult to assess data variability and robustness. 3. The paper follows a logical structure, progressing smoothly from background to methodology, results, and discussion, which enhances readability. However, the discussion section is somewhat repetitive, often restating findings instead of providing deeper analysis or broader contextualization. Additionally, the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the study's novelty, explicitly stating how it builds upon prior research. Refining the discussion to focus on key takeaways, implications, and limitations—rather than reiterating results—would improve both readability and scientific impact 4.The literature review is thorough and cites relevant, recent research on virucidal efficacy, particularly regarding oxychlorine-based disinfectants. However, the discussion lacks a critical comparison with previous studies, leaving it unclear how the findings align or contrast with existing knowledge. Furthermore, the mechanism of action of the disinfectants is not explored in depth. While the study briefly mentions oxidation as the primary inactivation method, a more detailed explanation of why chlorous acid water maintains higher efficacy in the presence of organic matter compared to sodium hypochlorite would strengthen the discussion. 5. The manuscript requires proofreading to correct grammatical errors and enhance stylistic clarity for improved readability.
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
-
Comments to Author
This study provided sufficient experimental evidence to support the conclusion. Overall, the results are solid and consistent. Several issues still need to be addressed before publication. The following questions may help the authors to improve the quality of their already outstanding manuscript, e.g. some important references are missing, such as PMID: 35023191; 36560555; 35815524; PMID: 37883855; PMID: 36805410; PMID: 35878623; PMID: 35815524; PMID: 35415911; 35238422;
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
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 …
Comments to Author
This study provided sufficient experimental evidence to support the conclusion. Overall, the results are solid and consistent. Several issues still need to be addressed before publication. The following questions may help the authors to improve the quality of their already outstanding manuscript, e.g. some important references are missing, such as PMID: 35023191; 36560555; 35815524; PMID: 37883855; PMID: 36805410; PMID: 35878623; PMID: 35815524; PMID: 35415911; 35238422;
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
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
-
