Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Restroom use has been implicated in a number of viral outbreaks. In this study, we apply quantitative microbial risk assessment to quantify the risk of viral transmission by contaminated restroom fomites. We estimate risk from high-touch fomite surfaces (entrance/exit door, toilet seat) for three viruses of interest (SARS-CoV-2, adenovirus, norovirus) through eight exposure scenarios involving differing user behaviors, and the use of hand sanitizer following each scenario. We assessed the impacts of several sequences of fomite contacts in the restroom, reflecting the variability of human behavior, on infection risks for these viruses. Touching of the toilet seat was assumed to model adjustment of the seat (open vs. closed), a common touch point in single-user restrooms (home, small business, hospital). A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted for each exposure scenario (10,000 simulations each). Norovirus resulted in the highest probability of infection for all exposure scenarios with fomite surfaces. Post-restroom automatic-dispensing hand sanitizer use reduced the probability of infection for each virus by up to 99.75%. Handwashing within the restroom, an important risk-reduction intervention, was not found to be as effective as use of a non-touch hand sanitizer dispenser for reducing risk to near or below 1/1,000,000, a commonly used risk threshold for comparison.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sarah E. Abney
University of Arizona
Ciara A. Higham
University of Leeds
Amanda M. Wilson
University of Technology Sydney
Food and Environmental Virology
University of Arizona
University of Leeds
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Abney et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e78948b6db6435876fb455 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-023-09580-1
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: