ABSTRACT
Contamination of high-touch surfaces with infected droplets of bodily secretions is a known route of virus transmission. Copper surfaces have been reported to inactivate human coronaviruses after several minutes, via the release of Cu cations. Utilization of copper alloys for high-touch surfaces can be a pivotal preemptive strategy for preventing the next pandemic. Understanding the true efficacy by which copper, and copper alloys, inactivate the virus under realistic conditions is essential for tuning intrinsic alloy features such as composition, grain orientation, and surface attributes, to optimize for antiviral function. However, virus inactivation measurements depend on the presence of an assay media (AM) solution as a carrier for the virus, and its effects on the surface properties of pure copper that regulate oxidative copper release are previously unknown. Herein, these properties and the influence of AM on the efficacy of virus inactivation occurring on the surface of pure copper are investigated. The process is uncovered by which a five-fold decrease in virus half-life is observed in simulated real-life conditions, relative to exposure to traditional AM. The investigation highlights the notion that virus inactivation on copper surfaces may be significantly more effective than previously thought. © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Materials Interfaces published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the effects of COVID-19 mitigation for persons in group living environments is of critical importance to limiting the spread of the virus. In the U.S., residential recovery homes for persons with alcohol and drug disorders are good examples of high-risk environments where virus mitigation procedures are essential. The National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) has taken recommendations developed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and applied them to recovery home settings. This paper describes how COVID-19 mitigation efforts in recovery homes may be influenced by two factors. First, while some houses are licensed by states with rigorous health and safety standards, others are not licensed and are subject to less oversight. These homes may be more inconsistent in adhering to mitigation standards. Second, to varying degrees, recovery homes use a social model approach to recovery that contrasts with mitigation procedures such as social distancing and stay-at-home orders. This paper provides examples of ways recovery homes have been forced to adjust to the competing demands of mitigation efforts and social model recovery. The paper also identifies multiple questions that could be addressed by provider-researcher coalitions to inform how social model recovery can navigate forward during the era of COVID-19. As we move forward during the era of COVID-19, providers are encouraged to remember that recovery homes have a history of resilience facing adversity and in fact have their origins in grassroots responses to the challenges of their times.