ABSTRACT
Urban space has always served as a theater for multiple functions and complexities that have modified and enriched its structure and identity. Its progressive adaptation to historical and economic events, among others, has made it a complex ecosystem in which physical and subjective space, local and global relations have manifested their being. As a matter of fact, it is sufficient to reflect on the impacts of Covid-19 in terms of social, cultural, and economic transformations, thus contributing to the need to develop new strategies for urban coexistence and revitalization. And it is precisely starting from such an historical experience of the pandemic crisis, this monographic issue stems from the desire to explore and reflect on the multiple urban landscapes produced and recreated because of it. The ten contributions present different spatialities and individualities recorded on an international scale across different cities during the pandemic. Results approximate urban space through the description of phenomena, gazes, actions, contradictions, readings, experiences, and critical reflections that we hope will help to encourage debate and the comparison of ideas.
ABSTRACT
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND: Environmental sampling of SARS-CoV-2 is a fundamental tool for evaluating the effectiveness of non-specific prophylaxis measures in counteracting virus spread. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the effectiveness of the different sampling methods in the hospital setting to assess their correlation with the structural, functional, and operational situation of the monitored departments and to define the dynamics of the spread of the virus in indoor environments. METHODS: The monitoring (air bubbling sampling, surface wipe test) was carried out at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital (Genoa, Italy) in the period since April 2020 to June 2021. The presence of viral RNA in the collected samples was evaluated by qPCR. The infection capacity of the samples collected was also evaluated by an in vitro challenge test on cells sensitive to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: The percentage of positivity with respect to the number of tests performed (sensitivity) were air bubbler 50%, wipe test 17%, and challenge test 11%. Only 20% of the samples tested positive in the wipe test and 43% of the samples tested positive in the bubbler sampling were also positive in the challenge test. All the positivity obtained was detected at a distance of less than 2 m and height of less than 1.5 from COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Environmental contamination from SARS-CoV-2 detected at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital is found lower than similar assessments performed in other hospitals both in Italy and abroad. Our study predicted that environmental monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 must be carried out in an integrated way by not using a single sampling method, as each individual test has a different biological significance and performance. However, the virus detected by wipe test only is often a degraded viral fragment and not an intact infecting virion.