Robust Evaluation of Ultraviolet-C Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 and Surrogate Coronaviruses.

UV light, more specifically UV-C light at a wavelength of 254 nm, is often used to disinfect surfaces, air, and liquids. In early 2020, at the cusp of the COVID-19 pandemic, UV light was identified as an efficient means of eliminating coronaviruses; however, the variability in published sensitivity data is evidence of the need for experimental rigor to accurately quantify the effectiveness of this technique. In the current study, reliable and reproducible UV techniques have been adopted, including accurate measurement of light intensity, consideration of fluid UV absorbance, and confirmation of uniform dose delivery, including dose verification using an established biological target (T1UV bacteriophage) and a resistant recombinant virus (baculovirus). The experimental results establish the UV sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, and mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and highlight the potential for surrogate viruses for disinfection studies. All four coronaviruses were found to be easily inactivated by 254 nm irradiation, with UV sensitivities of 1.7, 1.8, 1.7, and 1.2 mJ/cm2/log10 reduction for SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, and MHV, respectively. Similar UV sensitivities for these species demonstrate the capacity for HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, and MHV to be considered surrogates for SARS-CoV-2 in UV-inactivation studies, greatly reducing hazards and simplifying procedures for future experimental studies. IMPORTANCE Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 is of particular importance due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. UV-C irradiation is a compelling disinfection technique because it can be applied to surfaces, air, and water and is commonly used in drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. UV inactivation depends on the dose received by an organism, regardless of the intensity of the light source or the optical properties of the medium in which it is suspended. The 254 nm irradiation sensitivity was accurately determined using benchmark methodology and a collimated beam apparatus for four coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-2, HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, and MHV), a surrogate indicator organism (T1UV), and a resistant recombinant virus (baculovirus vector). Considering the light distribution across the sample surface, the attenuation of light intensity with fluid depth, the optical absorbance of the fluid, and the sample uniformity due to mixing enable accurate measurement of the fundamental inactivation kinetics and UV sensitivity.

Caudal anesthesia in pediatrics: an update.

AIM: Caudal anesthesia is one of the most used-popular regional blocks in children. This technique is a useful adjunct during general anesthesia and for providing postoperative analgesia after infraumbilical operations. The quality and level of the caudal blockade is dependent on the dose, volume, and concentration of the injected drug. Although it is a versatile block, one of the major limitations of the single-injection technique is the relatively short duration of postoperative analgesia. The most frequently used method to further prolong postoperative analgesia following caudal block is to add different adjunct drugs to the local anesthetics solution. Only few studies evaluated quality and duration of caudal block against the volume of the local anaesthetic applied. After reviewing recent scientific literature, the authors compare the duration of postoperative analgesia in children scheduled for hypospadia repair when 2two different volumes and concentrations of a fixed dose of ropivacaine are used. METHODS: After informed parental consent, 30 children (ASA I, 1-5 years old) were enrolled in a multicentre, perspective, not randomized, observational study conducted in two 2 children hospitals. After premedication with midazolam, anesthesia was induced with thiopental and maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen/air. After induction, patients received a caudal blockade either with ropivacaine 0.375% at 0.5 mL/kg (Low Volume High Concentration Group, LVHC; n = 15), or ropivacaine 0.1% at 1.8 mLl/kg (High Volume Low Concentration Group, HVLC; n = 15). Surgery was allowed to begin 10ten minutes after performing the block. MAC-hour was calculated. In the recovery room, pain was assessed using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS). In addition, the motor block was scored. After transferral to the ward, the patients were observed for 24 hours for signs of postoperative pain. The time period to first supplemental analgesic demand, i.e., from establishment of the block until the first registration of a CHEOPS score = or > 9, was considered the primary endpoint of the study. The time periods were compared using analysis of variance adjusted for age, weight and duration of surgical procedure as covariates. RESULTS: All patients were judged to have sufficient intraoperative analgesia, and none of them received additional analgesics intraoperatively. Patients' characteristics were similar, besides the age (32+/-10 vs 24 +/- 9 months; P < 0.05) and weigh (15.13 +/- 3.92 vs 11.93 +/- 1.83; P = 0.08). Analgesics were needed after 520 +/- 480 min in the LVHC and 952 +/- 506 min in the HVLC group (P < 0.05). Motor block was less in the HVLC group. CONCLUSIONS: In children undergoing hypospadia repair, caudal block with a ''high volume, low concentration'' regimen produces prolonged analgesia and less motor block, compared to a ''low volume, high concentration'' regimen.