Monochloramine shows greater variation in viral inactivation rates compared to free chlorine, with echovirus 11 and adenovirus 2 being least susceptible.
May inform disinfectant selection for viral control; leaves open real-world efficacy pending clinical validation.
Inactivation of infectious viruses during drinking water treatment is usually achieved with free chlorine. Many drinking water utilities in the United States now use monochloramine as a secondary disinfectant to minimize disinfectant by-product formation and biofilm growth. The inactivation of human adenoviruses 2, 40, and 41 (HAdV2, HAdV40, and HAdV41), coxsackieviruses B3 and B5 (CVB3 and CVB5), echoviruses 1 and 11 (E1 and E11), and murine norovirus (MNV) are compared in this study. Experiments were performed with 0.2 mg of free chlorine or 1 mg of monochloramine/liter at pH 7 and 8 in buffered reagent-grade water at 5 degrees C. CT values (disinfectant concentration x time) for 2- to 4-log(10) (99 to 99.99%) reductions in virus titers were calculated by using the efficiency factor Hom model. The enteroviruses required the longest times for chlorine inactivation and MNV the least time. CVB5 required the longest exposure time, with CT values of 7.4 and 10 mg x min/liter (pH 7 and 8) for 4-log(10) inactivation. Monochloramine disinfection was most effective for E1 (CT values ranged from 8 to 18 mg x min/liter for 2- and 3-log(10) reductions, respectively). E11 and HAdV2 were the least susceptible to monochloramine disinfection (CT values of 1,300 and 1,600 mg-min/liter for 3-log(10) reductions, respectively). Monochloramine inactivation was most successful for the adenoviruses, CVB5, and E1 at pH 7. A greater variation in inactivation rates between viruses was observed during monochloramine disinfection than during chlorine disinfection. These data will be useful in drinking water risk assessment studies and disinfection system planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cromeans et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: