Potential of Pulsed Light to Inactivate Bacteriophage MS2 in Simple Liquid Medium and on Complex Foodstuffs

Ultraviolet C irradiation: A promising approach for the disinfection of public spaces?

Ultraviolet irradiation C (UVC) has emerged as an effective strategy for microbial control in indoor public spaces. UVC is commonly applied for air, surface, and water disinfection. Unlike common 254 nm UVC, far-UVC at 222 nm is considered non-harmful to human health, being safe for occupied spaces, and still effective for disinfection purposes. Therefore, and allied to the urgency to mitigate the current pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, an increase in UVC-based technology devices appeared in the market with levels of pathogens reduction higher than 99.9 %. This environmentally friendly technology has the potential to overcome many of the limitations of traditional chemical-based disinfection approaches. The novel UVC-based devices were thought to be used in public indoor spaces such as hospitals, schools, and public transport to minimize the risk of pathogens contamination and propagation, saving costs by reducing manual cleaning and equipment maintenance provided by manpower. However, a lack of information about UVC-based parameters and protocols for disinfection, and controversies regarding health and environmental risks still exist. In this review, fundamentals on UVC disinfection are presented. Furthermore, a deep analysis of UVC-based technologies available in the market for the disinfection of public spaces is addressed, as well as their advantages and limitations. This comprehensive analysis provides valuable inputs and strategies for the development of effective, reliable, and safe UVC disinfection systems.

Inactivation of Foodborne Viruses by UV Light: A Review

Viruses on some foods can be inactivated by exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light. This green technology has little impact on product quality and, thus, could be used to increase food safety. While its bactericidal effect has been studied extensively, little is known about the viricidal effect of UV on foods. The mechanism of viral inactivation by UV results mainly from an alteration of the genetic material (DNA or RNA) within the viral capsid and, to a lesser extent, by modifying major and minor viral proteins of the capsid. In this review, we examine the potential of UV treatment as a means of inactivating viruses on food processing surfaces and different foods. The most common foodborne viruses and their laboratory surrogates; further explanation on the inactivation mechanism and its efficacy in water, liquid foods, meat products, fruits, and vegetables; and the prospects for the commercial application of this technology are discussed. Lastly, we describe UV’s limitations and legislation surrounding its use. Based on our review of the literature, viral inactivation in water seems to be particularly effective. While consistent inactivation through turbid liquid food or the entire surface of irregular food matrices is more challenging, some treatments on different food matrices seem promising.

Potential of pulsed light technology for control of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital environments

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential transmission through touching surfaces in clinical environments have impelled the use of conventional and novel methods of disinfection to prevent its spreading. Among the latter, pulsed light may be an effective, non-chemical decontamination alternative. Pulsed light technology inactivates microorganisms and viruses by using high intensity polychromatic light pulses, which degrades nucleic acids and proteins. This review describes this technology, compiles and critically analyzes the evidence about the virucidal efficacy of pulsed light technology with view on its potential use against SARS-CoV-2 in touching surfaces in health-care facilities. The efficacy of pulsed light proved against many different kind of viruses allows to conclude that is a suitable candidate to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 as long as the required fluence is applied and the appropriated exposure to contaminated surfaces is guaranteed.

•

Pulsed light can inactivate many different types of viruses.

•

Its antimicrobial efficacy has been proved in different health care facilities.

•

Pulsed light produces fast inactivation and it is ecologically friendly.

•

Evidence shows that it should be effective for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation.

Control Measures for SARS-CoV-2: A Review on Light-Based Inactivation of Single-Stranded RNA Viruses

SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded RNA virus classified in the family Coronaviridae. In this review, we summarize the literature on light-based (UV, blue, and red lights) sanitization methods for the inactivation of ssRNA viruses in different matrixes (air, liquid, and solid). The rate of inactivation of ssRNA viruses in liquid was higher than in air, whereas inactivation on solid surfaces varied with the type of surface. The efficacy of light-based inactivation was reduced by the presence of absorptive materials. Several technologies can be used to deliver light, including mercury lamp (conventional UV), excimer lamp (UV), pulsed-light, and light-emitting diode (LED). Pulsed-light technologies could inactivate viruses more quickly than conventional UV-C lamps. Large-scale use of germicidal LED is dependent on future improvements in their energy efficiency. Blue light possesses virucidal potential in the presence of exogenous photosensitizers, although femtosecond laser (ultrashort pulses) can be used to circumvent the need for photosensitizers. Red light can be combined with methylene blue for application in medical settings, especially for sanitization of blood products. Future modelling studies are required to establish clearer parameters for assessing susceptibility of viruses to light-based inactivation. There is considerable scope for improvement in the current germicidal light-based technologies and practices.

Inactivation of Viruses and Bacteriophages as Models for Swine Hepatitis E Virus in Food Matrices

Hepatitis E virus has been recognised as a food-borne virus hazard in pork products, due to its zoonotic properties. This risk can be reduced by adequate treatment of the food to inactivate food-borne viruses. We used a spectrum of viruses and bacteriophages to evaluate the effect of three food treatments: high pressure processing (HPP), lactic acid (LA) and intense light pulse (ILP) treatments. On swine liver at 400 MPa for 10 min, HPP gave log₁₀ reductions of ≥4.2, ≥5.0 and 3.4 for feline calicivirus (FCV) 2280, FCV wildtype (wt) and murine norovirus 1 (MNV 1), respectively. Escherichia coli coliphage ϕX174 displayed a lower reduction of 1.1, while Escherichia coli coliphage MS2 was unaffected. For ham at 600 MPa, the corresponding reductions were 4.1, 4.4, 2.9, 1.7 and 1.3 log₁₀. LA treatment at 2.2 M gave log₁₀ reductions in the viral spectrum of 0.29-2.1 for swine liver and 0.87-3.1 for ham, with ϕX174 and MNV 1, respectively, as the most stable microorganisms. The ILP treatment gave log₁₀ reductions of 1.6-2.8 for swine liver, 0.97-2.2 for ham and 1.3-2.3 for sausage, at 15-60 J cm^-2, with MS2 as the most stable microorganism. The HPP treatment gave significantly (p < 0.05) greater virus reduction on swine liver than ham for the viruses at equivalent pressure/time combinations. For ILP treatment, reductions on swine liver were significantly (p < 0.05) greater than on ham for all microorganisms. The results presented here could be used in assessments of different strategies to protect consumers against virus contamination and in advice to food producers. Conservative model indicators for the pathogenic viruses could be suggested.

Fate of Foodborne Viruses in the "Farm to Fork" Chain of Fresh Produce

Norovirus (NoV) and hepatitis A virus (HAV) are the most important foodborne viruses. Fresh produce has been identified as an important vehicle for their transmission. In order to supply a basis to identify possible prevention and control strategies, this review intends to demonstrate the fate of foodborne viruses in the farm to fork chain of fresh produce, which include the introduction routes (contamination sources), the viral survival abilities at different stages, and the reactions of foodborne viruses towards the treatments used in food processing of fresh produce. In general, the preharvest contamination comes mainly from soli fertilizer or irrigation water, while the harvest and postharvest contaminations come mainly from food handlers, which can be both symptomatic and asymptomatic. Foodborne viruses show high stabilities in all the stages of fresh produce production and processing. Low-temperature storage and other currently used preservation techniques, as well as washing by water have shown limited added value for reducing the virus load on fresh produce. Chemical sanitizers, although with limitations, are strongly recommended to be applied in the wash water in order to minimize cross-contamination. Alternatively, radiation strategies have shown promising inactivating effects on foodborne viruses. For high-pressure processing and thermal treatment, efforts have to be made on setting up treatment parameters to induce sufficient viral inactivation within a food matrix and to protect the sensory and nutritional qualities of fresh produce to the largest extent.