https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8619-594X
Figures
Abstract
This study monitored the presence of SARS-Cov-2 RNA on environmental surfaces in hospital wards housing patients with mild, severe, and convalescent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively. From 29 October to 4 December 2021, a total of 787 surface samples were randomly collected from a General Ward, Intensive Care Unit, and Convalescent Ward at a designated hospital for COVID-19 patients in China. All of the samples were used for SARS-Cov-2 detection. Descriptive statistics were generated and differences in the positivity rates between the wards were analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests, Yates chi-squared tests, and Pearson’s chi-squared tests. During the study period, 787 surface samples were collected, among which, 46 were positive for SARS-Cov-2 RNA (5.8%). The positivity rate of the contaminated area in the Intensive Care Unit was higher than that of the General Ward (23.5% vs. 10.4%, P<0.05). The positivity rate of the semi-contaminated area in the Intensive Care Unit (4.5%) was higher than that of the General Ward (1.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). In the clean area, only one sample was positive in the Intensive Care Unit (0.5%). None of the samples were positive in the Convalescent Ward. These findings reveal that the SARS-Cov-2 RNA environmental pollution in the Intensive Care Unit was more serious than that in the General Ward, while the pollution in the Convalescent Ward was the lowest. Strict disinfection measures, personal protection, and hand hygiene are necessary to limit the spread of SARS-Cov-2.
Citation: Zhou X, Fu H, Du G, Wei X, Zhang B, Zhao T (2023) SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on environmental surfaces in COVID-19 wards. PLoS ONE 18(5): e0286121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286121
Editor: Sadia Ilyas, Hanyang University - Seoul Campus: Hanyang University, REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Received: February 6, 2023; Accepted: May 9, 2023; Published: May 25, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: ZX received Grand numbers: Zhu Ke Contract [2022]-4-6. Full name of funder: Guiyang Science and Technology Plan Project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
At the beginning of 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS Cov-2) began to spread globally. As of 28 December 2022, over 650 million confirmed cases and over 6.6 million deaths have been reported globally. SARS Cov-2 can be transmitted by direct contact or by droplets from infected persons [1]. In addition, infection as a result of contact with contaminated objects or exposure to fomites has been reported. In a NEJM study, SARS CoV-2 was found to survive for three hours in the form of atomization and 72 hours on plastic and stainless steel surfaces [2]. Cai et al. [3]. investigated a cluster of coronavirus disease cases associated with a shopping mall, and found that indirect transmission of the virus occurred, perhaps due to virus contamination of common objects. Together, these reports indicate that environmental COVID-19 pollution is a potential transmission risk.
Evidence suggests that the viral loads of critical patients are the highest, followed by severe patients, while the viral loads of mild patients are the lowest [4]. Liu et al. reported that the mean viral load of severe cases was around 60 times higher than that of mild cases [5]. However, there is currently a lack of evidence of any differences in environmental pollution as a function of COVID-19 disease severity. In the context of indirect virus transmission, comprehensive monitoring of hospital environmental hygiene is crucial to ensuring the quality of hospital infection control.
In order to monitor hospital environmental hygiene and evaluate the differences in environmental pollution as a function of COVID-19 disease severity, this study investigated SARS-CoV-2 RNA on environmental surfaces in hospital wards containing mild, severe, and convalescent COVID-19 patients, respectively.
Methods
Participant characteristics
The hospital under study in this research was the Jangjunshan Hospital in Guiyang, China. There are three isolation wards within this hospital in which confirmed COVID-19 patients are hospitalized: Intensive Care Unit (ICU), General Ward (GW), and Convalescent Ward (CW, Fig 1). The CW is specifically used to hospitalize COVID-19 patients who have no obvious symptoms after treatment and are waiting for their COVID-19 test to turn negative. Each isolation ward is separated into three zones: a contaminated area, a semi-contaminated area, and a clean area. The contaminated area is designed for COVID-19 patients and their contaminated items. The clean area is designed for non-contaminated items. The semi-contaminated area is a buffer area between the contaminated area and the clean area. Medical staff and patients have their own dedicated passages. All wards are equipped with a negative pressure system. The airflflow direction is from the clean area to the potentially contaminated area and then to the contaminated area.
Color code: Brown = contaminated area; Blue = semi-contaminated area; Green = clean area. Red arrow = Access route; Black arrow = Exit route.
Disinfection
The air disinfection in the isolation wards is based on the Management Specification for Air Purification (WS/T 368–2012) standard. Surface contaminants must be removed by cleaning before disinfection. Specifically, 1000 mg/L chlorine containing disinfectant is used to wipe the surfaces of objects in the isolation ward, every eight hours. Further, sewage is pretreated with sodium hypochlorite before discharge.
Sampling method for SARS-CoV-2 RNA
Environmental surfaces were sampled using swabs with flocked polyester tips moistened with preservation solution after 1 hour of disinfection. An area not exceeding 100 cm2 was rubbed with a moistened swab. The swab was placed in a 15 mL tube with 1.5 mL of Ringer 1/4 solution for transport.
Laboratory confirmation of the virus was performed using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The fluorescence PCR instrument was purchased from the TianLong company in China (model: Gentier 96E). The full-automatic nucleic acid extractor was from the TianLong company in China (model: GeneRotex 96). The SARS-Cov-2 nucleic acid detection kit was from the Da’an gene company of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. Cycle threshold values were used to quantify the viral load in each sample, with lower values indicating a higher viral load. A sample was considered positive when the qRT-PCR Ct value was <40.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were generated and are presented as numbers and percentages. The differences in the positivity rates as a function of COVID-19 severity were compared by Fisher’s exact tests, Yates chi-squared tests, and Pearson’s chi-squared tests. P<0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance.
Results
ICU
Of the 345 ICU environmental samples, 17 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (positivity rate: 4.9%). Among these, 12 samples from the contaminated area tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including samples taken from the surfaces of medical equipment, door handles, the nurse’s station table, and computer keyboards in the nurse’s station. In the semi-contaminated area, four samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including samples taken from the dispensing room table, door handles, and hand sanitizer. In the clean area, only one sample (door handle) tested positive (Table 1).
GW and CW
Of the 372 samples taken from the GW, 29 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (positivity rate: 7.8%). Among those taken from the contaminated area, 28 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including samples taken from the bed stands, door handles, mobile phones, equipment belts, bed rails, personal protective equipment, medical equipment, infusion stands, and pillows. One sample (door handle) from the semi-contaminated area tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Table 2). All samples obtained from the clean area tested negative. All 70 samples obtained from the CW also tested negative (Table 3).
The positivity rate of the ICU contaminated areas (23.5%) was higher than that of the GW (10.4%, P<0.05, Table 4). Compared with the GW, the positivity rates of the semi-contaminated area and clean area in the ICU were higher, but these differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05, Table 4).
Discussion
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, which is mainly spread via respiratory droplets.
COVID-19 patients expel the virus through the respiratory tract, causing contamination of the surrounding environment. Previous studies have shown that the survival time of SARS-CoV-2 varies in different environments. For example, studies have reported that the virus can persist for 2 days on glass [6], 1.8 days on stainless steel [7], 7 days on plastic [8], and 7 days on the outer layer of plastic surgical masks [6]. These contaminated surfaces are potential infectious vectors [3]. The hospital environment is often contaminated by SARS-CoV-2, which poses a potential threat to staff. Guo et al [9] detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the hospital environment. Futher environmental monitoring assesments are necessary.
Overall, 46 out of 787 swab samples were positive. Seventeen of these were collected in the ICU (4.9%) and twenty-nine in the GW (7.8%) while no viral RNA was found on the surfaces of CW (0.0%), which was in close agreement with the finding of a systematic review by José Gonçalves et al [10].
In the present, the difference of viral RNA among contaminated area, semi-contaminated area and clean area were evaluated. The contaminated area of ICU was at the top position withe the highest virus-positive rate (23.5%, P<0.05). This could be related to higher frequency of invasive respiratory droplet-producing operations, such as endotracheal intubation, extubation, bronchoscopy and sputum aspiration, for ICU patients, but not for non-severely ill in GW. Maybe it’s also related to severe COVID-19 patients have higher viral loads and longer viral shedding periods compared with mild COVID-19 patients [5]. The virus-positive rate in the semi-contaminated and clean areas were lower than contaminated area, but with no statistically significant difference between the ICU and GW (P>0.05), which suggests that the pathway separating contaminated area, semi-contaminated ares and clean area as well as the daily cleaning and disinfection protocols were essential.
The highest positivity of viral RNA was found on the surface of medical equipment, door handle, bed rail, personal protective equipment and central nurse station (computer keyboard and mouse), which is consistent with the previous study [11, 12]. These exposed areas and objects were considered to be critical transmission media for SARS-Cov-2 [13].
In our study, one positive door handle sample was collected in clean area of ICU, implying low hand hygiene compliance occasionally. During sampling process in our study, all samples from staffs tested negative for SARS-Cov-2.
There are some limitations of this research that should be noted. First, RNA is a marker of virus shedding, but it does not necessarily indicate the presence of viable virus. Second, the air in each ward was not sampled for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in this study.
In conclusion, high-contact surfaces in hospitals are more likely to contain detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In addition, COVID-19 patients with different disease severity may have different abilities to contaminate the surrounding environment. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is more easily detected in the ICU than in the GW and CW. Strict cleaning, disinfection, and hand hygiene protocols are essential to reduce the risk of infection.
References
- 1. Hussin A. Rothana SNB: The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Journal of Autoimmunity 2020, 109:102433. pmid:32113704
- 2. Neeltje van Doremalen TB, Dylan H. Morris , Myndi G Holbrook, Amandine Gamble, Brandi N. Williamson, Azaibi Tamin, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. The new england journal o f medicine 2020, 382(16):3.
- 3. Jing Cai WS, Jianping Huang, Michelle Gamber, Jing Wu, Guiqing He: Indirect Virus Transmission in Cluster of COVID-19 Cases, Wenzhou, China, 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2020, 26(6):2. pmid:32163030
- 4. Jing-Tao Huang R-XR, Zhi-Hua Lv, Li-Na Feng, Chen-Yang Ran, Yong-Qing Tong, Dong Li, et al. Chronological Changes of Viral Shedding in Adult Inpatients With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2020, 71(16):8. pmid:32445580
- 5. Yang Liu L-MY, Lagen Wan, Tian-Xin Xiang, Aiping Le, Jia-Ming Liu, Malik Peiris, et al. Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2020, 20(6):1. pmid:32199493
- 6. Alex W H Chin JTSC, Mahen R A Perera, Kenrie P Y Hui, Hui-Ling Yen, Michael C W Chan, Malik Peiris, et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. Lancet Microbe 2020, 1(1):e10. pmid:32835322
- 7. Shane Riddell SG, Andrew Hill, Debbie Eagles, Trevor W Drew: The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on common surfaces. Virology Journal 2020, 17(1):145. pmid:33028356
- 8. Y Liu TL, Deng Y, Liu S, Zhang D, Li H, Wang X, et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 on environmental surfaces and in human excreta. Journal of Hospital Infection 2021, 107:105–107. pmid:33137445
- 9. Zhen-Dong Guo Z-YW, Shou-Feng Zhang, Xiao Li, Lin Li, Chao Li, Yan Cui, et al. Aerosol and Surface Distribution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Hospital Wards, Wuhan, China, 2020. Emerging infectious diseases 2020, 26(7):1583–1591. pmid:32275497
- 10. Gonçalves J, da Silva PG, Reis L, Nascimento MSJ, Koritnik T, Paragi M, et al. Surface contamination with SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review. Sci Total Environ 2021, 798:149231. pmid:34325141
- 11. Katia Razzini MC, Laura Menchetti, Lorenzo Maggi, Lucia Negroni, Nicola V Orfeo, Alice Pizzoccheri, et al. SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in the air and on surfaces in the COVID-19 ward of a hospital in Milan, Italy. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2020, 742:140540. pmid:32619843
- 12. Liu W, Li D, Yang C, Chen F, Jia R, Jia L, et al. Environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 hospitals in Wuhan, China, 2020. Environ Microbiol 2021, 23(12):7373–7381. pmid:34347340
- 13. WHO (2020b) World Health Organization. Question and answer on coronaviruses. 11 February, 2020. URL http://www.who.int.news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses.