Transfer rate of enveloped and non-enveloped viruses between fingerpads and surfaces
Abstract
Fomites can represent a reservoir for pathogens, which may be subsequently transferred from surfaces to skin. In this study we aim to understand how different factors (including virus type, surface type, time since last handwash, and direction of transfer) affect virus transfer rates, defined as the fraction of virus transferred, between fingerpads and fomites. To determine this, 360 transfer events were performed with 20 volunteers using Phi6 (a surrogate for enveloped viruses) and MS2 (a surrogate for non-enveloped viruses), and three clean surfaces (stainless steel, painted wood, and plastic). Considering all transfer events (all surfaces and both transfer directions combined), the mean transfer rates of Phi6 and MS2 were 0.17 and 0.26, respectively. Transfer of MS2 was significantly higher than Phi6 (P<0.05). Surface type was a significant factor that affected the transfer rate of Phi6: Phi6 is more easily transferred to and from stainless steel and plastic than to and from painted wood. Direction of transfer was a significant factor affecting MS2 transfer rates: MS2 is more easily transferred from surfaces to fingerpads than from fingerpads to surfaces. Data from these virus transfer events, and subsequent transfer rate distributions, provide information which can be used to refine quantitative microbial risk assessments. This study is the first to provide a large-scale data set of transfer events with a surrogate for enveloped viruses, which extends the reach of the study to the role of fomites in the transmission of human enveloped viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. ImportanceThis study created the first large-scale data set for the transfer of enveloped viruses between skin and surfaces. The data set produced by this study provides information on modelling the distribution of enveloped and non-enveloped virus transfer rates, which can aid in the implementation of risk assessment models in the future. Additionally, enveloped and non enveloped viruses were applied to experimental surfaces in an equivalent matrix to avoid matrix effects, so results between different viral species can be directly compared without confounding effects of different matrices. Our results indicating how virus type, surface type, time since last handwash, and direction of transfer affect virus transfer rates can be used in decision-making processes to lower the risk of viral infection from transmission through fomites.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Higher concentrations of bacterial enveloped virus Phi6 can protect the virus from environmental decay
R. Bangiyev, M. Chudaev, … E. Goldman·bioRxiv·May 17, 2021
- A realistic touch-transfer method reveals low risk of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 by contaminated coins and bank notes
D. Todt, T. L. Meister, … E. Steinmann·bioRxiv·Apr 2, 2021
- Viability of MS2 and Phi6 Bacteriophages on Carpet and Dust
N. Nastasi, N. Renninger, … K. C. Dannemiller·bioRxiv·May 17, 2021
- SARS-CoV-2 Survival on Skin and its Transfer from Contaminated Surfaces
Ana K. Pitol, Samiksha Venkatesan, … Grant L. Hughes·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jun 20, 2025
- Effect of carrier droplet size and shape at different viral loads on virus stability during environmental drying
Sesan Nayak, Y.S. Mayya, … Mahesh Subramanyam Tirumkudulu·bioRxiv·Mar 27, 2025
- Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 and its surrogate, bacteriophage Phi6, on surfaces and in water
A. K. Pitol, S. Venkatesan, … G. L. Hughes·bioRxiv·Mar 14, 2023