TY - JOUR
AU - Aucoin, Marc G
AB - Abstract Incidents of contamination in biopharmaceutical production have highlighted the need to apply alternative or supplementary disinfection techniques. Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is a well-established method for inactivating a broad range of microorganisms, and is therefore a good candidate as an orthogonal technique for disinfection. To apply UV as a safeguard against adventitious agents, the UV sensitivity of these target agents must be known so that the appropriate dose of UV may be applied to achieve the desired level of inactivation. This document compiles and reviews experimentally derived 254 nm sensitivities of organisms relevant to biopharmaceutical production. In general, different researchers have found similar sensitivity values despite a lack of uniformity in experimental design or standardized quantification techniques. Still, the lack of consistent methodologies has led to suspicious UV susceptibilities in certain instances, justifying the need to create a robust collection of sensitivity values that can be used in the design and sizing of UV systems for the inactivation of adventitious agents. Introduction There have been a number of publicized incidents in which biopharmaceutical production has experienced contamination with a virus or bacterial agent [6, 10, 24, 33, 72]. These contamination events are highly disruptive, requiring that production be halted, inventory be quarantined, and extensive testing be conducted to identify the nature and source of the contamination. The cost of a contamination event can be significant. For example, costs associated with a vesivirus 2117 contamination event at Genzyme in 2009 were estimated at more than $200 million including a fine of $175 million from the US FDA [3]. In addition, there is the direct or indirect cost to patients whose medications become unavailable. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection has been applied in drinking water for more than a century, with the first installation in Marseille in 1910, and the first US installation in Henderson KY in 1916 [66]. Many millions of people rely on drinking water disinfected with ultraviolet light, including the residents of New York City, USA, and Vancouver, Canada. Benefits of UV disinfection include the avoidance of chemical addition, as well as simple control and maintenance. The unique mode of action of UV, directly affecting the nucleic acids of an organism or virus, also makes it a desirable orthogonal methodology to complement technologies such as filtration or chemical inactivation. As a result, it is often considered a treatment method for small organisms or viruses that cannot be readily filtered or that are not susceptible to chemical disruption. Biopharmaceutical manufacturers Genzyme and Sanofi Pasteur consider UV to be a promising prospective adventitious agent clearance technology to mitigate the risk of contamination from raw materials [44]. However, there is reluctance to implement it in processes because of the lack of available literature on the topic. Recently, an effort to correct this has been undertaken and our group has published research considering the effect of UV fluence on the composition and function of cell culture media [70, 117]. UV inactivation is generally achieved using lamps emitting at 254 nm. This wavelength, in the UVC range, is produced very efficiently using mercury vapor lamps, and it nearly corresponds to the nucleic acid absorption peak of about 265 nm. The absorbed energy can result in pyrimidine cyclobutane dimer formation; if the dimers are formed in a critical location and cannot be overcome by repair mechanisms, the organism cannot reproduce and is thereby inactivated. The amount of UV relevant to inactivation is properly denoted as fluence, which is the direction-independent irradiance-analog multiplied by the exposure time. The units of fluence are energy per unit area. There have been attempts to predict the UV sensitivity of organisms by correlations with genome size, single-stranded vs. double-stranded, DNA vs. RNA, or detailed genomic analysis [57, 56, 64]. The model predictions have good general agreement with experiment, allowing the estimation of UV sensitivity for newly discovered organisms or in cases where experimental results are not available. However, even the most detailed mechanistic predictions by Kowalski [56] differ by up to a factor of 2 or 0.5 from specific experimental results. For that reason, this review considers only experimentally measured inactivation rates; model predictions are not included here. Several review articles identify adventitious agents that are concerns for CHO cell processes based on known contamination events or known susceptibilities [12, 54, 74]. The objective of this study is to provide a critical review of the available UV inactivation literature for organisms that are crucial to the biopharmaceutical industry, and to provide a comprehensive list of the organisms studied along with their UV sensitivities. This work will hopefully be a valuable source of information in the design of UV disinfection equipment and experiments, as well as provide researchers a foundation to evaluate and analyze UV inactivation studies. Methodology Notes: In the present work, definition and terminology are based on the IUPAC 2006 recommendations [18] (Table 1). Symbols and definitions Symbol . Name . Definition . Fo Fluence The integral of fluence rate and time. Units: energy/area, e.g. mJ/cm2. For UV disinfection, this is commonly referred to as “UV dose” Eo Fluence Rate The radiant energy flux (power) from all directions passing through an infinitesimal spherical volume, divided by the cross-sectional area of the sphere. Units: power/area, e.g. mW/cm2 This is the spherical analog of irradiance, and is independent of direction E (see note) Irradiance The radiant energy flux incident on a surface element, divided by the area of the element. Units: power/Area, e.g. mW/cm2. This quantity depends on the angle of incidence D10 For an organism with first-order UV inactivation kinetics, the Fluence required to decrease the number of viable organisms to 1/10 of the original number A The optical absorption coefficient, in base 10. Used in the Beer–Lambert–Bouguere law. Ae The optical absorption coefficient, in base e L Length The fluid path length through which UV radiation passes Symbol . Name . Definition . Fo Fluence The integral of fluence rate and time. Units: energy/area, e.g. mJ/cm2. For UV disinfection, this is commonly referred to as “UV dose” Eo Fluence Rate The radiant energy flux (power) from all directions passing through an infinitesimal spherical volume, divided by the cross-sectional area of the sphere. Units: power/area, e.g. mW/cm2 This is the spherical analog of irradiance, and is independent of direction E (see note) Irradiance The radiant energy flux incident on a surface element, divided by the area of the element. Units: power/Area, e.g. mW/cm2. This quantity depends on the angle of incidence D10 For an organism with first-order UV inactivation kinetics, the Fluence required to decrease the number of viable organisms to 1/10 of the original number A The optical absorption coefficient, in base 10. Used in the Beer–Lambert–Bouguere law. Ae The optical absorption coefficient, in base e L Length The fluid path length through which UV radiation passes The same symbol is often used for both irradiance and fluence rate Open in new tab Symbols and definitions Symbol . Name . Definition . Fo Fluence The integral of fluence rate and time. Units: energy/area, e.g. mJ/cm2. For UV disinfection, this is commonly referred to as “UV dose” Eo Fluence Rate The radiant energy flux (power) from all directions passing through an infinitesimal spherical volume, divided by the cross-sectional area of the sphere. Units: power/area, e.g. mW/cm2 This is the spherical analog of irradiance, and is independent of direction E (see note) Irradiance The radiant energy flux incident on a surface element, divided by the area of the element. Units: power/Area, e.g. mW/cm2. This quantity depends on the angle of incidence D10 For an organism with first-order UV inactivation kinetics, the Fluence required to decrease the number of viable organisms to 1/10 of the original number A The optical absorption coefficient, in base 10. Used in the Beer–Lambert–Bouguere law. Ae The optical absorption coefficient, in base e L Length The fluid path length through which UV radiation passes Symbol . Name . Definition . Fo Fluence The integral of fluence rate and time. Units: energy/area, e.g. mJ/cm2. For UV disinfection, this is commonly referred to as “UV dose” Eo Fluence Rate The radiant energy flux (power) from all directions passing through an infinitesimal spherical volume, divided by the cross-sectional area of the sphere. Units: power/area, e.g. mW/cm2 This is the spherical analog of irradiance, and is independent of direction E (see note) Irradiance The radiant energy flux incident on a surface element, divided by the area of the element. Units: power/Area, e.g. mW/cm2. This quantity depends on the angle of incidence D10 For an organism with first-order UV inactivation kinetics, the Fluence required to decrease the number of viable organisms to 1/10 of the original number A The optical absorption coefficient, in base 10. Used in the Beer–Lambert–Bouguere law. Ae The optical absorption coefficient, in base e L Length The fluid path length through which UV radiation passes The same symbol is often used for both irradiance and fluence rate Open in new tab All plots were created in R, a programming language that facilitates statistical computing and graphic visualization (https://www.r-project.org/), using the ggplot2 package (http://docs.ggplot2.org/). Box-plot whiskers extend above the upper edge of the box to the highest value point (or below the lower edge of the box to the lowest value point) that is within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range. Data selection and errors in UV inactivation studies UV sensitivity is generally measured by applying a well-quantified, single-valued UV fluence to a fluid containing virus, and determining the resulting degree of inactivation of the virus. The process is repeated for a sequence of fluence values, and the resulting inactivation is plotted to determine the shape of the inactivation curve (the kinetics) and to minimize the impact of error in any one data point. For first-order kinetics, the D10 value (the fluence required for a single log reduction in infectivity) is readily determined from the slope of the resulting plot. Quality assurance The quality of data in a UV inactivation study should be checked by a simple plot of survival vs. UV fluence. For most organisms, the UV inactivation is well modeled by a first-order equation [66]. That is, the number of infective virus particles, N, is an exponential function of the applied fluence, F o multiplied by the original amount of infective virus, N 0: N=N010-FoD10. $$N = N_{0} 10^{{\frac{{ - F_{\text{o}} }}{{D_{10} }}.