About the Author(s)


Babasola O. Okusanya Email symbol
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria

Muzzammil Gadanya symbol
Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, Abuja, Nigeria

Anthony Nlemadim symbol
Department of Paediatrics, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Victoria Adaramoye symbol
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria

David O. Akeju symbol
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

John Ehiri symbol
Department of Health Promotion and Sciences, College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States of America

Martin M. Meremiku symbol
Department of Paediatrics, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria

Citation


Okusanya BO, Gadanya M, Nlemadim A, et al. Systematic review of surface disinfection: Spraying versus wiping for COVID-19 prevention. J Public Health Africa. 2025;16(2), a597. https://doi.org/10.4102/jphia.v16i2.597

Note: The manuscript is a contribution to the themed collection titled ‘Systematic Reviews on Infection Prevention and Control in the Context of COVID-19’, under the expert guidance of guest editor Prof. Ehimario Igumbor.

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article as Online Appendix 1 and Online Appendix 2.

Review Article

Systematic review of surface disinfection: Spraying versus wiping for COVID-19 prevention

Babasola O. Okusanya, Muzzammil Gadanya, Anthony Nlemadim, Victoria Adaramoye, David O. Akeju, John Ehiri, Martin M. Meremiku

Received: 08 May 2024; Accepted: 31 Aug. 2024; Published: 28 Jan. 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
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 work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Within countries, community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) propagated the infection despite the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of disinfecting surfaces and materials in the community by spraying compared with wiping (mechanical cleaning) or nothing for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.

Setting: This research was conducted in a global context.

Method: We searched six databases for eligible studies from 01 January 2020 to 06 September 2022. Spraying disinfectants was the intervention, while wiping or nothing was the comparison. Review outcomes include SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of adverse effects and operator satisfaction. The review was registered on Prospero: CRD42022356276.

Results: We found no studies that compared spraying with wiping or had human participants. Three studies with indirect evidence, published between 2021 and 2022 in Japan, South Korea and Spain, were included. Dry fog spraying of 8 700 parts per million (ppm) of hypochlorous acid solution or 56 400 ppm of hydrogen peroxide solution reduced the infectious viral titre. Wiping with 1000 ppm of sodium hypochlorite for 1 min completely reduces SARS-CoV-2 viruses on stainless steel. Also, wiping with 500 ppm of bleach for 5 min completely reduces the virus on kraft paper and polypropylene. No viruses were detected on any surface after wiping with 1000 ppm of bleach for 5 min.

Conclusion: This review provides basic scientific evidence that either spraying disinfectants as dry fog or wiping has some disinfectant effects on surfaces and materials.

Contribution: Although the review included no human studies, both methods of disinfection can be practiced in the community for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.

Keywords: surface disinfection; community disinfection; material disinfection; decontamination; disinfection.

Background

The community, including households’ items such as tables and chairs, water dispensers and television (TV) remotes, dining tables and bedsheets, car doorknobs, car steering wheels and seats of infected persons have all been reported to be contaminated within 3 days of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis.1 In the community, human-to-human SARS-CoV-2 infection is the main reservoir for the prolongation of the pandemic despite the combined use of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs).2 It is, therefore, important to prioritise identifying modalities for reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection in households and communities, including spray disinfection.

Spraying surfaces with virucidal agents is one method of community and household disinfection. Spraying alcohol on wet wipes was effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools.3 More so, ethanol (EtOH) at 40% dilution and bleach at 1:2000 dilution have been reported as effective household cleaning agents for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.4,5 Spraying disinfectants reported to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection on surfaces accessible to the public and within households might be an effective intervention for the prevention of community infection, especially when used at scale with other NPIs.

