Effective in vitro inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by commercially available mouthwashes

  1. Katherine Davies
  2. Hubert Buczkowski
  3. Stephen R. Welch
  4. Nicole Green
  5. Damian Mawer
  6. Neil Woodford
  7. Allen D. G. Roberts
  8. Peter J. Nixon
  9. David W. Seymour
  10. Marian J. Killip

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Infectious SARS-CoV-2 can be recovered from the oral cavities and saliva of COVID-19 patients with potential implications for disease transmission. Reducing viral load in patient saliva using antiviral mouthwashes may therefore have a role as a control measure in limiting virus spread, particularly in dental settings. Here, the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 inactivation by seven commercially available mouthwashes with a range of active ingredients were evaluated in vitro . We demonstrate ≥4.1 to ≥5.5 log 10 reduction in SARS-CoV-2 titre following a 1 min treatment with commercially available mouthwashes containing 0.01–0.02 % stabilised hypochlorous acid or 0.58 % povidone iodine, and non-specialist mouthwashes with both alcohol-based and alcohol-free formulations designed for home use. In contrast, products containing 1.5 % hydrogen peroxide or 0.2 % chlorhexidine gluconate were ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 in these tests. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence surrounding virucidal efficacy of mouthwashes/oral rinses against SARS-CoV-2, and has important applications in reducing risk associated with aerosol generating procedures in dentistry and potentially for infection control more widely.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1099/jgv.0.001578 on Access Microbiology
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.02.408047: (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.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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 did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.02.408047v1 on bioRxiv