What disinfectant to use against Senecavirus A? Does it vary based on surface type or temperature? These are the questions that a group of researchers from the University of Minnesota – Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory are answering in the latest issue of the Journal of Swine Health and Production (JSHAP).

The project tested:
3 disinfectants: Household bleach, a phenolic disinfectant, and a quaternary ammoniun-aldehyde
5 surfaces: aluminium, stainless steel, rubber, cement, and plastic
2 temperatures: 25°C (77F) and 4°C (39F)

Summary
Objectives: To evaluate the virucidal efficacy of three commercial disinfectants against Senecavirus A (SVA) on five different surfaces at ~25°C and 4°C.
Materials and methods: Household bleach, a phenolic disinfectant, and a quaternary ammonium-aldehyde disinfectant were tested at manufacturer’s recommended concentrations against a contemporary strain of SVA on aluminum, stainless steel, rubber, cement, and plastic surfaces at ~25°C and 4°C. Virus propagation and titration were performed on swine testicular cells. Viral titers were calculated before and after exposure to the disinfectant being tested.
Results: At ~25°C, household bleach at 1:20 dilution inactivated ≥ 99.99% of the virus within 10 to 15 minutes on aluminum, rubber, and plastic. On stainless steel and cured cement, it inactivated 99.97% and 99.98% of the virus, respectively. At 4°C, bleach inactivated ≥ 99.99% of the virus within 5 to15 minutes on all surfaces except rubber; on rubber, inactivation was 99.91% after 15 minutes. The phenolic disinfectant at the manufacturer’s recommended concentration inactivated only ≤ 82.41% of the virus at either temperature and on any surface, even after a 60-minute contact time. Results for the quaternary ammonium disinfectant were intermediate: 78.12% to 99.81% of the virus was inactivated within 60 minutes at both temperatures and on all surfaces. To detect differences between disinfectants, paired Wilcoxon tests were performed. At 10- and 15-minute time points, efficacies of the three disinfectants differed significantly.
Implications: Significant variation exists in the antiviral efficacies of different disinfectants. Hence, they should be tested against various pathogens before use in the field.