Antiviral Activity of Contemporary Contact Lens Care Solutions against Two Human Seasonal Coronavirus Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Given that reports have suggested SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via conjunctiva, the ability of contact lens (CL) care products to reduce the infectiousness of two seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) (HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43) surrogates for SARS-CoV-2 was investigated. Methods: Biotrue and Boston Simplus (Bausch&Lomb), OPTI-FREE Puremoist and Clear Care (Alcon), and cleadew and cleadew GP (Ophtecs) were tested. Their ability to inactivate HCoV was evaluated using contact times of 4 and 6 h as well as 1% and 10% of virus inoculum. Results: Non-oxidative systems (Biotrue, Boston Simplus, and OPTI-FREE) did not exhibit a significant log10 reduction compared to controls for the two viral strains for either incubation time (all p > 0.05) when 10% tests were performed. For the 1% test, while Boston Simplus and OPTI-FREE exhibited a significant log10 reduction of both HCoV-229E (after 6 h) and HCoV-OC43 (after either 4 or 6 h incubation), those products showed less than 1 log10 reduction of the two infectious viruses. Oxidative systems based on hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine showed a significant log10 reduction compared with the controls for both HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43 in all tested conditions (all p < 0.01). Clear Care led to virus inactivation to below the limit of quantification for tests performed with 1% of inoculum after 6 h incubation, while cleadew and cleadew GP led to inactivation of the two viruses to below the limit of quantification in all tested conditions. Conclusion: Oxidative CL disinfection systems showed significant virucidal activity against HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43, while non-oxidative systems showed minimal ability to inactivate the HCoV species examined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".