There are bleach and alcohol sprays that are used for surface disinfection for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention. Sodium hypochlorite solution, which is bleach, has a general chemical reaction against organic compounds, which irreversibly denatures proteins, thereby giving them broad effectiveness. Similarly, alcohols have broad-spectrum activities against viruses, causing membrane damage and protein denaturation.6 Alcohol (EtOH) is most effective at 60% – 90% concentration because it relies on water molecules for optimal virucidal activities.6

Wiping surfaces with soap and water or virucidal agents such as bleach and alcohol is one method of community and household disinfection. When wiping, the disinfectant may be applied directly to the contaminated surface, which is spread over with another substance, such as a napkin. Alternatively, there are readymade wipes pre-saturated with disinfectants. Wiping, unlike spraying, has a mechanical component to its disinfection process. During wiping, the disinfectant is spread and rubbed over the surface. This not only disinfects the surface or material but also dislodges any particle on the surface or material and, therefore, it might be more effective than spraying.7 However, wiping increases the likelihood of disinfectant contact with a person’s skin, unlike spraying. Therefore, wiping might produce better decontamination of surfaces and materials in the community for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention yet increase the likelihood of adverse effects.

Evaluating the effectiveness of surface and materials disinfection with sprays in community settings is important. In low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), people reported interactions within the community, including visits to markets, families and friends during the SARS-CoV-2 infection lockdown.8 Low- to middle-income countries have large family sizes with a high frequency of contacts within the household and a high frequency of contacts has been reported as a determinant for SARS-CoV-2 infection propagation.9 A systematic review reported limited effectiveness of a single NPI, while a combination of multiple NPIs was more effective.10 There were also conflicting recommendations for face covering use for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.11,12

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the disinfection of surfaces and materials by spraying compared with wiping (mechanical cleaning) for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.

Methods

Search strategy

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Library – Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Review; PubMed, EMBASE, EPOC (The Effective Practice and Organization of Care) and Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) for the period January 2020 to 06 September 2022 (see Online Appendix 1 for detailed search strategies). We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and flow diagrams to report the search and selection of studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In order to ensure a broad and comprehensive overview of this research interest, we developed our inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Types of studies

We considered randomised controlled studies for inclusion, and in their absence we considered cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), case-control studies, controlled before and after studies (CBA), interrupted time series, systematic reviews (randomised control trial [RCT] and non-RCT studies), observational studies, ecological studies, clinical reports, outbreak reports and non-predictive modelling.

Types of participants

These are people in the community, including the workplace, public transport system and households.

Intervention

Spraying of disinfectants, including bleach and alcohol sprays.

Comparisons
  • Wiping (mechanical cleaning) of surfaces and materials for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.
  • Nothing (No disinfection).
Outcome measures

The outcome measures are:

  • Spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
  • Incidence of adverse effects for example airway irritation, disinfectant poisoning or any other reported adverse effect.
  • Satisfaction with either spraying or wiping (mechanical cleaning) with disinfectants of surfaces and materials.
Selection of studies

We used a Microsoft Excel sheet for screening the search outputs. Two review authors in two pairs (V.A. and A.N.; M.G. and D.A.) independently screened the literature search results for potentially relevant studies and obtained the full reports of potentially relevant studies for further assessment. They independently applied the inclusion criteria to the full-text reports using an eligibility form and scrutinised publications to ensure each study was included in the review only once. We resolved disagreements through a consensus within the review team. We listed excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion.

Data extraction and management

We used a Microsoft Excel sheet for data extraction. We extracted data related to place, research method, year of publication, authors, interventions and outcomes for all included studies where available. Two authors (V.A. and D.A.) independently extracted data using a specifically developed piloted data extraction Excel sheet. We resolved disagreements through discussion between all review authors. There were no missing data; therefore, we did not contact the corresponding publication authors. The included studies did not involve human participants and did not report on any of the pre-specified outcomes. In a future update of this review, if we find studies involving human participants, we will extract the number of randomised study or included in the study and the number analysed in each arm or group. For dichotomous outcomes, we will record the number of participants experiencing the event and the number assessed in each arm or group.

Assessment of risk of bias

Two (A.N. and M.G.) review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each included study using a ‘Risk of bias’ template of the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I).13 Because included studies involved the use of surfaces in the laboratory and public buses contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent disinfection, the ROBINS-I tool was applied with consideration of these peculiarities. Each study was assessed in the following domains: bias because of confounding, bias in the selection of participants into the study, bias in classification of interventions, bias as a result of deviations from intended interventions, bias because of missing data, bias because of measurement of outcomes, and bias because of selection of reported outcomes. In a future update, if we include studies with human participants, we will assess the balance between comparator groups at baseline with respect to the main prognostic or confounding factors. An effort will be made to identify and extract data on potentially confounding variables. We will assess whether the study authors have employed methods to control for selection bias at the design stage (e.g. matching or restriction to subgroups) and their analysis methods (e.g., the use of stratification or regression modelling). For studies with a separate control group (RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies), we will assess eight components: generation of the randomisation sequence; allocation concealment; blinding (performance and detection bias); baseline outcome measurement; similarity in baseline characteristics; incomplete outcome data; selective outcome reporting; and other biases.

Data synthesis and assessment of quality of evidence

We did not find studies homogenous enough to conduct a meta-analysis. Hence, we used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines to report the findings of the review. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022356276.

Ethical considerations

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

Results

The search of the databases yielded 1192 titles, and 2 additional titles were identified from a reference list. After the deduplication of titles, 1186 titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility, after which 53 made it to full-text article review. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram with the detailed study selection process. We found no studies that compared spraying with wiping, involving humans for inclusion. However, three studies that provided indirect evidence were included. We excluded 50 studies with reasons. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included studies. The reasons for excluding studies may be found in Online Appendix 2.

FIGURE 1: Study selection process.

TABLE 1: Characteristics of included studies.

Included studies were published between 2021 and 2022, in Japan, South Korea and Spain.14,15,16 Urushidani et al. in Japan, assessed the inactivation of the SARS-CoV-2 by disinfectants sprayed as dry fog using different concentrations of hypochlorous acid and hydrogen peroxide in a closed chamber inside a level II biosafety laboratory.14 Jung et al., working in a Level III biosafety laboratory in the Republic of Korea, inoculated cut surfaces of common food packages such as stainless steel, glass and polypropylene with a live virus.15 The surfaces were then swabbed with ethyl alcohol and bleach swabs, and the presence of the virus on the surfaces was checked on the surfaces.15 In Barcelona, Spain, buses used for public transportation were assessed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 before routine maintenance and cleaning at the end of the day. Polyester swabs were wiped across call buttons and plastic and/or aluminium holding bars in the buses before manual cleaning with 5% sodium hypochlorite (bleach).16 Then, the sampling procedure was repeated after cleaning. (see Table 1 for details)

Accounting for study design, using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool, the included studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias. See Table 2 for the risk in each of the domains of ROBINS-I. There was methodical heterogeneity in the included studies. While the study that evaluated spraying disinfectants as dry fog used a chamber inside a biosafety laboratory,14 the two studies that evaluated wiping took samples before and after wiping from surfaces of common food packs in biosafety chamber15 and from commonly touched surfaces in public buses.16

TABLE 2: Risk of bias in included studies.
Comparison 1: Spraying versus wiping

We did not identify any study that compared spraying with a wiping method of disinfection for COVID-19 infection prevention. Therefore, we compared spraying with ‘nothing’ and wiping with ‘nothing’.

Comparison 2: Spraying versus nothing

The review identified a study that compared different concentrations of hypochlorous acid and hydrogen peroxide with distilled water sprayed as dry fog as a disinfectant for SARS-CoV-2.14 The study did not have human participants and did not report any of the outcomes pre-specified for this review. At 250 parts per million (ppm) hypochlorous acid solution, the viral titre (1.2 × Log10 tissue culture infectious dose [TCID]50/mL in 5µL) of SARS-CoV-2 was not reduced. However, after about 16 min, 8700 ppm hypochlorous acid solution or 56 400 ppm hydrogen peroxide solution sprayed as dry fog significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) the infectious titre of SARS-CoV-2.14 Compared to hypochlorous acid or hydrogen peroxide, dry fog spraying of distilled water did not reduce the viral infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.14

Comparison 3: Wiping versus nothing

Two included studies did not compare wiping with any method. The studies did not have human participants and did not report any of the outcomes pre-specified for this review.

Jung et al. demonstrated in the laboratory that wiping with 1000 ppm of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) for 1 min completely reduces SARS-CoV-2 viruses on stainless steel.15

Wiping with 500 ppm of bleach for 5 min completely reduces the virus on kraft paper and polypropylene, with a decrease of > 3 log on glass.15 Wiping with 1000 ppm sodium hypochlorite for 1 min showed a complete reduction in viruses on stainless steel only and > 3 log reductions on parchment paper, glass and polypropylene.

At 1000 ppm for 5 min, no viruses were detected on any surface, although trace amounts of two SARS-CoV-2 strains were present on low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (0.55 TCID 50/mL for S and L types).15

Ethyl alcohol effectively reduced the infectivity of six surfaces contaminated with SARS-CoV-2, and it was not detected on kraft paper, stainless steel and glass when wiped with 50% and 70% ethyl alcohol concentrations (SARS-CoV-2 L and SARS-CoV-2 S were reduced by 2.98 ± _0.13 and 2.85 ± _0.08 log TCID 50/mL at 50% and 3.08 ± _0.06 and 3.10 ± _0.03 log TCID 50/mL at 70%, respectively) for 1 min.15 For complete reduction, surfaces require wiping with 1000 ppm NaClO or 70% EtOH for at least 5 min or the use of 500 ppm NaClO for 10 min.

However, in the study that detected the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in public buses in Spain, eight surfaces were wiped (manually cleaned) with bleach.16 Of these surfaces, four (50%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected before wiping. After wiping with bleach, no surfaces had SARS-CoV-2 detected on it.16

When the infectivity of coronavirus was assessed at a different temperature, SARS-CoV-2 rapidly decreased irrespective of the surface type at 20 °C (decreased by > 1.5 log TCID 50/mL after 2 h on kraft paper and parchment paper, decrease by > 1.5 log after 8 h on LDPE).15 At 4 °C, the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 was variable; depending on the surface type (decreased by > 3 log TCID 50/mL after 24 h on kraft paper, decreased by > 3 log TCID 50/mL after 72 h on parchment paper, decreased by > 3 log after 120 h on LDPE).15 However, at –20 °C, the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 hardly reduced (decreased by > 1 log TCID 50/mL after 120 h but hardly reduced on the other two surfaces).15

Discussion

The objective of the systematic review was to evaluate the effect of disinfecting surfaces and materials within the community, households, workplaces and public transport systems with spraying compared with wiping (mechanical cleaning) for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention. The main finding of the review was that we did not identify any studies comparing spraying with wiping involving human participants for inclusion. Therefore, the main outcomes set a priori, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of adverse effects, and satisfaction with spraying or wiping surfaces and materials with disinfectants, could not be evaluated.

Laboratory simulation and/or modelling techniques and sampling of surfaces commonly touched in public buses indicate that spraying or wiping surfaces with disinfectants has some effect on community SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention.14,15,16 Spraying or wiping (mechanical cleaning) to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 is influenced by the disinfectant concentration, the wiping duration and the surface being disinfected. For instance, it takes about 16 min of applying 8700 ppm hypochlorous acid solution or 56 400 ppm hydrogen peroxide solution sprayed as dry fog to achieve a significant reduction (p < 0.0001) of infectious titre of SARS-CoV-2.14 Also, after 1 min of wiping, 1 000 ppm of hypochlorous acid disinfected SARS-CoV-2 on stainless steel but not on kraft paper and polypropylene.15 However, at 1 000 ppm, hypochlorous acid inactivated SARS-CoV-2 on all surfaces after 5 min of wiping.15 Similarly, using 50% or 70% of ethyl alcohol to wipe surfaces for a minute inactivated SARS-CoV-2 on all surfaces.15 The study that mimics real-life situations used 5% hypochlorous acid to disinfect commonly touched surfaces (call buttons and holding bars) in public buses and demonstrated the effectiveness of the wiping method disinfection.16

Identified studies had no human participants, although they reported ‘basic science’ evidence on the effects of spraying or wiping under controlled laboratory conditions. Because the evidence does not reflect real-life situations when people encounter surfaces within households, workplaces and the community, the evidence should be taken with caution. More so, wiping was performed on surfaces with small sizes and a limited number of surfaces and materials, which were of different materials involved. For instance, the concentration of disinfectants and duration of wiping of different surfaces were not the same. This greatly influences the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces.

In another systematic review of chlorine-based surface disinfectants, application methods, soil load and surface types influenced the effect of chlorine-based surface disinfectants.17 Similarly, cleaning public bus call buttons and holding bars was performed for 2 h – 5 h at the end of the day,16 which is not pragmatic for commonly touched surfaces in households, public transport and the workplace. This cannot be equated to wiping disinfectants over commonly touched surfaces during or between public buses’ use, especially as very few (four) samples were tested after cleaning and disinfection.

Implications for public health practice

The purpose of the review was to identify which method of disinfectant application, between spraying and wiping, was effective. The studies included did not directly compare the two methods. Also, the included studies had no human participants and were largely held in a laboratory-controlled environment. This made it impossible to evaluate the effect of either method of disinfectant application for SARS-CoV-2 disinfection of surfaces and materials in the community. Therefore, the use of either spraying or wiping methods of disinfectant application for SARS-CoV-2 should be continued as recommended by the manufacturers of the disinfectants.

Implications for future research

This review has highlighted the unavailability of well-conducted human studies that evaluated the effectiveness of spraying and wiping methods of disinfectant application for community prevention of SARS-CoV-2. The basic science evidence from the included studies has provided some foundation for well-developed observational studies to be conducted. While it might be unethical to conduct experimental studies, observational studies, including controlled ‘Before and After’ studies and cohort studies, might be conducted. Such studies should be designed to assess the adverse effects of common disinfectants used either by spraying or wiping methods. This is necessary as there was an increase in reported cases of adverse reactions to disinfectants reported to poison control centres during the pandemic.18,19 It will also be good to evaluate people’s preferences between spraying and wiping methods of disinfectant application.

Strength and limitations

The strength of the review is the meticulous search of the databases for eligible studies on community disinfection for SARS-CoV-2 prevention using spraying or wiping methods. The restriction of the search from January 2020 to September 2022 ensured that studies conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic began were eligible for inclusion. Also, the search was comprehensive enough to identify any eligible studies because no language restrictions were applied. That two review authors independently screened the titles identified from the database search for inclusion and performed the risk of bias assessment were strengths. Also, the ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies with due consideration of the laboratory design of the included studies.

This strength did not preclude limitations in the review. The most important of which is the indirect application of the evidence to human activities in the community, including households, workplaces, and public transport systems. This is because we found no studies involving humans or any that reported the pre-specified review outcomes. Also, there was a sparse sampling of surfaces and materials after disinfection.

Conclusion

This systematic review found no studies that compared spaying and wiping for SARS-CoV-2 community disinfection of surfaces and materials. Indirect evidence from laboratory simulation or modelling studies indicates that the effects of spraying or wiping disinfectants are influenced by the concentration of the disinfectants, duration of use, and the type of surface or materials being disinfected.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank colleagues at Infection Prevention and Control, Country Readiness Strengthening, World Health Organization, World Health Emergencies Programme, Geneva, Switzerland, for their support during the preparation of the review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Authors’ contributions

M.G. and A.N.: study selection, risk of bias assessment and review of draft article. V.A. and D.O.A.: study selection, data extraction and review of the draft article. B.O.O.: review of study selection, review of the risk of bias assessment, data extraction and drafting of the article. J.E.: review of the draft article for scientific content. M.M.M.: review of the draft article for scientific content and overall project supervision.

Funding information

The review was funded by a grant (WHO Ref- 2022/127199-0/PO-202933812) from Country Readiness Strengthening, WHO World Health Emergencies Programme, Geneva, Switzerland to Cochrane Nigeria.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the publications included in this systematic review.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

  1. Luo L, Liu D, Zhang H, et al. Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(10):e0008570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008570
  2. Abd EW, Eassa SM, Metwally M, Al-Hraishawi H, Omar SR. SARS-CoV-2 transmission channels: A review of the literature. MEDICC Rev. 2020;22(4):51–69. https://doi.org/10.37757/MR2020.V22.N4.3
  3. Kwon I, Kang S, Kim JS. School-based participatory response for reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of a metropolitan high school implementing the health promoting school. Front Public Health. 2021;9:578200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.578200
  4. Almeida CF, Purcell DFJ, Godfrey DI, McAuley JL. The efficacy of common household cleaning agents for SARS-CoV-2 infection control. Viruses. 2022;14(4):715. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14040715
  5. Wang Y, Tian H, Zhang L, et al. Reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, disinfection and social distancing: A cohort study in Beijing, China. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(5):e002794. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002794
  6. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):147–179. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.12.1.147
  7. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Surface disinfection: Treatment time (wipes and sprays) versus contact time (liquids). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(3):329–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.288
  8. Akeju DO, Adejoh SO, Fakunmoju AJ, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic: Stay home policy and exposure to risks of infection among Nigerians. World Med Health Policy. 2023;15(3):245–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.445
  9. Mousa A, Winskill P, Watson OJ, et al. Social contact patterns and implications for infectious disease transmission – A systematic review and meta-analysis of contact surveys. Elife. 2021;10:e70294.
  10. Etemad K, Mohseni P, Shojaei S, et al. Non-pharmacologic interventions in COVID-19 pandemic management: A systematic review. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023;11(1):e52.
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use and care of masks wear a mask with the best fit, protection, and comfort for you [homepage on the Internet]. 2022 [updated 2022 Feb 25; cited 2022 Aug 20]. Available from: www.cdc.gov
  12. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks [homepage on the Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 20]. Available from: www.who.int
  13. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
  14. Urushidani M, Kawayoshi A, Kotaki T, Saeki K, Mori Y, Kameoka M. Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A virus by spraying hypochlorous acid solution and hydrogen peroxide solution in the form of Dry Fog. bioRxiv. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.13.472413
  15. Jung S, Kim DH, Ahn HS, et al. Stability and inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on food contact surfaces. Food Control. 2023;143:109306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.109306
  16. Moreno T, Pintó RM, Bosch A, et al. Tracing surface and airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA inside public buses and subway trains. Environ Int. 2021;147:106326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106326
  17. Gallandat K, Kolus RC, Julian TR, Lantagne DS. A systematic review of chlorine-based surface disinfection efficacy to inform recommendations for low-resource outbreak settings. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(1):90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.05.014
  18. Herrera-Melendez A, Acquarone D, Kreutz R, editors. Cases of exposure to disinfectants from children under 6 years of age in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic – An analysis of reported cases in the Charite Poisons Information Centre. New York, NY: Springer; 2021.
  19. Benhamza S, Lazraq M, Bensaid A, Miloudi Y, El Harrar N. Respiratory distress following domestic chlorine poisoning. Anes Reanim. 2021;7(1):87–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anrea.2020.06.009


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.