}}$$1 When plotted as the log of the number of viable virus vs. the fluence, the data will form a straight line for many viruses. A simple check of data quality can be done by examining this log plot of the data. If the data deviates from the typical straight line, it may indicate that the experiment was flawed. In Fig. 1, we plotted data from two different investigators for the UV inactivation of feline calicivirus (FCV). It can be seen that the results from Park et al. [81] show first-order kinetics to about 5 log inactivation, while the results from Nuanualsuwan et al. [77] show tailing with a maximum inactivation of about 3 log. The work of Nuanualsuwan et al. [77] also shows tailing for ϕX174 phage at about 3 log, in contrast to the first-order kinetics reported by Battigelli et al. [9] even beyond 6 log inactivation (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Open in new tabDownload slide Inactivation data for feline calicivirus and ϕX174 phage from different research groups Although some organisms may not exhibit first-order kinetics for UV inactivation, first-order kinetics are very common in response to UV irradiation. Any data set should be compared against other literature results to determine the expected inactivation kinetics for the virus, or for other viruses of the same family or genus. Deviation from expected kinetics may be the result of a number of factors, discussed below. UV measurement errors Examining the outliers in this literature review, it is apparent that some authors did not precisely apply single fluence values, but instead applied fluence distributions including higher and lower values than that quoted. Applying a well-quantified, mono-valued fluence requires careful design of the irradiation apparatus, careful fluid characterization, and usually careful mixing. Fluence detectors are very difficult to design, construct, and calibrate. An ideal fluence sensor would have a spherical detector that was equally sensitive to radiation arriving from all directions (4π steradians). Some investigators have used small spherical containers of chemical actinometry solutions [83], or small coated plastic spheres that change fluorescence or color with UV fluence [13], but this approach does not permit real-time measurement. Creating a fluence detector with an electronic readout is nearly impossible. The solution to this dilemma is to use an irradiation geometry in which an irradiance sensor will suffice, since these are available from vendors, e.g. International Light Technologies and Solar Light, along with calibration traceable to U.S. National Institute of Standards (NIST) or other national laboratories. The UV irradiance must be accurately known so that fluence can be calculated. In their guideline for applying UV fluence, Bolton and Linden [15] recommend using a collimated beam apparatus. While this device does not actually collimate the UV radiation field, it effectively uses an aperture to ensure that UV only reaches the fluid from a single direction, directly above the fluid. This is important for two reasons: it ensures that the incident irradiance can be measured accurately, and it ensures that the attenuated radiation field in the fluid sample can be calculated accurately. If the UV flux reaches the fluid sample from a variety of directions, most UV sensors cannot quantify the fluence rate. Most sensors will, by design, have a response that drops off as the angle of incidence deviates from the normal. A well-designed irradiance sensor will have a response that varies with the cosine of the angle of incidence. However, viruses do not respond differently to off-axis radiation or on-axis, so the fluence rate, not irradiance, is the appropriate measurement quantity. The solution is to have the UV reaching the sample only from a single angle, and to orient the UV sensor normal to this radiation. Under these conditions, irradiance and fluence rate are identical, so the irradiance reading will be correct. The attenuated radiation field in the fluid sample can then be readily calculated, since the geometry is simple. It is also important to correct for the attenuation of UV fluence in the fluid sample in which the organism or virus is suspended. The radiation field in the fluid sample must be calculated from the fluid depth and absorbance. This is done using the measured irradiation at the fluid surface and the measured optical absorbance of the fluid at the relevant wavelength, usually 254 nm. The intensity in a non-scattering fluid may be calculated from the Beer–Lambert–Bouguer law [71]. Assuming that the fluid is well mixed and the irradiation time is long compared with the mixing time, the expression for the volume-average intensity can readily be found by integration. The equations governing average fluence in a well-mixed, semi-transparent media were published by Morowitz [73] expressing the average fluence rate, F avg, as: Favg=F01-e-AeLAeL, $$F_{\text{avg}} = F_{0} \left( {\frac{{1 - e^{{ - A_{e} L}} }}{{A_{e} L}}} \right),$$2 where F 0 is the incident fluence rate, A e is the absorption coefficient (base e) at the wavelength of interest, and L is the fluid depth in the direction of the radiation field. Expressed as a function of the more common base-10 absorption coefficient, A, this equation becomes: Favg=F01-10-ALALln10. $$F_{\text{avg}} = F_{0} \left( {\frac{{1 - 10^{ - AL} }}{{AL \ln \left( {10} \right)}}} \right).$$3 There are a number of other correction factors highlighted in the Bolton and Linden guideline, but this absorption factor is the most significant in many configurations used for inactivation studies, since suspensions of organisms and viruses often have strong absorbance in the UV range. Other errors Clumping can result in apparent deviations from the true inactivation kinetics. If organisms or viral particles are not fully dispersed, some will be present in clumps. This may result in an inactivation plot with a plateau as a result of shielding of the central virus or bacterium by those surrounding it, which will allow the central virus or bacterium to survive [106]. For example, if 1 in 1000 virus particles is fully shielded, the effect will be tailing above 3 log reductions, while fully dispersed virus will demonstrate intrinsic kinetics through higher inactivation levels. These effects were recognized and addressed by Furness [37] and by Das [30] in studying the UV inactivation kinetics of mycoplasma, in which they used sonication and filtration to ensure single-cell suspensions. As Furness [37] noted, “That the suspension contained only single cells was confirmed by demonstrating that the colony-forming units (CFU) were inactivated exponentially by ultraviolet irradiation”. Fluid optics and poor mixing can also lead to tailing in dose–response curves. If the fluid sample is not adequately mixed, so that not all components of the sample receive the same integrated UV exposure (fluence), the less-irradiated fluid will dominate the results and can lead to a plateau in inactivation. As an extreme example, if one part in 1000 of the fluid receives zero fluence, then the inactivation cannot exceed 3 logs, even as the exposure time is increased. Similar, though less extreme, behavior can result from poor dose distribution: survival is dominated by the low-dose fluid regions. For this reason, it is preferable to conduct inactivation studies in relatively clear solutions to minimize intensity gradients and lessen the importance of mixing. Likewise, the irradiation device (collimated beam) should also be set up to minimize the UV intensity gradients across the surface of the fluid sample. This deviation from uniformity is denoted by the Petri factor in the method published by Bolton and Linden [15], and methods are provided to quantify the magnitude of the effect as well as recommendations for an acceptable range. It is important to utilize a relevant assay to determine whether infectious virus remains after irradiation. Assays, such as tissue culture 50% infectious dose (TCID50), or plaque assays, will correctly assess infectivity; morphological changes to detector cells due to viral infection are the basis of the TCID50 assay and are responsible for plaque formation. PCR methods have significant drawbacks in measuring the degree of disinfection, as they may be unable to distinguish between viable and inactivated organisms. The detection of specific sequences does not indicate the presence of an intact, infectious virion. Even the presence of a viral sequence in a host cell does not indicate infectious virus, since the virus might enter the host cell but still not be able to replicate. Care must be taken to ensure that the assay is quantifying infectious virus. Randazzo et al. [82] and Ju et al. [51] have investigated the ability of PCR-based techniques to distinguish between viable and inactivated norovirus and E. coli, respectively. In both papers, the authors examined the ability of RT-qPCR (reverse-transcriptase, quantitative PCR), augmented by photoactivatable dye methods (propidium monoazide and ethidium monoazide), to discriminate between viable and inactivated organisms. RT-PCR amplifies RNA, and is thought therefore to detect only viable organisms that are expressing RNA (or an RNA virus). The dyes are furthermore intended to prevent amplification of nucleic acids from organisms with compromised capsids, since the dyes can penetrate to the nucleus and prevent amplification. Randazzo found that even the best combination of these dyes was only able to suppress about 2 log of thermally inactivated norovirus. Ju et al. [51] found similar issues, with up to a 7-log discrepancy between culture and qPCR results for E. coli inactivated by desiccation. In disinfection applications where 3 log or greater inactivation is expected, these methods will not correct the inherent over-estimation of viable virus by qPCR methods. Furthermore, UV disinfection will leave any capsid virtually intact, which will further limit the performance of these dye techniques. The authors of the present review do not recommend PCR methods for assessing UV disinfection. UV sensitivities of bacteria and viruses UV inactivation kinetics are often first order, and are commonly described by the D10 (the dose required to reduce the counts by one log10), defined above. A larger D10 value indicates that an organism is more resistant to UV inactivation. Considering pitfalls in methodology and overall consistency within multiple research labs, average D10 values based on experimental results are proposed (Table 2) based on a thorough review of the literature D10 values (Fig. 2, Fig. 3; Appendix Table 3). Unless addressed in the text below, the reported values in Table 2 are simply an arithmetic average of the available literature listed in the appendix. Average dose per log10 inactivation of adventitious agents Family . Genome . Adventitious agent . D10 (mJ/cm2) . Enterobacteriaceae dsDNA E. coli 1.9 Mycoplasmataceae dsDNA Mycoplasma 1.9 Acholeplasmataceae dsDNA Acholeplasma 2.5 Leptospiraceae dsDNA Leptospira 1.9 Adenoviridae dsDNA Adenovirus 42.3 Arenaviridae ssRNA Junin virus 3.0 Arenaviridae ssRNA Lassa virus 3.0 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Hanta virus 2.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 Caliciviridae ssRNA Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 6.6 Caliciviridae ssRNA Feline calicivirus (FCV) 5.3 Caliciviridae ssRNA Murine norovirus (MNV) 8.3 Circoviridae Circular ssDNA Porcine circovirus (PCV) 17.8 Filoviridae ssRNA Ebola virus 1.7 Filoviridae ssRNA Marburg virus 1.7 Flaviviridae ssRNA Bovine viral diarrhea virus 12.2 Flaviviridae ssRNA West Nile virus 5.5 Herpesviridae dsDNA Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 Herpesviridae dsDNA Cytomegalovirus (CMV) 4.8 Herpesviridae dsDNA Pseudorabies virus 8 Leviviridae ssRNA Bacteriophage MS2 19.3 Microviridae Circular ssDNA ϕX174 phage 2.3 Orthomyxoviridae ssRNA Influenza A virus 4.5 Paramyxoviridae ssRNA Parainfluenza Virus 14.3 Parvoviridae ssDNA Bovine parvovirus 12.5 Parvoviridae ssDNA Mouse minute virus (MMV) 1.8 Parvoviridae ssDNA Parvovirus H1 23.0 Parvoviridae ssDNA Porcine parvovirus (PPV) 2.0 Picornaviridae ssRNA Cardiovirus A—encephalomyocarditis virus 5.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Coxsackievirus 10.4 Picornaviridae ssRNA Echovirus 9.1 Picornaviridae ssRNA Foot and mouth disease virus 22.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Hepatitis A virus (HAV) 6.3 Picornaviridae ssRNA Poliovirus (PV) 8.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Mouse polyoma virus 57.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 92.8 Poxviridae dsDNA Variola virus 2.5 Reoviridae dsRNA Reovirus 22.4 Retroviridae ssRNA Murine leukemia and sarcoma viruses 24.9 Rhabdoviridae ssRNA Vesicular stomatitis virus 2.3 Togaviridae ssRNA Semliki forest virus 11.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Sindbis virus 7.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Equine encephalitis virus 4.9 Family . Genome . Adventitious agent . D10 (mJ/cm2) . Enterobacteriaceae dsDNA E. coli 1.9 Mycoplasmataceae dsDNA Mycoplasma 1.9 Acholeplasmataceae dsDNA Acholeplasma 2.5 Leptospiraceae dsDNA Leptospira 1.9 Adenoviridae dsDNA Adenovirus 42.3 Arenaviridae ssRNA Junin virus 3.0 Arenaviridae ssRNA Lassa virus 3.0 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Hanta virus 2.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 Caliciviridae ssRNA Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 6.6 Caliciviridae ssRNA Feline calicivirus (FCV) 5.3 Caliciviridae ssRNA Murine norovirus (MNV) 8.3 Circoviridae Circular ssDNA Porcine circovirus (PCV) 17.8 Filoviridae ssRNA Ebola virus 1.7 Filoviridae ssRNA Marburg virus 1.7 Flaviviridae ssRNA Bovine viral diarrhea virus 12.2 Flaviviridae ssRNA West Nile virus 5.5 Herpesviridae dsDNA Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 Herpesviridae dsDNA Cytomegalovirus (CMV) 4.8 Herpesviridae dsDNA Pseudorabies virus 8 Leviviridae ssRNA Bacteriophage MS2 19.3 Microviridae Circular ssDNA ϕX174 phage 2.3 Orthomyxoviridae ssRNA Influenza A virus 4.5 Paramyxoviridae ssRNA Parainfluenza Virus 14.3 Parvoviridae ssDNA Bovine parvovirus 12.5 Parvoviridae ssDNA Mouse minute virus (MMV) 1.8 Parvoviridae ssDNA Parvovirus H1 23.0 Parvoviridae ssDNA Porcine parvovirus (PPV) 2.0 Picornaviridae ssRNA Cardiovirus A—encephalomyocarditis virus 5.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Coxsackievirus 10.4 Picornaviridae ssRNA Echovirus 9.1 Picornaviridae ssRNA Foot and mouth disease virus 22.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Hepatitis A virus (HAV) 6.3 Picornaviridae ssRNA Poliovirus (PV) 8.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Mouse polyoma virus 57.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 92.8 Poxviridae dsDNA Variola virus 2.5 Reoviridae dsRNA Reovirus 22.4 Retroviridae ssRNA Murine leukemia and sarcoma viruses 24.9 Rhabdoviridae ssRNA Vesicular stomatitis virus 2.3 Togaviridae ssRNA Semliki forest virus 11.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Sindbis virus 7.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Equine encephalitis virus 4.9 Open in new tab Average dose per log10 inactivation of adventitious agents Family . Genome . Adventitious agent . D10 (mJ/cm2) . Enterobacteriaceae dsDNA E. coli 1.9 Mycoplasmataceae dsDNA Mycoplasma 1.9 Acholeplasmataceae dsDNA Acholeplasma 2.5 Leptospiraceae dsDNA Leptospira 1.9 Adenoviridae dsDNA Adenovirus 42.3 Arenaviridae ssRNA Junin virus 3.0 Arenaviridae ssRNA Lassa virus 3.0 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Hanta virus 2.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 Caliciviridae ssRNA Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 6.6 Caliciviridae ssRNA Feline calicivirus (FCV) 5.3 Caliciviridae ssRNA Murine norovirus (MNV) 8.3 Circoviridae Circular ssDNA Porcine circovirus (PCV) 17.8 Filoviridae ssRNA Ebola virus 1.7 Filoviridae ssRNA Marburg virus 1.7 Flaviviridae ssRNA Bovine viral diarrhea virus 12.2 Flaviviridae ssRNA West Nile virus 5.5 Herpesviridae dsDNA Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 Herpesviridae dsDNA Cytomegalovirus (CMV) 4.8 Herpesviridae dsDNA Pseudorabies virus 8 Leviviridae ssRNA Bacteriophage MS2 19.3 Microviridae Circular ssDNA ϕX174 phage 2.3 Orthomyxoviridae ssRNA Influenza A virus 4.5 Paramyxoviridae ssRNA Parainfluenza Virus 14.3 Parvoviridae ssDNA Bovine parvovirus 12.5 Parvoviridae ssDNA Mouse minute virus (MMV) 1.8 Parvoviridae ssDNA Parvovirus H1 23.0 Parvoviridae ssDNA Porcine parvovirus (PPV) 2.0 Picornaviridae ssRNA Cardiovirus A—encephalomyocarditis virus 5.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Coxsackievirus 10.4 Picornaviridae ssRNA Echovirus 9.1 Picornaviridae ssRNA Foot and mouth disease virus 22.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Hepatitis A virus (HAV) 6.3 Picornaviridae ssRNA Poliovirus (PV) 8.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Mouse polyoma virus 57.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 92.8 Poxviridae dsDNA Variola virus 2.5 Reoviridae dsRNA Reovirus 22.4 Retroviridae ssRNA Murine leukemia and sarcoma viruses 24.9 Rhabdoviridae ssRNA Vesicular stomatitis virus 2.3 Togaviridae ssRNA Semliki forest virus 11.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Sindbis virus 7.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Equine encephalitis virus 4.9 Family . Genome . Adventitious agent . D10 (mJ/cm2) . Enterobacteriaceae dsDNA E. coli 1.9 Mycoplasmataceae dsDNA Mycoplasma 1.9 Acholeplasmataceae dsDNA Acholeplasma 2.5 Leptospiraceae dsDNA Leptospira 1.9 Adenoviridae dsDNA Adenovirus 42.3 Arenaviridae ssRNA Junin virus 3.0 Arenaviridae ssRNA Lassa virus 3.0 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Hanta virus 2.8 Bunyaviridae ssRNA Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 Caliciviridae ssRNA Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 6.6 Caliciviridae ssRNA Feline calicivirus (FCV) 5.3 Caliciviridae ssRNA Murine norovirus (MNV) 8.3 Circoviridae Circular ssDNA Porcine circovirus (PCV) 17.8 Filoviridae ssRNA Ebola virus 1.7 Filoviridae ssRNA Marburg virus 1.7 Flaviviridae ssRNA Bovine viral diarrhea virus 12.2 Flaviviridae ssRNA West Nile virus 5.5 Herpesviridae dsDNA Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 Herpesviridae dsDNA Cytomegalovirus (CMV) 4.8 Herpesviridae dsDNA Pseudorabies virus 8 Leviviridae ssRNA Bacteriophage MS2 19.3 Microviridae Circular ssDNA ϕX174 phage 2.3 Orthomyxoviridae ssRNA Influenza A virus 4.5 Paramyxoviridae ssRNA Parainfluenza Virus 14.3 Parvoviridae ssDNA Bovine parvovirus 12.5 Parvoviridae ssDNA Mouse minute virus (MMV) 1.8 Parvoviridae ssDNA Parvovirus H1 23.0 Parvoviridae ssDNA Porcine parvovirus (PPV) 2.0 Picornaviridae ssRNA Cardiovirus A—encephalomyocarditis virus 5.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Coxsackievirus 10.4 Picornaviridae ssRNA Echovirus 9.1 Picornaviridae ssRNA Foot and mouth disease virus 22.2 Picornaviridae ssRNA Hepatitis A virus (HAV) 6.3 Picornaviridae ssRNA Poliovirus (PV) 8.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Mouse polyoma virus 57.0 Polyomaviridae Circular ssDNA Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 92.8 Poxviridae dsDNA Variola virus 2.5 Reoviridae dsRNA Reovirus 22.4 Retroviridae ssRNA Murine leukemia and sarcoma viruses 24.9 Rhabdoviridae ssRNA Vesicular stomatitis virus 2.3 Togaviridae ssRNA Semliki forest virus 11.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Sindbis virus 7.1 Togaviridae ssRNA Equine encephalitis virus 4.9 Open in new tab Fig. 2 Open in new tabDownload slide D10 values for bacterial families. Points plotted beyond the box-plot whiskers are outliers [104, 105] Fig. 3 Open in new tabDownload slide D10 values for viral families. Points plotted beyond the box-plot whiskers are outliers [104, 105] In general, the experimentally determined UV sensitivity values are consistent across multiple laboratories (Figs. 2, 3 and Table S1), which gives confidence in the reported values. Inconsistencies in the experimental data reviewed are discussed below (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 Open in new tabDownload slide D10 values for adventitious agents that show inconsistencies in the data from different research laboratories. Points plotted beyond the box-plot whiskers are outliers [104, 105] Bacteria This review focused only on bacteria that are of concern as adventitious agents in biopharmaceutical production. More extensive reviews are available for bacteria and other organisms, including that of Hijnen [48]. Two organisms of particular interest as adventitious agents are mycoplasma and leptospira. Mycoplasma and acholeplasma contaminations are relatively common, and since these bacteria lack a cell wall they are unaffected by many common antibiotics. They are approximately 0.1 µm in diameter, making them difficult to remove via typical sterilizing filtration. Several strains of mycoplasma and acholeplasma have been evaluated for sensitivity to UV irradiation. The one outlier in this data set is the result of Kurth [57], who reported only full clearance of mycoplasma. Therefore, the precise UV sensitivity cannot be determined from the data set of Kurth. Most experimental results show D10 values between 1 and 5 mJ/cm2, indicating that mycoplasma and acholeplasma are highly susceptible to UV inactivation. Leptospira are a concern in biopharmaceutical production since their minor dimension of about 0.1 micron can allow them to penetrate many filters, especially those designed for bacteria, where the pore size is often about 0.2 micron. The D10 values for leptospira reported by Stamm and Charon [97] and by Fonseca [36] range from 1 to 3 mJ/cm2, indicating high susceptibility to UV disinfection. Stamm and Charon [97] provide only minimal information on the methodology and no discussion of the fluid optics, so it is difficult to determine whether the leptospira data are reliable. The authors of this review could not find any other quantitative data on the UV sensitivity of leptospira. This represents an area for additional research. Escherichia coli has been studied by many investigators, and is readily inactivated by UV. Some strains have been found to have a shoulder in the inactivation curve, in which a low UV dose has a small impact below 1- or 2-log inactivation, with increasing impact at higher doses. For this reason, the D10 value in the summary table is based on the 4-log inactivation data, simply dividing the dose for 4-log inactivation by a factor of 4. This will be conservative for higher levels of inactivation. Since UV as a broad-spectrum inactivation method is likely to be sized for doses that would achieve more than 4-log inactivation of E. coli (a fluence of only 8 mJ/cm2) the authors feel that this is inherently conservative. Where an individual author reported values for multiple strains, only a single average value was used. This was intended to avoid giving extra emphasis to any individual author and their own systematic approach. The average D10 value for E. coli is 1.9 mJ/cm2, which confirms that this organism is highly susceptible to UV inactivation. Feline calicivirus Feline calicivirus has been studied by a number of investigators, and most find that it is relatively sensitive to UV inactivation, with an average D10 of about 5.3 mJ/cm2 (Fig. 4a). The outlier in this case is the result from Nuanualsuwan et al. [77], who report a value that is 9 × higher. Their D10 values reported for ϕX174, hepatitis A virus, and poliovirus are all significantly higher than those of other researchers. There are several concerns with the methodology reported by Nuanualsuwan et al. [77] that would cause erroneous results. First, they use a long lamp (91 cm) very close (12.5 cm) to the petri dish to be irradiated. This geometry can make it very difficult to obtain accurate flux measurements, and can cause shadowing near the edges of the dish. Combining the geometry and the lack of agitation, poor fluence uniformity is likely. The data presented display significant tailing at high fluences (Fig. 1), consistent with a lack of uniformity. Additionally, to determine the D10 values, the researchers used a trend line over the entire range of fluences, but a single log reduction in the virus actually occurs at a much lower UV fluence than presented. Therefore, we do not consider the D10 values reported by Nuanualsuwan et al. [77] to be accurate. Porcine circovirus Another organism of concern is porcine circovirus (PCV), which was detected in a commercial rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix®, GSK) [10], and can enter the biopharmaceutical production process through trypsin used in cell line development. Recent guidance from the European Medicines Agency [35] recommends the use of two complementary virus reduction steps for trypsin, including a final inactivation step of gamma, e-beam, or UV irradiation. UV sensitivity of PCV has been measured by Lackner et al. [58] and Remington [85], with a D10 range of 14–25 mJ/cm2. Although this range is large as a percentage, the moderate sensitivity reported by all investigators indicates that PCV can be readily inactivated by UV. Bovine viral diarrhea virus There is very little consistency in the D10 values reported for bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), with a range of D10 values from 11.8 to 366 mJ/cm2 (Fig. 4b). Three of the five studies report a D10 value less than 20 mJ/cm2. The value of 366 mJ/cm2 reported by Daryany et al. [29] is remarkably high. Their experimental apparatus involved a UV lamp placed very close (10 cm) to the sample, and their methodology does not indicate the absorbance of the fluid or the presence of agitation, suggesting that the fluid was not stirred and that optical absorbance was not considered. These factors would lead to a lack of uniformity in fluence delivery and cause portions of the fluid to evade irradiation, increasing the apparent D10. The true D10 would be lower, but cannot be determined from the published information. A D10 value of 52 mJ/cm2 was reported by Steinmann et al. [98]. The fluid in this case was a platelet concentrate, which would have higher absorbance compared to the typical phosphate buffer. Minimal experimental information was provided for this study, and there was no indication that the fluid absorbance was considered in the calculated fluence delivery. Again, this would falsely increase the apparent resistance to UV disinfection, and the method would not correctly measure the inherent UV sensitivity. Based on these uncertainties, a consensus D10 value of 12.2 mJ/cm2 is recommended, but additional studies are warranted. Mouse minute virus One particularly important adventitious agent is mouse minute virus (MMV), which is a potential contaminant in biopharmaceutical production, and is known to be resistant to physico-chemical treatment [16]. It is very sensitive to UV inactivation, with a consensus D10 of about 1.8 mJ/cm2 (Fig. 4a). The outlier in this data is the report of Schleh et al. [90]. In this publication, full viral clearance was achieved, so the actual D10 value is lower than the calculated value. Also, minimal information about the experiments was provided, making it difficult to critically assess the methodology (the same is true for the D10 value of Cache Valley virus determined from the same publication). Mouse polyoma virus For mouse polyoma virus (MPyV), there are four publications that report similar results, with a consensus D10 value of 57 mJ/cm2, but Heberman and Ting [47] report a value roughly three times higher (Fig. 4b). Heberman and Ting [47] report the surface energy as the fluence and do not consider the absorbance of the fluid, both of which could lead to erroneous D10 values that are likely too high. Simian vacuolating virus The results for simian vacuolating virus type 40 (SV40) represent an interesting case since there have been numerous UV irradiation studies with a wide range of D10 values reported (Fig. 4b). There is an outlier on both the high- and low-sensitivity side. The average D10 without these two values is 92.8 mJ/cm2, compared with the low of only 1.8 mJ/cm2 from Wang et al. [110] and a high value of 301 mJ/cm2 for Bourre et al. [17]. The authors of the present review have measured the D10 for SV40 to be approximately 100 mJ/cm2 [89], consistent with the consensus literature value. SV40 may represent a worst case design organism for UV inactivation, with the highest resistance to UV inactivation of the organisms considered. Fig. 5 Open in new tabDownload slide D10 values grouped by nucleic acid type. For a better appreciation of the number of studies contributing to the conclusions around the relationship between D10 values and nucleic acid type, all data points have been included in this figure using the geom_jitter (http://docs.ggplot2.org/current/geom_jitter.html) command in ggplot2 Correlations with nucleic acid In contrast to previous assumptions by other authors about UV irradiation, such as single-stranded genomes being more sensitive to UV than double-stranded genomes [68], it is evident (Fig. 5) that UV resistance does not simply correlate with the overall nature of the genome. The most resistant viruses have a range of genome types: SV40 (ssDNA, 92.8 mJ/cm2), mouse polyoma virus (ssDNA, 57.0 mJ/cm2), and adenovirus (dsDNA, 42.3 mJ/cm2). Therefore, the UV sensitivity cannot be simply correlated to nucleic acid conformation. More successful models, such as the proprietary model from Kowalski [56], take into account more details including locations and frequency of pyrimidines. Discussion and conclusions Although UV disinfection has been broadly applied industrially for both drinking water (high UV transparency) and municipal wastewater (lower UV transparency), it is not widely accepted for biopharmaceutical applications. The only commercially available UV system designed for biopharmaceuticals, Sartorius UVivatec, is too large for most cell line development and too small for most full-scale batch production. Compared to drinking water and wastewater, UV treatment of cell culture media is complicated by the opacity of the fluid as well as the requisite to minimize the UV dose delivery to avoid damaging essential components of the media. Therefore, biopharmaceutical applications would necessitate custom-designed UV equipment. Similarly designed systems for fluids with high optical absorbance and stringent regulations are those for apple cider (the FDA-approved Cidersure by Headwater Foods, Rochester NY) and sugar solutions (Aquafine LS HX by Aquafine Corporation, Valencia CA). As the biopharmaceutical industry progresses to disposable production equipment, UV technology could be well disposed to provide a sterile, disposable disinfection system. The authors of the present review have been using a family of prototype reactors in which the wetted part consists of disposable Teflon, and the design has been scaled from internal volumes of 27–500 mL [70] with corresponding increases in flow. The same design could be readily scaled further, achieving a range of disposable UV reactors suitable for perfusion, or for parallel batch production. Knowledge of the UV sensitivity of adventitious agents is crucial for efficient sizing and operation of UV reactors for biopharmaceutical applications. High log reductions are readily achievable with UV disinfection. In water treatment, phages are commonly used for verifying UV fluence [106]. Phage stocks such as MS2 or T1UV are available at titres of up to 1011 PFU/ml and are inoculated into test fluids that are then treated with UV equipment. Typical titres of 108 PFU/ml may be fully inactivated, or more commonly the test is designed to have a countable titre after treatment, so that the fluence can be calculated from the log inactivation and known UV sensitivity of the phage [65]. Particle-association is one of the primary causes of deviation from first-order kinetics with phage and other virus. If the fluid to be treated, such as a cell culture medium, does not contain particles that could shelter viruses, then first-order kinetics can be expected up to 8 log10 inactivation or more. The present review has found that experimentally determined 254 nm sensitivity values for many adventitious agents in the biopharmaceutical industry have been reported and are fairly consistent between different research groups. Based on the experimental data available in the literature, outliers and explanations for the inconsistent results have been highlighted. Reviewing the available data, average D10 sensitivity values have been established that can be used to design and size UV disinfection systems to inactivate specific agents. Additionally, some of the common pitfalls in experimental design of UV treatment have been identified, such as neglecting to consider the fluid absorbance, not having a proper light distribution on the sample surface, and considering only the fluence intensity at the surface of the sample rather than within the liquid. Most of the adventitious agents that have been identified as concerns for CHO cell processes are included in this review, but reliable UV sensitivity data for the following agents were not readily available and merit further study: bluetongue virus, bovine coronavirus, bovine polyoma virus, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus, monkey pox virus, mycobacteria, and vesivirus 2117. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by NSERC ENGAGE Plus (EGP2 460753-13) and NSERC Collaborative Research and Development (CRDTJ 48483-2015) grant to MGA, and a MITACS Accelerate Post-Doctoral Fellowship to SMM. Thank you to Kathryn Remington, of BioReliance, for consultation regarding virology. Thank you to Mark Kustermans, Ismail Gobulukoglu, and Priyanka Saxena of Trojan Technologies for their contributions to the data collected for this review. References 1. Aaronson SA Effect of ultraviolet irradiation on the survival of simian virus 40 functions in human and mouse cells J Virol 1970 6 4 393 399 376135 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2. Abshire RL , Dunton H Resistance of selected strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to low-intensity ultraviolet radiation Appl Environ Microbiol 1981 41 1419 1423 243933 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 3. Ailworth E, Weisman R (2009) Virus shuts Genzyme plant, holds up drugs for 8000. Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/06/17/genzyme_temporarily_halts_production_on_2_key_drugs/. Accessed Nov 2015 4. Albrecht T , St. Jeor SC, Funk FD, Rapp F Multiplicity reactivation of human cytomegalovirus inactivated by ultra-violet light Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 1974 26 5 445 454 10.1080/09553007414551471 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5. Aoki S , Ito S, Watanabe T UV survival of human mycoplasmas: evidence of dark reactivation in mycoplasma buccale Microbiol Immunol 1979 23 3 147 158 10.1111/j.1348-0421.1979.tb00451.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6. Aranha H Virus safety of biopharmaceuticals: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence Contract Pharma 2011 13 82 87 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 7. Bae JE , Jeong EK, Lee JI, Kim IS, Kim JS Evaluation of viral inactivation efficacy of a continuous flow ultraviolet-C reactor (UVivatec) Korean J Microbiol Biotechnol 2009 37 4 377 382 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 8. Barreto HM , Siqueira-Junior JP Protective effect of furocoumarins against 254-nm ultraviolet in Staphylococcus aureus Curr Microbiol 2006 52 1 40 44 10.1007/s00284-005-0078-y Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Battigelli D , Sobsey M, Lobe D The inactivation of hepatitis A virus and other model viruses by UV irradiation Wat Sci Technol 1993 27 3–4 339 342 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 10. Baylis SA , Finsterbusch T, Bannert N, Blümel J, Mankertz A Analysis of porcine circovirus type 1 detected in Rotarix vaccine Vaccine 2011 29 4 690 697 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.028 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11. Bergmann K (2014) UV-C irradiation: a new viral inactivation method for biopharmaceuticals. Amer Pharm Rev 17(6) 12. Berting A , Farcet MR, Kreil TR Virus susceptibility of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and detection of viral contaminations by adventitious agent testing Biotechnol Bioeng 2010 106 4 598 607 10.1002/bit.22723 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13. Blatchley ER III, Chan P, Lee CC, Mofidi A, Scheible OK, Shen C Validation of medium-pressure UV disinfection reactors by Lagrangian actinometry using dyed microspheres Water Res 2008 43 5 1370 1380 Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 14. Bockstahler LE , Lytle CD Radiation enhanced reactivation of nuclear replicating mammalian viruses Photochem Photobiol 1977 25 5 477 482 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1977.tb09173.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 15. Bolton JR , Linden KG Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose) determination in bench-scale UV experiments J Environ Eng 2003 129 3 209 215 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2003)129:3(209) Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 16. Boschetti N , Wyss K, Mischler A, Hostettler T, Kempf C Stability of minute virus of mice against temperature and sodium hydroxide Biologicals 2003 31 3 181 185 10.1016/S1045-1056(03)00037-X Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17. Bourre F , Benoit A, Sarasin A Respective roles of pyrimidine dimer and pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone photoproducts in UV mutagenesis of simian virus 40 DNA in mammalian cells J Virol 1989 63 11 4520 4524 251083 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 18. Braslavsky SE Glossary of terms used in photochemistry 3rd edition J Pure Appl Chem 2007 79 3 293 465 10.1351/pac200779030293 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 19. Brown TC , Cerutti PA Ultraviolet radiation inactivates SV40 by disrupting at least four genetic functions EMBO J 1986 5 1 197 203 1166714 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 20. Caillet-Fauquet P , Di Giambattista M, Draps ML, Sandras F, Branckaert T, De Launoit Yet al. Continuous-flow UVC irradiation: a new, effective, protein activity-preserving system for inactivating bacteria and viruses, including erythrovirus B19 J Virol Methods 2004 118 2 131 139 10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.02.002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 21. Cairns G , Kerr KG, Beggs CB, Sleigh PA, Mooney L, Keig Pet al. Susceptibility of Burkholderia cepacia and other pathogens of importance in cystic fibrosis to UV light Lett Appl Microbiol 2001 32 3 135 138 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.00874.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 22. Cameron KR , Tomkins LM, Eglin RP, Ross LJN, Wildy P, Russell WC The effects of ultraviolet and ionizing radiation on herpesviruses, SV40 and adenoviruses in relation to the small-plaque effect Arch Virol 1979 62 1 31 40 10.1007/BF01314901 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 23. Chang JCH , Osoff SF, Lobe DC, Dorfman MH, Dumais CM, Qualls RGet al. UV inactivation of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms Appl Environ Microbiol 1985 49 6 1361 1365 241729 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 24. Chen J , Bergevin J, Kiss R, Walker G, Battistoni T, Lufburrow Pet al. Case study: a novel bacterial contamination in cell culture production—Leptospira licerasiae PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2012 66 6 580 591 10.5731/pdajpst.2012.00892 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 25. Chu LW , Morgan HR Studies of the hemolysis of red blood cells by mumps virus I. The development of mumps virus hemolysin and its inactivation by certain physical and chemical agents J Exp Med 1950 91 4 393 402 2135975 10.1084/jem.91.4.393 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 26. Clauß M Higher effectiveness of photoinactivation of bacterial spores, UV resistant vegetative bacteria and mold spores with 222 nm compared to 254 nm wavelength Acta Hydroch Hydrob 2006 34 6 525 532 10.1002/aheh.200600650 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 27. Cornelis JJ , Rommelaere J Direct and indirect effects of ultraviolet light on the mutagenesis of parvovirus H-1 in human cells EMBO J 1982 1 6 693 699 553270 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 28. Cornelis JJ , Su ZZ, Ward DC, Rommelaere J Indirect induction of mutagenesis of intact parvovirus H-1 in mammalian cells treated with UV light or with UV-irradiated H-1 or simian virus 40 Proc Natl Acad Sci 1981 78 7 4480 4484 319815 10.1073/pnas.78.7.4480 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 29. Daryany MKA , Hosseini SM, Raie M, Fakharie J, Zareh A Study on continuous (254 nm) and pulsed UV (266 and 355 nm) lights on BVD virus inactivation and its effects on biological properties of fetal bovine serum J Photoch Photobio B 2009 94 2 120 124 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2008.10.009 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 30. Das J , Maniloff J, Bhattacharjee S Dark and light repair in ultraviolet irradiated acholeplasma laidlawii Biochim Biophys Acta 1972 259 2 189 197 10.1016/0005-2787(72)90058-5 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 31. de Roda Husman AM , Bijkerk P, Lodder W, Van Den Berg H, Pribil W, Cabaj Aet al. Calicivirus inactivation by nonionizing (253.7-nanometer-wavelength [UV]) and ionizing (gamma) radiation Appl Environ Microbiol 2004 70 9 5089 5093 520909 10.1128/AEM.70.9.5089-5093.2004 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 32. Defendi V , Jensen F Oncogenicity by DNA tumor viruses Science 1967 157 703 705 10.1126/science.157.3789.703 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 33. Drexler HG , Uphoff CC Mycoplasma contamination of cell cultures: incidence, sources, effects, detection, elimination, prevention Cytotechnology 2002 39 2 75 90 3463982 10.1023/A:1022913015916 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 34. Durance CS , Hoffman R, Andrews RC, Brown M Applications of ultraviolet light for inactivation of adenovirus P Water Environ Fed 2005 1 1 12 10.2175/193864705783978294 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Crossref 35. European Medicines Agency (2015) Guideline on the use of porcine trypsin used in the manufacture of human biological medicinal products. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/02/WC500162147.pdf. Accessed Nov 2015 36. Fonseca LS , da Silva JB, Milanez JS, Monteiro-Vitorello CB, Momo Let al. Leptospira interrogans serovar copenhageni harbors two lexA genes involved in SOS response PLoS One 2013 8 10 e76419 3789691 10.1371/journal.pone.0076419 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 37. Furness G Analysis of the growth cycle of mycoplasma orale by synchronized division and by ultraviolet irradiation J Infec Diseases 1968 118 4 436 442 10.1093/infdis/118.4.436 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 38. Furness G Differential responses of single cells and aggregates of mycoplasmas to ultraviolet irradiation Appl Microbiol 1969 18 3 360 364 377985 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 39. Furness G T-Mycoplasmas: growth patterns and physical characteristics of some human strains J Infect Dis 1975 132 5 592 596 10.1093/infdis/132.5.592 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 40. Gerba CP , Gramos DM, Nwachuku N Comparative inactivation of enteroviruses and adenovirus 2 by UV light Appl Enviro Microbiol 2002 168 10 5167 5169 10.1128/AEM.68.10.5167-5169.2002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 41. Ghosh A , Das J, Manilof J Lack of repair of ultraviolet light damage in mycoplasms gallisepticum J Mol Biol 1977 116 2 337 344 10.1016/0022-2836(77)90221-2 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 42. Ghosh A , Das J, Manilof J Effect of acriliflavine on ultraviolet inactivation of Acholeplasma laidlawii Biochim Biophys Acta 1978 543 4 570 575 10.1016/0304-4165(78)90311-2 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 43. Goering RV , Pattee PA Mutants of Staphylococcus aureus with increased sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation J Bacteriol 1971 106 1 157 161 248656 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 44. Goetschalckx S , Fabre V, Wynants M, Bertaux L, Plavsic M, Boussif Oet al. A holistic biosafety risk mitigation approach Amer Pharm Rev 2014 17 4 48 56 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 45. Harris GD , Adams VD, Sorenson DL, Curtis MS Ultraviolet inactivation of selected bacteria and viruses with photoreactivation of the bacteria Water Res 1987 21 6 687 692 10.1016/0043-1354(87)90080-7 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 46. Harris RE , Coleman PH, Morahan PS Stability of minute virus of mice to chemical and physical agents Appl Microbiol 1974 28 3 351 354 186724 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 47. Herberman RB , Ting RC Dissociation of multiple polyoma virus functions by ultraviolet irradiation Exp Biol Med 1969 131 2 461 464 10.3181/00379727-131-33902 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 48. Hijnen WAM , Beerendonk EF, Medema GJ Inactivation credit of UV radiation for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: a review Water Res 2006 40 3 22 10.1016/j.watres.2005.10.030 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 49. Hill WF , Hamblet FE, Benton WH, Akin EW Ultraviolet devitalization of eight selected enteric viruses in estuarine water Appl Microbiol 1970 19 5 805 812 376793 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 50. Hoyer O Testing performance and monitoring of UV systems for drinking water disinfection Water Supply 1998 16 1–2 424 429 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 51. Ju W , Moyne AL, Marco ML RNA-based detection does not accurately enumerate living Escherichia coli O157:H7 cells on plants Front Microbiol 2016 7 233 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00223 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 52. Kallenbach NR , Cornelius PA, Negus D, Montgomerie D, Englander S Inactivation of viruses by ultraviolet light Curr St Hematol Blood Transfus 1988 56 70 82 10.1159/000416558 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 53. Kelloff G , Aaronson SA, Gilden RV Inactivation of murine sarcoma and leukemia viruses by ultra-violet irradiation Virology 1970 42 1133 1135 10.1016/0042-6822(70)90361-2 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 54. Kerr A , Nims R Adventitious viruses detected in biopharmaceutical bulk harvest samples over a 10 Year Period PDA J Pharm Sci Tech 2010 64 5 481 485 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 55. Kimberlin RH Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Rev Sci Tech OIE 1992 11 2 347 390 10.20506/rst.11.2.608 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 56. Kowalski W , Bahnfleth W, Hernandez M A genomic model for predicting the ultraviolet susceptibility of viruses IUVA News 2009 11 2 15 28 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 57. Kurth J , Waldmann R, Heith J, Mausbach K, Burian R Efficient inactivation of viruses and mycoplasma in animal sera using UVC irradiation Devel Biol Stand 1998 99 111 118 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 58. Lackner C , Leydold SM, Modrof J, Farcet MR, Grillberger L, Schäfer Bet al. Reduction of spiked porcine circovirus during the manufacture of a vero cell-derived vaccine Vaccine 2014 32 18 2056 2061 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.02.011 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 59. Latarjet R , Cramer R, Montagnier L Inactivation, by UV-, X-, and γ-radiations, of the infecting and transforming capacities of polyoma virus Virology 1967 33 1 104 111 10.1016/0042-6822(67)90098-0 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 60. Lee J , Zoh K, Ko G Inactivation and UV disinfection of murine norovirus with TiO2 under various environmental conditions Appl Environ Microbiol 2008 74 7 2111 2117 2292603 10.1128/AEM.02442-07 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 61. Lénès D , Deboosere N, Ménard-Szczebara F, Jossent J, Alexandre V, Machinal Cet al. Assessment of the removal and inactivation of influenza viruses H5N1 and H1N1 by drinking water treatment Water Res 2010 44 8 2473 2486 10.1016/j.watres.2010.01.013 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 62. Linden KG , Scheible K, Shen C, Shin GA, Lee JK, Posy P Demonstrating 4-log adenovirus inactivation in a medium pressure UV reactor P Water Environ Fed 2009 1 287 288 10.2175/193864709793848040 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Crossref 63. Lovinger GG , Ling HP, Gilden RV, Hatanaka M Effect of UV light on RNA directed DNA polymerase activity of murine oncornaviruses J Virol 1975 15 5 1273 1275 354584 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 64. Lytle CD , Sagripanti JL Predicted inactivation of viruses of relevance to biodefense by solar radiation J Virol 2005 79 22 14244 14252 1280232 10.1128/JVI.79.22.14244-14252.2005 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 65. Mackey ED (2004) Bridging pilot-scale testing to full-scale design of UV disinfection systems. American Water Works Association 66. Masschelein WJ , Rice RG Ultraviolet light in water and wastewater sanitation 2002 Boca Raton, FL, USA CRC Press Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 67. Maya C , Beltran N, Jimenez B, Bonilla P Evaluation of the UV disinfection process in bacteria and amphizoic amoebae inactivation Water Supply 2003 3 4 285 291 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 68. McClain ME , Spendlove RS Multiplicity reactivation of reovirus particles after exposure to ultraviolet light J Bacteriol 1966 92 5 1422 1429 276440 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 69. Meng QS , Gerba CP Comparative inactivation of enteric adenoviruses, poliovirus and coliphages by ultraviolet irradiation Water Res 1996 30 11 2665 2668 10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00179-0 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 70. Meunier SM , Todorovic B, Dare EV, Begum A, Guillemette S, Wenger A, Saxena P, Campbell JL, Sasges M, Aucoin MG Impact of dissolved oxygen during UV-irradiation on the chemical composition and function of CHO cell culture media PLoS One 2016 11 3 e0150957 4790850 10.1371/journal.pone.0150957 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 71. Miller FP, Vandome AG, McBrewster J (2009) Beer-Lambert Law. VDM publishing, Saarbrucken, Germany. ISBN 6130200609, 9786130200602 72. Moody M , Alves W, Varghese J, Khan F Mouse minute virus (MMV) contamination—a case study: detection, root cause determination, and corrective actions PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2011 65 6 580 588 10.5731/pdajpst.2011.00824 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 73. Morowitz HJ Absorption effects in volume irradiation of microorganisms Science 1950 111 2879 229 230 10.1126/science.111.2879.229-a Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 74. Nims R , Presente E, Sofer G, Phillips C, Chang A Adventitious agents: concerns and testing for biopharmaceuticals Biotech Bioprocess Ser 2005 29 143 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 75. Nomura S , Bassin RH, Turner W, Haapala DK, Fischinger PJ Ultraviolet inactivation of moloney leukaemia virus: relative target size required for virus replication and rescue of “defective” murine sarcoma virus J Gen Virol 1972 14 213 217 10.1099/0022-1317-14-2-213 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 76. Nowak J , Das J, Maniloff J Characterization of an Acholeplasma laidlawii variant with a REP- phenotype J Bacteriol 1976 127 832 836 232991 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 77. Nuanualsuwan S , Mariam T, Himathongkham S, Cliver DO Ultraviolet inactivation of feline calicivirus, human enteric viruses, and coliphages Photochem Photobiol 2002 76 4 406 410 10.1562/0031-8655(2002)0760406UIOFCH2.0.CO2 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 78. Nuanualsuwan S , Thongtha P, Kamolsiripichaiporn S, Subharat S UV inactivation and model of UV inactivation of foot-and-mouth disease viruses in suspension Int J Food Microbiol 2008 127 1 84 90 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.06.014 Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 79. Nwachuku N , Gerba CP, Oswald A, Mashadi FD Comparative inactivation of adenovirus serotypes by UV light disinfection Appl Environ Microbiol 2005 71 9 5633 5636 1214670 10.1128/AEM.71.9.5633-5636.2005 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 80. Otaki M , Okuda A, Tajima K, Iwasaki T, Kinoshita S, Ohgaki S Inactivation differences of microorganisms by low pressure UV and pulsed xenon lamps Wat Sci Technol 2003 47 3 185 190 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 81. Park GW , Linden KG, Sobsey MD Inactivation of murine norovirus, feline calicivirus and echovirus 12 as surrogates for human norovirus (NoV) and coliphage (F+) MS2 by ultraviolet light (254 nm) and the effect of cell association on UV inactivation Lett Appl Microbiol 2011 52 2 162 167 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02982.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 82. Randazzo W , Lopez-Galvez F, Allende A, Aznar R, Sanchez G Evaluation of viability PCR performance for assessing norovirus infectivity in fresh-cut vegetables and irrigation water Int J Food Microb 2016 229 1 6 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.04.010 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 83. Rahn RO , Bolton J, Stefan MI The iodide/iodate actinometer in UV disinfection determination of the fluence rate distribution in UV reactors Photochem Photobiol 2006 82 2 611 615 10.1562/2005-06-10-RN-570 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 84. Rauth AM The physical state of viral nucleic acid and the sensitivity of viruses to ultraviolet light Biophys J 1965 5 3 257 273 1367734 10.1016/S0006-3495(65)86715-7 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 85. Remington K (2014) Use of porcine circovirus as a challenge for filtration and other virus risk mitigation steps. 17th Planova Workshop, Washington, DC, 12–13 Jun 2014 86. Rommelaere J , Ward DC Effect of UV-irradiation on DNA replication of the parvovirus minute-virus-of-mice in mouse fibroblasts Nucleic Acids Res 1982 10 8 2577 2596 320635 10.1093/nar/10.8.2577 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 87. Rommelaere J , Vos J-M, Cornelis JJ, Ward DC UV-enhanced reactivation of minute-virus-of-mice: stimulation of a late step in the viral life cycle Photochem Photobiol 1981 33 845 854 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1981.tb05502.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 88. Sarasin AR , Hanawalt PC Carcinogens enhance survival of UV-irradiated simian virus 40 in treated monkey kidney cells: induction of a recovery pathway? Proc Natl Acad Sci 1978 75 1 346 350 411245 10.1073/pnas.75.1.346 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 89. Sasges M, Remington K (2015) Clearance of adventitious agents from cell culture media in a flow-through UV-C reactor, presented at International Society for Bioprocess Technology Fall meeting Sept 2015 90. Schleh M , Lawrence B, Park T, Rosenthal S, Hart R, Dehghani H Effectiveness of upstream barrier technologies for inactivation of adventitious contaminants of cell culture Amer Pharm Rev 2010 13 7 72 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 91. Seemayer NH , Defendi V Analysis of minimal functions of simian virus 40 II. Enhancement of oncogenic transformation in vitro by UV irradiation J Virol 1973 12 6 1265 1271 356767 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 92. Seltsam A , Müller TH UVC irradiation for pathogen reduction of platelet concentrates and plasma Transfus Med Hemother 2011 38 1 43 54 3132979 10.1159/000323845 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 93. Shanley JD Ultraviolet irradiation of murine cytomegalovirus J Gen Virol 1982 63 251 254 10.1099/0022-1317-63-1-251 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 94. Shaw JE , Cox DC Early inhibition of cellular DNA synthesis by high multiplicities of infectious and UV-inactivated reovirus J Virol 1973 12 4 704 710 356688 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 95. Sommer R , Haider T, Cabaj A, Pribil W, Lhotsky M Time dose reciprocity in UV disinfection of water Water Sci Technol 1998 38 12 145 150 10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00816-6 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 96. Sommer R , Lhotsky M, Haider T, Cabaj A UV inactivation, liquid-holding recovery, and photoreactivation of E. coli O157 and other pathogenic E.coli strains in water J Food Prot 2000 63 8 1015 1020 10.4315/0362-028X-63.8.1015 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 97. Stamm L , Charon N Sensitivity of pathogenic and free-living Leptospira to UV radiation and mitomycin C Appl Environ Microbiol 1988 54 3 728 733 202532 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 98. Steinmann E , Gravemann U, Friesland M, Doerrbecker J, Müller TH, Pietschmann T, Seltsam A Two pathogen reduction technologies—methylene blue plus light and shortwave ultraviolet light—effectively inactivate hepatitis C virus in blood products Transfusion 2013 53 5 1010 1018 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03858.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 99. Stull H , Gazdar A Stability of Rauscher leukemia virus under certain laboratory conditions P Soc Exp Biol Med 1976 152 554 556 10.3181/00379727-152-39438 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 100. Terpstra FG , Van’t Wout AB, Schuitemaker H, Van Engelenburg FA, Dekkers DW, Verhaar Ret al. Potential and limitation of UVC irradiation for the inactivation of pathogens in platelet concentrates Transfusion 2008 48 2 304 313 Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 101. Thurston-Enriquez JA , Haas CN, Jacangelo J, Riley K, Gerba CP Inactivation of feline calicivirus and adenovirus type 40 by UV radiation Appl Environ Microbiol 2003 69 1 577 582 152434 10.1128/AEM.69.1.577-582.2003 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 102. Tosa K, Hirata T (1998) Photoreactivation of Salmonella following UV disinfection. In: Proc IAWQ 19th Biennial Int Conf 10 103. Tree J , Adams M, Lees D Disinfection of feline calicivirus (a surrogate for norovirus) in wastewaters J Appl Microbiol 2005 98 155 162 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02442.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 104. Tukey JW (1970) Plots of Relationship. In: Exploratory data analysis (limited preliminary edition), vol. 1, Ch. 5. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Reading 105. Tukey JW Exploratory Data Analysis 1977 1 Reading Addison-Wesley Publishing Co Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 106. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Ultraviolet disinfection guidance manual for the final long term 2 enhanced surface water treatment rule. EPA 815-R-06-007 Nov 2006 107. van der Eb AJ , Cohen JA The effect of UV-irradiation on the plaque-forming ability of single-and double-stranded polyoma virus DNA Biochem Bioph Res Com 1967 28 2 284 288 10.1016/0006-291X(67)90442-1 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 108. Vos JM , Cornelis JJ, Limbosch S, Zampetti-Bosseler F, Rommelaere J UV-irradiation of related mouse hybrid cells: similar increase in capacity to replicate intact minute-virus-of-mice but differential enhancement of survival of UV-irradiated virus Mutat Res 1981 83 2 171 178 10.1016/0027-5107(81)90002-6 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 109. Wang C-H , Tschen S-Y, Flehmig B Antigenicity of hepatitis A virus after ultra-violet irradiation Vaccine 1995 13 9 835 840 10.1016/0264-410X(94)00054-Q Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 110. Wang J , Mauser A, Chao SF, Remington K, Treckmann R, Kaiser K, Pifat D, Hotta J Virus inactivation and protein recovery in a novel ultraviolet-C reactor Vox Sang 2004 86 4 230 238 10.1111/j.0042-9007.2004.00485.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 111. Weaver B , Rosenthal S Viral risk mitigation for mammalian cell culture media PDA J Pharm Sci Tech 2010 64 5 436 439 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 112. Weidenmann A , Fischer B, Straub U, Wang C-H, Flehmig B, Schoenen D Disinfection of hepatitis A virus and MS-2 coliphage in water by ultraviolet irradiation: comparison of UV-susceptibility Water Sci Technol 1993 27 3–4 335 338 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 113. White J , Matlin K, Helenius A Cell fusion by Semliki Forest, influenza, and vesicular stomatitis viruses J Cell Biol 1981 89 3 674 679 10.1083/jcb.89.3.674 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 114. Wilson BR, Roessler PF, Van Dellen E, Abbaszadegan M, Gerba CP (1992) Coliphage MS-2 as a UV water disinfection efficacy test surrogate for bacterial and viral pathogens. In: Proceedings of the water quality technol ogy conference. American Water Works Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 15–19 Nov 1992 115. Wu Y , Clevenger T, Deng B Impacts of goethite particles on UV disinfection of drinking water Appl Environ Microbiol 2005 71 7 4140 4143 1169013 10.1128/AEM.71.7.4140-4143.2005 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 116. Yaun BR , Sumner SS, Eifert JD, Marcy JE Response of Salmonella and E. coli O157: H7 to UV energy J Food Protect 2003 66 6 1071 1073 10.4315/0362-028X-66.6.1071 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 117. Yen S , Sokolenko S, Manocha B, Patras A, Daynouri-Pancino F, Blondeel EJM, Sasges M, Aucoin MG Treating cell culture media with UV irradiation against adventitious agents: minimal impact on CHO performance Biotechnol Prog 2014 30 5 1190 1195 10.1002/btpr.1942 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 118. Yoshikura H Ultraviolet inactivation of murine leukemia and sarcoma viruses Int J Cancer 1971 7 131 140 10.1002/ijc.2910070115 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 119. Zavadova Z , Libikova H Comparison of the sensitivity to ultraviolet irradiation of reovirus 3 and some viruses of the Kemerovo group Acta Virol 1975 19 88 90 Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 120. Zavadova Z , Gresland L, Rosenbergova M Inactivation of single- and double-stranded ribonucleic acid of encephalomyocarditis virus by ultraviolet light Acta Virol 1968 12 6 515 522 Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 121. Zimmer JL , Slawson RM Potential repair of E. coli DNA following exposure to UV radiation from both medium- and low-pressure UV sources used in drinking water treatment Appl Environ Microbiol 2002 68 7 3293 3299 126789 10.1128/AEM.68.7.3293-3299.2002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Appendix See Table 3 Reported dose per log10 inactivation (D10) of adventitious agents Family . Adventitious agent . Serotype/strain . D10 (mJ/cm2) . References . Bacteria—Acholeplasmataceae Acholeplasma <14.3 [57] Laidlawii, late logarithmic 1 [30] Laidlawii, stationary 1.5 [30] Laidlawii 4.5 [41] Laidlawii JA1 3 [76] Laidlawii JA1 REP- 2.25 [76] Bacteria—Clostridiaceae Clostridium pasteurianum 3.4 [26] Clostridium perfringens ≤42 [92] Bacteria—Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 1.5 [103] 2.1 [23] 1.25 [45] 1.9 [121] 2.8 [50] 2 [95] 1.4 [96] 2.5 [115] 1.4 [80] 3.7 [100] 1 [116] 1.4 [114] 1.5 [102] Salmonella anatum 5 [102] Salmonella derby 3.8 [102] Salmonella eteritidis 2.5 [102] Salmonella infantis 2 [102] Salmonella spp. 5 strains 1.8 [116] Salmonella typhi ATCC6539 1.8 [23] Salmonella typhi ATCC19430 2.1 [114] Salmonella typhi 2.3 [102] Salmonella typhi 12.5 [67] Streptococcus faecalis 5.5 [45] Bacteria—Mycoplasmataceae Mycoplasma 1 [38] <14.3 [57] Arthritidis 0.7 [38] Fermentans 0.9 [38] Hominis type 1 0.7 [38] Orale type 1 1.1 [38] Orale type 2 0.6 [38] Pneumoniae 0.8 [38] Salivarium 1.1 [38] Orale 1.1 [37] T210 0.3 [39] T-Pi 0.4 [39] T960 0.6 [39] Orale 2.2 [5] Buccale 0.75 [5] Hominis 1.2 [5] Fermentans 2.1 [5] Salivarium 1.8 [5] Gallisepticum A5969 3 [42] Gallisepticum A5969 4 [41] Bacteria—Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO-1 2.4 [21] ATCC14207 3.7 [2] ATCC15442 3.8 [2] ATCC9027 3.8 [2] ATCC10145 4.6 [2] ATCC27853 4.9 [2] Bacteria—Spirochaete Leptospira biflexa Patoc 2.3 [97] Leptospira illini 3055 2.75 [97] Leptospira interrogans 0.75 [97] Leptospira biflexa Copenhagenii 1.8 [36] Bacteria—Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus aureus 112 1.3 [43] 112 3.4 [43] RN1349 2 [8] 3.2 [100] RN1349 4 [8] Prion Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Resistant [55] Adenoviridae Adenovirus 41 23.6 [69] 40 30 [69] 1 34.5 [79] 6 38.5 [79] 2 39.7 [40] 2 40 [79] 5 and 2 40 [34] 2 42 [62] 5 and 7 42.5 [22] 40 50 [101] 54 [110] 40 54.3 [79] 5 61 [52] Junin virus 3 [64] Lassa virus 3 [64] Bunyaviridae Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 [90] Hanta virus 2.8 [64] Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 [64] Caliciviridae Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 48 6.6 [31] Feline calicivirus (FCV) 4 [31] 4.8 [103] 6 [101] 6.3 [81] 47.9 [77] Murine norovirus (MNV) 7.3 [81] 9.3 [60] Porcine circovirus (PCV) 1 14 [58] 2 18 to 25 [85] Filoviridae Ebola virus 1.7 [64] Marburg virus 1.7 [64] Flaviviridae Bovine viral diarrhea virus ≤17 [7] 11.8 [100] 12.5 [57] 52 [98] 366 [29] West Nile virus 5.5 [64] Herpesviridae Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 [57] Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Murine 4.6 [93] C87 and AD169 5 [4] Pseudorabies virus 8 [100] Leviviridae Bacteriophage MS2 13.6 [103] 14 [69] 15.9 [60] 16.4 [84] 17.5 [81] 21.7 [31] 23 [78] 23 [101] 28.9 [79] Microviridae ϕX174 phage 2.1 [84] 2.3 [9] 2.5 [95] 15.5 [77] Orthomyxoviridae Influenza A virus H5N1 4.5 [61] Paramyxoviridae Bovine parainfluenza virus Type III ≤48.2 [7] Mumps virus Weak [25] Parainfluenza Virus 3 14.3 [57] Parvoviridae Bovine parvovirus 12.5 [57] Mouse minute virus (MMV) 0.8 [46] 1.7 [11] 1.7 [87] 1.7 [86] 2.2 [108] 2.3 [58] 2.5 [111] 20.8 [90] Parvovirus H1 23 [27], [28] Porcine parvovirus (PPV) <18.2 [57] 1.8 [58] 2.3 [110] Picornaviridae Cardiovirus A—Encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 4 [20] 5.1 [84] 6.6 [120] Coxsackievirus B5 7.3 [9] B3 8.2 [40] B5 9 [40] A9 11.9 [49] B1 15.6 [49] Echovirus 2 6.8 [40] 12 7.4 [81] 1 8.3 [40] 1 10.8 [49] 11 12.2 [49] Foot and mouth disease virus 12.5 [57] A132 19.7 [78] A-Sakol 22.1 [78] O189 25.2 [78] AS1 31.3 [78] Hepatitis A virus (HAV) HM-175 4 [9] 4.5 [110] 7.5 [112] 9.2 [109] 36.5 [77] Poliovirus (PV) 1 4.1 [69] 4.7 [103] 6.5 [45] 1 7.7 [40] 1 8 [79] 3 10.3 [49] 1 11 [49] 2 12 [49] 1 24.1 [77] Polyomaviridae Mouse polyoma virus 47.6 [107] 50 [59] 58.8 [32] 71.4 [84] 188.7 [47] Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 1.8 [110] 21.3 [22] 43.2 [14] 65 [88] 72 [1] 80 [32] 100 [100] 112 [52] 127 [19] 140 [28] 167 [91] 301 [17] 100 [89] Poxviridae Variola Virus 2.5 [64] Reoviridae Reovirus 3 13.4 [119] 15.4 [49] 16.5 [45] 18.5 [110] 2 22.7 [68] 1 24 [68] 3 25 [57] 3 26.3 [68] 39.6 [94] Retroviridae Murine leukemia virus Moloney 16.9 [75] Rauscher 17.3 [99] Friend 25 [118] Rauscher 46 [63] Moloney 18 [53] 24.9 [71] 26 [110] Rhabdoviridae Vesicular stomatitis virus 1 [52] 1.2 [84] 4.8 [100] Togaviridae Semliki forest virus 11.1 [113] Sindbis virus 4.2 [119] 10 [110] Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) 5.3 [64] Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV) 4.4 [64] Family . Adventitious agent . Serotype/strain . D10 (mJ/cm2) . References . Bacteria—Acholeplasmataceae Acholeplasma <14.3 [57] Laidlawii, late logarithmic 1 [30] Laidlawii, stationary 1.5 [30] Laidlawii 4.5 [41] Laidlawii JA1 3 [76] Laidlawii JA1 REP- 2.25 [76] Bacteria—Clostridiaceae Clostridium pasteurianum 3.4 [26] Clostridium perfringens ≤42 [92] Bacteria—Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 1.5 [103] 2.1 [23] 1.25 [45] 1.9 [121] 2.8 [50] 2 [95] 1.4 [96] 2.5 [115] 1.4 [80] 3.7 [100] 1 [116] 1.4 [114] 1.5 [102] Salmonella anatum 5 [102] Salmonella derby 3.8 [102] Salmonella eteritidis 2.5 [102] Salmonella infantis 2 [102] Salmonella spp. 5 strains 1.8 [116] Salmonella typhi ATCC6539 1.8 [23] Salmonella typhi ATCC19430 2.1 [114] Salmonella typhi 2.3 [102] Salmonella typhi 12.5 [67] Streptococcus faecalis 5.5 [45] Bacteria—Mycoplasmataceae Mycoplasma 1 [38] <14.3 [57] Arthritidis 0.7 [38] Fermentans 0.9 [38] Hominis type 1 0.7 [38] Orale type 1 1.1 [38] Orale type 2 0.6 [38] Pneumoniae 0.8 [38] Salivarium 1.1 [38] Orale 1.1 [37] T210 0.3 [39] T-Pi 0.4 [39] T960 0.6 [39] Orale 2.2 [5] Buccale 0.75 [5] Hominis 1.2 [5] Fermentans 2.1 [5] Salivarium 1.8 [5] Gallisepticum A5969 3 [42] Gallisepticum A5969 4 [41] Bacteria—Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO-1 2.4 [21] ATCC14207 3.7 [2] ATCC15442 3.8 [2] ATCC9027 3.8 [2] ATCC10145 4.6 [2] ATCC27853 4.9 [2] Bacteria—Spirochaete Leptospira biflexa Patoc 2.3 [97] Leptospira illini 3055 2.75 [97] Leptospira interrogans 0.75 [97] Leptospira biflexa Copenhagenii 1.8 [36] Bacteria—Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus aureus 112 1.3 [43] 112 3.4 [43] RN1349 2 [8] 3.2 [100] RN1349 4 [8] Prion Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Resistant [55] Adenoviridae Adenovirus 41 23.6 [69] 40 30 [69] 1 34.5 [79] 6 38.5 [79] 2 39.7 [40] 2 40 [79] 5 and 2 40 [34] 2 42 [62] 5 and 7 42.5 [22] 40 50 [101] 54 [110] 40 54.3 [79] 5 61 [52] Junin virus 3 [64] Lassa virus 3 [64] Bunyaviridae Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 [90] Hanta virus 2.8 [64] Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 [64] Caliciviridae Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 48 6.6 [31] Feline calicivirus (FCV) 4 [31] 4.8 [103] 6 [101] 6.3 [81] 47.9 [77] Murine norovirus (MNV) 7.3 [81] 9.3 [60] Porcine circovirus (PCV) 1 14 [58] 2 18 to 25 [85] Filoviridae Ebola virus 1.7 [64] Marburg virus 1.7 [64] Flaviviridae Bovine viral diarrhea virus ≤17 [7] 11.8 [100] 12.5 [57] 52 [98] 366 [29] West Nile virus 5.5 [64] Herpesviridae Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 [57] Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Murine 4.6 [93] C87 and AD169 5 [4] Pseudorabies virus 8 [100] Leviviridae Bacteriophage MS2 13.6 [103] 14 [69] 15.9 [60] 16.4 [84] 17.5 [81] 21.7 [31] 23 [78] 23 [101] 28.9 [79] Microviridae ϕX174 phage 2.1 [84] 2.3 [9] 2.5 [95] 15.5 [77] Orthomyxoviridae Influenza A virus H5N1 4.5 [61] Paramyxoviridae Bovine parainfluenza virus Type III ≤48.2 [7] Mumps virus Weak [25] Parainfluenza Virus 3 14.3 [57] Parvoviridae Bovine parvovirus 12.5 [57] Mouse minute virus (MMV) 0.8 [46] 1.7 [11] 1.7 [87] 1.7 [86] 2.2 [108] 2.3 [58] 2.5 [111] 20.8 [90] Parvovirus H1 23 [27], [28] Porcine parvovirus (PPV) <18.2 [57] 1.8 [58] 2.3 [110] Picornaviridae Cardiovirus A—Encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 4 [20] 5.1 [84] 6.6 [120] Coxsackievirus B5 7.3 [9] B3 8.2 [40] B5 9 [40] A9 11.9 [49] B1 15.6 [49] Echovirus 2 6.8 [40] 12 7.4 [81] 1 8.3 [40] 1 10.8 [49] 11 12.2 [49] Foot and mouth disease virus 12.5 [57] A132 19.7 [78] A-Sakol 22.1 [78] O189 25.2 [78] AS1 31.3 [78] Hepatitis A virus (HAV) HM-175 4 [9] 4.5 [110] 7.5 [112] 9.2 [109] 36.5 [77] Poliovirus (PV) 1 4.1 [69] 4.7 [103] 6.5 [45] 1 7.7 [40] 1 8 [79] 3 10.3 [49] 1 11 [49] 2 12 [49] 1 24.1 [77] Polyomaviridae Mouse polyoma virus 47.6 [107] 50 [59] 58.8 [32] 71.4 [84] 188.7 [47] Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 1.8 [110] 21.3 [22] 43.2 [14] 65 [88] 72 [1] 80 [32] 100 [100] 112 [52] 127 [19] 140 [28] 167 [91] 301 [17] 100 [89] Poxviridae Variola Virus 2.5 [64] Reoviridae Reovirus 3 13.4 [119] 15.4 [49] 16.5 [45] 18.5 [110] 2 22.7 [68] 1 24 [68] 3 25 [57] 3 26.3 [68] 39.6 [94] Retroviridae Murine leukemia virus Moloney 16.9 [75] Rauscher 17.3 [99] Friend 25 [118] Rauscher 46 [63] Moloney 18 [53] 24.9 [71] 26 [110] Rhabdoviridae Vesicular stomatitis virus 1 [52] 1.2 [84] 4.8 [100] Togaviridae Semliki forest virus 11.1 [113] Sindbis virus 4.2 [119] 10 [110] Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) 5.3 [64] Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV) 4.4 [64] Open in new tab Reported dose per log10 inactivation (D10) of adventitious agents Family . Adventitious agent . Serotype/strain . D10 (mJ/cm2) . References . Bacteria—Acholeplasmataceae Acholeplasma <14.3 [57] Laidlawii, late logarithmic 1 [30] Laidlawii, stationary 1.5 [30] Laidlawii 4.5 [41] Laidlawii JA1 3 [76] Laidlawii JA1 REP- 2.25 [76] Bacteria—Clostridiaceae Clostridium pasteurianum 3.4 [26] Clostridium perfringens ≤42 [92] Bacteria—Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 1.5 [103] 2.1 [23] 1.25 [45] 1.9 [121] 2.8 [50] 2 [95] 1.4 [96] 2.5 [115] 1.4 [80] 3.7 [100] 1 [116] 1.4 [114] 1.5 [102] Salmonella anatum 5 [102] Salmonella derby 3.8 [102] Salmonella eteritidis 2.5 [102] Salmonella infantis 2 [102] Salmonella spp. 5 strains 1.8 [116] Salmonella typhi ATCC6539 1.8 [23] Salmonella typhi ATCC19430 2.1 [114] Salmonella typhi 2.3 [102] Salmonella typhi 12.5 [67] Streptococcus faecalis 5.5 [45] Bacteria—Mycoplasmataceae Mycoplasma 1 [38] <14.3 [57] Arthritidis 0.7 [38] Fermentans 0.9 [38] Hominis type 1 0.7 [38] Orale type 1 1.1 [38] Orale type 2 0.6 [38] Pneumoniae 0.8 [38] Salivarium 1.1 [38] Orale 1.1 [37] T210 0.3 [39] T-Pi 0.4 [39] T960 0.6 [39] Orale 2.2 [5] Buccale 0.75 [5] Hominis 1.2 [5] Fermentans 2.1 [5] Salivarium 1.8 [5] Gallisepticum A5969 3 [42] Gallisepticum A5969 4 [41] Bacteria—Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO-1 2.4 [21] ATCC14207 3.7 [2] ATCC15442 3.8 [2] ATCC9027 3.8 [2] ATCC10145 4.6 [2] ATCC27853 4.9 [2] Bacteria—Spirochaete Leptospira biflexa Patoc 2.3 [97] Leptospira illini 3055 2.75 [97] Leptospira interrogans 0.75 [97] Leptospira biflexa Copenhagenii 1.8 [36] Bacteria—Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus aureus 112 1.3 [43] 112 3.4 [43] RN1349 2 [8] 3.2 [100] RN1349 4 [8] Prion Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Resistant [55] Adenoviridae Adenovirus 41 23.6 [69] 40 30 [69] 1 34.5 [79] 6 38.5 [79] 2 39.7 [40] 2 40 [79] 5 and 2 40 [34] 2 42 [62] 5 and 7 42.5 [22] 40 50 [101] 54 [110] 40 54.3 [79] 5 61 [52] Junin virus 3 [64] Lassa virus 3 [64] Bunyaviridae Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 [90] Hanta virus 2.8 [64] Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 [64] Caliciviridae Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 48 6.6 [31] Feline calicivirus (FCV) 4 [31] 4.8 [103] 6 [101] 6.3 [81] 47.9 [77] Murine norovirus (MNV) 7.3 [81] 9.3 [60] Porcine circovirus (PCV) 1 14 [58] 2 18 to 25 [85] Filoviridae Ebola virus 1.7 [64] Marburg virus 1.7 [64] Flaviviridae Bovine viral diarrhea virus ≤17 [7] 11.8 [100] 12.5 [57] 52 [98] 366 [29] West Nile virus 5.5 [64] Herpesviridae Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 [57] Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Murine 4.6 [93] C87 and AD169 5 [4] Pseudorabies virus 8 [100] Leviviridae Bacteriophage MS2 13.6 [103] 14 [69] 15.9 [60] 16.4 [84] 17.5 [81] 21.7 [31] 23 [78] 23 [101] 28.9 [79] Microviridae ϕX174 phage 2.1 [84] 2.3 [9] 2.5 [95] 15.5 [77] Orthomyxoviridae Influenza A virus H5N1 4.5 [61] Paramyxoviridae Bovine parainfluenza virus Type III ≤48.2 [7] Mumps virus Weak [25] Parainfluenza Virus 3 14.3 [57] Parvoviridae Bovine parvovirus 12.5 [57] Mouse minute virus (MMV) 0.8 [46] 1.7 [11] 1.7 [87] 1.7 [86] 2.2 [108] 2.3 [58] 2.5 [111] 20.8 [90] Parvovirus H1 23 [27], [28] Porcine parvovirus (PPV) <18.2 [57] 1.8 [58] 2.3 [110] Picornaviridae Cardiovirus A—Encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 4 [20] 5.1 [84] 6.6 [120] Coxsackievirus B5 7.3 [9] B3 8.2 [40] B5 9 [40] A9 11.9 [49] B1 15.6 [49] Echovirus 2 6.8 [40] 12 7.4 [81] 1 8.3 [40] 1 10.8 [49] 11 12.2 [49] Foot and mouth disease virus 12.5 [57] A132 19.7 [78] A-Sakol 22.1 [78] O189 25.2 [78] AS1 31.3 [78] Hepatitis A virus (HAV) HM-175 4 [9] 4.5 [110] 7.5 [112] 9.2 [109] 36.5 [77] Poliovirus (PV) 1 4.1 [69] 4.7 [103] 6.5 [45] 1 7.7 [40] 1 8 [79] 3 10.3 [49] 1 11 [49] 2 12 [49] 1 24.1 [77] Polyomaviridae Mouse polyoma virus 47.6 [107] 50 [59] 58.8 [32] 71.4 [84] 188.7 [47] Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 1.8 [110] 21.3 [22] 43.2 [14] 65 [88] 72 [1] 80 [32] 100 [100] 112 [52] 127 [19] 140 [28] 167 [91] 301 [17] 100 [89] Poxviridae Variola Virus 2.5 [64] Reoviridae Reovirus 3 13.4 [119] 15.4 [49] 16.5 [45] 18.5 [110] 2 22.7 [68] 1 24 [68] 3 25 [57] 3 26.3 [68] 39.6 [94] Retroviridae Murine leukemia virus Moloney 16.9 [75] Rauscher 17.3 [99] Friend 25 [118] Rauscher 46 [63] Moloney 18 [53] 24.9 [71] 26 [110] Rhabdoviridae Vesicular stomatitis virus 1 [52] 1.2 [84] 4.8 [100] Togaviridae Semliki forest virus 11.1 [113] Sindbis virus 4.2 [119] 10 [110] Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) 5.3 [64] Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV) 4.4 [64] Family . Adventitious agent . Serotype/strain . D10 (mJ/cm2) . References . Bacteria—Acholeplasmataceae Acholeplasma <14.3 [57] Laidlawii, late logarithmic 1 [30] Laidlawii, stationary 1.5 [30] Laidlawii 4.5 [41] Laidlawii JA1 3 [76] Laidlawii JA1 REP- 2.25 [76] Bacteria—Clostridiaceae Clostridium pasteurianum 3.4 [26] Clostridium perfringens ≤42 [92] Bacteria—Enterobacteriaceae Escherichia coli 1.5 [103] 2.1 [23] 1.25 [45] 1.9 [121] 2.8 [50] 2 [95] 1.4 [96] 2.5 [115] 1.4 [80] 3.7 [100] 1 [116] 1.4 [114] 1.5 [102] Salmonella anatum 5 [102] Salmonella derby 3.8 [102] Salmonella eteritidis 2.5 [102] Salmonella infantis 2 [102] Salmonella spp. 5 strains 1.8 [116] Salmonella typhi ATCC6539 1.8 [23] Salmonella typhi ATCC19430 2.1 [114] Salmonella typhi 2.3 [102] Salmonella typhi 12.5 [67] Streptococcus faecalis 5.5 [45] Bacteria—Mycoplasmataceae Mycoplasma 1 [38] <14.3 [57] Arthritidis 0.7 [38] Fermentans 0.9 [38] Hominis type 1 0.7 [38] Orale type 1 1.1 [38] Orale type 2 0.6 [38] Pneumoniae 0.8 [38] Salivarium 1.1 [38] Orale 1.1 [37] T210 0.3 [39] T-Pi 0.4 [39] T960 0.6 [39] Orale 2.2 [5] Buccale 0.75 [5] Hominis 1.2 [5] Fermentans 2.1 [5] Salivarium 1.8 [5] Gallisepticum A5969 3 [42] Gallisepticum A5969 4 [41] Bacteria—Pseudomonadaceae Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO-1 2.4 [21] ATCC14207 3.7 [2] ATCC15442 3.8 [2] ATCC9027 3.8 [2] ATCC10145 4.6 [2] ATCC27853 4.9 [2] Bacteria—Spirochaete Leptospira biflexa Patoc 2.3 [97] Leptospira illini 3055 2.75 [97] Leptospira interrogans 0.75 [97] Leptospira biflexa Copenhagenii 1.8 [36] Bacteria—Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus aureus 112 1.3 [43] 112 3.4 [43] RN1349 2 [8] 3.2 [100] RN1349 4 [8] Prion Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Resistant [55] Adenoviridae Adenovirus 41 23.6 [69] 40 30 [69] 1 34.5 [79] 6 38.5 [79] 2 39.7 [40] 2 40 [79] 5 and 2 40 [34] 2 42 [62] 5 and 7 42.5 [22] 40 50 [101] 54 [110] 40 54.3 [79] 5 61 [52] Junin virus 3 [64] Lassa virus 3 [64] Bunyaviridae Cache Valley virus (CVV) 20.8 [90] Hanta virus 2.8 [64] Rift Valley fever virus 2.8 [64] Caliciviridae Canine calicivirus (CaCV) 48 6.6 [31] Feline calicivirus (FCV) 4 [31] 4.8 [103] 6 [101] 6.3 [81] 47.9 [77] Murine norovirus (MNV) 7.3 [81] 9.3 [60] Porcine circovirus (PCV) 1 14 [58] 2 18 to 25 [85] Filoviridae Ebola virus 1.7 [64] Marburg virus 1.7 [64] Flaviviridae Bovine viral diarrhea virus ≤17 [7] 11.8 [100] 12.5 [57] 52 [98] 366 [29] West Nile virus 5.5 [64] Herpesviridae Bovine herpesvirus 1 16.7 [57] Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Murine 4.6 [93] C87 and AD169 5 [4] Pseudorabies virus 8 [100] Leviviridae Bacteriophage MS2 13.6 [103] 14 [69] 15.9 [60] 16.4 [84] 17.5 [81] 21.7 [31] 23 [78] 23 [101] 28.9 [79] Microviridae ϕX174 phage 2.1 [84] 2.3 [9] 2.5 [95] 15.5 [77] Orthomyxoviridae Influenza A virus H5N1 4.5 [61] Paramyxoviridae Bovine parainfluenza virus Type III ≤48.2 [7] Mumps virus Weak [25] Parainfluenza Virus 3 14.3 [57] Parvoviridae Bovine parvovirus 12.5 [57] Mouse minute virus (MMV) 0.8 [46] 1.7 [11] 1.7 [87] 1.7 [86] 2.2 [108] 2.3 [58] 2.5 [111] 20.8 [90] Parvovirus H1 23 [27], [28] Porcine parvovirus (PPV) <18.2 [57] 1.8 [58] 2.3 [110] Picornaviridae Cardiovirus A—Encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 4 [20] 5.1 [84] 6.6 [120] Coxsackievirus B5 7.3 [9] B3 8.2 [40] B5 9 [40] A9 11.9 [49] B1 15.6 [49] Echovirus 2 6.8 [40] 12 7.4 [81] 1 8.3 [40] 1 10.8 [49] 11 12.2 [49] Foot and mouth disease virus 12.5 [57] A132 19.7 [78] A-Sakol 22.1 [78] O189 25.2 [78] AS1 31.3 [78] Hepatitis A virus (HAV) HM-175 4 [9] 4.5 [110] 7.5 [112] 9.2 [109] 36.5 [77] Poliovirus (PV) 1 4.1 [69] 4.7 [103] 6.5 [45] 1 7.7 [40] 1 8 [79] 3 10.3 [49] 1 11 [49] 2 12 [49] 1 24.1 [77] Polyomaviridae Mouse polyoma virus 47.6 [107] 50 [59] 58.8 [32] 71.4 [84] 188.7 [47] Simian vacuolating virus (SV40) 1.8 [110] 21.3 [22] 43.2 [14] 65 [88] 72 [1] 80 [32] 100 [100] 112 [52] 127 [19] 140 [28] 167 [91] 301 [17] 100 [89] Poxviridae Variola Virus 2.5 [64] Reoviridae Reovirus 3 13.4 [119] 15.4 [49] 16.5 [45] 18.5 [110] 2 22.7 [68] 1 24 [68] 3 25 [57] 3 26.3 [68] 39.6 [94] Retroviridae Murine leukemia virus Moloney 16.9 [75] Rauscher 17.3 [99] Friend 25 [118] Rauscher 46 [63] Moloney 18 [53] 24.9 [71] 26 [110] Rhabdoviridae Vesicular stomatitis virus 1 [52] 1.2 [84] 4.8 [100] Togaviridae Semliki forest virus 11.1 [113] Sindbis virus 4.2 [119] 10 [110] Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) 5.3 [64] Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV) 4.4 [64] Open in new tab © Society for Industrial Microbiology 2017 This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) © Society for Industrial Microbiology 2017
TI - Evaluating ultraviolet sensitivity of adventitious agents in biopharmaceutical manufacturing
JF - Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology
DO - 10.1007/s10295-017-1917-0
DA - 2017-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluating-ultraviolet-sensitivity-of-adventitious-agents-in-b9y9V0PmR0
SP - 893
EP - 909
VL - 44
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -