Amira Mohamed Taha1,2
Basant E. Katamesh3,4
Abdul Rhman Hassan3Omar Ahmed Abdelwahab2,5
Sarvesh Rustagi6
Dang Nguyen7
Kenneth Silva-Cajaleon8
Alfonso J. Rodriguez-Morales8,9,10
Aroop Mohanty11
D. Katterine Bonilla-Aldana12*
Ranjit Sah13,14- 1Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
- 2Medical Research Group of Egypt (MRGE), Negida Academy, Arlington, MA, United States
- 3Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
- 4Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
- 5Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
- 6School of Applied and Life Sciences, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, India
- 7Massachusetts General Hospital, Corrigan Minehan Heart Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
- 8Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru
- 9Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina, Faculty of Medicine, Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de lasAméricas-Institución Universitaria Visión de las Américas, Pereira, Colombia
- 10Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
- 11Department of Clinical Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Gorakhpur, India
- 12Research Unit, Universidad Continental, Huancayo, Peru
- 13Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal
- 14Department of Clinical Microbiology, DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, DY Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India
Monkeypox virus (MPXV), which causes Monkeypox (Mpox), has recently been found outside its usual geographic distribution and has spread to 117 different nations. The World Health Organization (WHO) designated the epidemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Humans are at risk from MPXV’s spread, which has raised concerns, particularly in the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. The risk of virus transmission may rise due to the persistence of MPXV on surfaces or in wastewater. The risk of infection may also increase due to insufficient wastewater treatment allowing the virus to survive in the environment. To manage the infection cycle, it is essential to investigate the viral shedding from various lesions, the persistence of MPXV on multiple surfaces, and the length of surface contamination. Environmental contamination may contribute to virus persistence and future infection transmission. The best possible infection control and disinfection techniques depend on this knowledge. It is thought to spread mainly through intimate contact. However, the idea of virus transmission by environmental contamination creates great concern and discussion. There are more cases of environmental surfaces and wastewater contamination. We will talk about wastewater contamination, methods of disinfection, and the present wastewater treatment in this review as well as the persistence of MPXV on various environmental surfaces.
1 Introduction
1.1 Aetiology
The zoonotic viral disease monkeypox (Mpox), endemic in central and western Africa, has recently spread to numerous nations in both endemic and nonendemic regions. Over 92,048 cases had been reported up to December 2023 across 117 countries, 110 (~94%) of which have not historically reported mpox. Its incubation period varies from a few days to 3 weeks. Unlike the smallpox virus, the monkeypox virus (MPXV) has a wide range of animal reservoirs that spread it to humans sporadically (Ježek et al., 1987; Di Giulio and Eckburg, 2004; CDC, 2022; Kaler et al., 2022; Moore and Zahra, 2022). Its prodromal symptoms, which initially resemble the flu, are followed by lymphadenopathy and a rash on the face before spreading throughout the body.
However, the clinical picture in the current outbreak is abnormal; according to research done on 23 patients, 95% had a rash, almost two-thirds had 10 or more lesions, 73% had anogenital lesions, and 41% had mucosal lesions (Ladnyj et al., 1972; Learned et al., 2005; Beer and Rao, 2019; Thornhill et al., 2022a).
Additionally, roughly 10% of patients had a single genital ulcer, and others had many lesions at once (Thornhill et al., 2022a). The majority of the time, it is a self-limiting disease that goes away 3–4 weeks after the first signs and symptoms arise, with crust formation and desquamation occurring over the next 7–14 days. After the lesion has healed, there may be light scarring that later darkens.
1.2 Epidemiology
Although Mpox outbreaks have grown since their initial detection, they were primarily confined to Africa. In 2003, the United States of America (USA) reported the first cases outside of Africa, with 53 with mpox confirmed infections. United Kingdom (UK) health officials confirmed the Mpox case of a tourist who returned from Nigeria in May 2022. Since then, recorded cases have grown in other nations, including those without a history of travel to endemic regions, but through community transmission, with only a few cases involving women and children. In contrast, most cases involved having sex with men (MSM) (CDC, 2003a; Isidro et al., 2022; Kipkorir et al., 2022; Kozlov, 2022; Mahase, 2022; Americo et al., 2023).
1.3 MPXV clades
Central African and western African are the two primary clades of MPXV, and they are now referred to as clades I and II, respectively. With a case fatality rate of up to 10%, clade I is more severe than clade II, which is less severe with a case fatality rate of less than 1%. Clade II would be divided further into clades IIa and IIb. The MPXV responsible for the current outbreak is related to clade IIb, which is related to clade IIa, responsible for the outbreak in Nigeria in 2017.
That is determined through phylogenetic analysis. It is uncertain what genetic variations are responsible for the greater incidence of clade IIb transmission in humans (Gammon et al., 2010; Isidro et al., 2022; Kipkorir et al., 2022; Kozlov, 2022; Mahase, 2022; Americo et al., 2023). DNA viruses like MPXV typically do not show many mutations. However, in the current outbreak, isolates from 2022 were discovered to have 10 alterations in the MPXV replication complex (RC) and other viral proteins. The potential effects of each mutation are not now fully understood. More study is required to understand further how these recently generated mutations function (Arita et al., 1985; Ježek et al., 1988a; CDC, 2003a; Hutson et al., 2009; Gammon et al., 2010; Isidro et al., 2022; Kannan et al., 2022; Kipkorir et al., 2022; Kozlov, 2022; Mahase, 2022; Americo et al., 2023).
1.4 MPXV transmission
Animal interaction was the leading cause of human infection. However, it could be challenging to pinpoint the precise animal interaction that caused a case in areas where different species are encountered. Rarely in secondary cases, but occasionally in primary human patients, does Human-to-human transfer happen. The evidence suggests that family members or those who care for a Mpox patients are at a higher risk for contracting an infection, even though the efficiency of Mpox human-to-human transmission appears to be less than that of smallpox. It did occur up to 11.7% of household contacts of patients who were not protected against smallpox (Arita et al., 1985; Ježek et al., 1988a; Goldmann, 2000; Hutson et al., 2009; Gammon et al., 2010; Spicknall et al., 2010; Kannan et al., 2022; León-Figueroa et al., 2022; Salvato et al., 2022; Hernaez et al., 2023; Karagoz et al., 2023; CDC, 2023a).
The environment, the virus’s ability to infect the host, viral shedding, the host’s susceptibility, and behavior all impact the virus’s spread. Additional essential environmental elements that affect transmission include host density and mobility patterns. Lesion exudate, crust material, respiratory droplets, and viral shedding in faeces are all possible routes for human transmission (Goldmann, 2000; León-Figueroa et al., 2022; Salvato et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a; Hernaez et al., 2023; Karagoz et al., 2023; Mellon et al., 2023; Sharkey et al., 2023; CDC, 2023a).
It is most likely spread through intimate contact with an infected person and possibly transmitted by big droplets that settle after about one meter; however, the evidence of respiratory transmission is still questionable (Goldmann, 2000; Salvato et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a; Hernaez et al., 2023). Mpox is spread by close, personal contact, mainly through sexual contact in the current outbreak. Indirect contact with contaminated surfaces and objects is another route that could contribute to viral transmission. A recent investigation in the UK revealed the presence of MPXV DNA on several surfaces from locations visited by a tourist returning from Nigeria with a confirmed case of Mpox (Atkinson et al., 2022a). According to a different investigation, fomite transmission was regarded as a plausible primary infection source in two cases. These studies support environmental assessments since polluted fomite can spread infectious diseases. Fomites might contract the virus by coming into intimate contact with human fluids or secretions, touching contaminated hands, or contacting respiratory droplets that land on various surfaces (Lu et al., 2022; Palich et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a; Girón-Guzmán et al., 2023; Hernaez et al., 2023; La Rosa et al., 2023; Mellon et al., 2023; Sharkey et al., 2023; CDC, 2023b). Despite patients wearing surgical masks, a different investigation found viral DNA in the air in the outpatient consultation room during visits from Mpox patients. Therefore, the viral particles found may have been transmitted through the air from the skin, sores on the genitalia or oropharynx, or respiratory secretions. Despite this, neither healthcare professionals nor consulting Mpox-negative patients reported any MPXV symptoms during the trial period or in the 21 days that followed (Mellon et al., 2023). Infections of the Mpox virus are transmitted and closely watched due to wastewater (Girón-Guzmán et al., 2023; La Rosa et al., 2023; Sharkey et al., 2023). Since human fluids that are contaminated with the virus may be present in wastewater, it is possible that MPXV can spread there. Therefore, public health officials’ wastewater analysis can provide a clear picture of the scope of the Mpox outbreak and potentially aid in its containment (Ježek et al., 1988b; Nakoune et al., 2017; Adler et al., 2022; Ferré et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Ogoina and Yinka-Ogunleye, 2022; Palich et al., 2022; Riopelle et al., 2022; Thornhill et al., 2022b; Owhonda et al., 2023; Wieder-Feinsod et al., 2023; CDC, 2023b,c).
The possibility of cross-border diffusion and subsequent transmission of Mpox has increased due to the ambiguity surrounding the outbreak’s containment and the risk of social transmission.
Unlike earlier cases, most current cases do not have confirmed travel connections to endemic regions, indicating a crucial role in community and environmental transmission. That review covers the most recent research on the role of the environment in the transmission of Mpox, the importance of wastewater surveillance and monitoring, and the potential transmission of illnesses pathways (Ježek et al., 1988b; Adler et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Palich et al., 2022; Thornhill et al., 2022b; Girón-Guzmán et al., 2023; La Rosa et al., 2023; Sharkey et al., 2023; Wieder-Feinsod et al., 2023; CDC, 2023b,c).
2 Viral shedding
Identifying viral shedding to improve treatment and stop further transmission is essential. Because infected skin lesions have the largest viral loads, the highest favorable rates, and the least invasive, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) techniques, have been suggested for detecting MPXV in these infected skin lesion swabs. These assessments are most effective when combined with clinical and epidemiological data, such as vaccination history (Ježek et al., 1988b; Adler et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Ogoina and Yinka-Ogunleye, 2022; Palich et al., 2022; Riopelle et al., 2022; Thornhill et al., 2022b; Girón-Guzmán et al., 2023; La Rosa et al., 2023; Owhonda et al., 2023; Wieder-Feinsod et al., 2023; CDC, 2023b,c).
MPXV was found in various swabs, including anal, contaminated objects, skin, saliva, oropharynx, conjunctiva, vaginal fluids, breast milk, semen, blood, urine, and faeces. Given that the viral load in diverse clinical samples coincided with the quantity of replication-competent MPXV found, a higher viral concentration, as assessed by qPCR, can forecast a larger potential for infectivity. After the sickness first appears, the virus might shed for up to 3 weeks. However, it persisted longer in samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values higher than 35, lasting up to 8 weeks for semen and up to 10 weeks for saliva samples, and 6 to 10 weeks for respiratory samples (Ježek et al., 1986, 1988b; Nakoune et al., 2017; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Adler et al., 2022; Ferré et al., 2022; Ogoina and Yinka-Ogunleye, 2022; Riopelle et al., 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022; Thornhill et al., 2022b; Owhonda et al., 2023; Wieder-Feinsod et al., 2023).
Numerous diagnostic procedures, such as qPCR, immunohistochemistry, serology, and electron microscopy, could be used to determine the presence of Mpox. The best method for experimental diagnosis is known to be qPCR. However, in an outbreak like this, it may not always be practical because every diagnostic process has to adhere to strict diagnostic and biosafety performance standards regarding sampling technique, storage, and other biosafety requirements, which delays the diagnostic process and causes additional costs. Furthermore, it only has a limited impact in rural places with few resources. Given the rising prevalence of Mpox, quick screening techniques, like those found in SARS-CoV-2 kits, should be created to be employed as a large-scale diagnostic approach for screening and detecting vulnerable people (Ježek et al., 1986; CDC, 2003b; Nakoune et al., 2017; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022).
CDC stated that a patient is no longer contagious when all scabs have gone off, contradicting the traditional view that Mpox patients are infectious until all lesions have crusted. Recent research has shown that MPXV DNA can still be found in the upper respiratory system days after lesions have healed. It is uncertain whether patients with crusted skin lesions and positive upper respiratory tract swabs are contagious. Further study is needed in this area because the healing of skin lesions served as the leading indicator of the Mpox patients’ infectiousness. These findings might prompt additional adjustments to the rules for discharge and quarantine days, with immediate implications for using healthcare resources (CDC, 2003b; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a,b).
Misdiagnosis of Mpox as another sexually transmitted disease (STD) can delay isolation and result in inadequate treatment, prolonging and worsening the current epidemic. According to several studies, misdiagnosis occurred due to the clinical presentation, which was unusual compared to African outbreaks. A case report showed an atypical distribution of rash that had not happened on the face, in contrast to the recognized national case definition. Only 11% of patients in the UK experienced the rash, the primary diagnostic sign of Mpox, and 20% did not share a prodrome before the rash. Clinical symptoms that are distinct from those that have previously been documented may be the result of an atypical method of transmission. A recent study found that during the 2017–2018 Nigerian outbreak, risky sexual conduct was highly prevalent and that 81.2% of Mpox-infected patients had genital ulcers. Due to this abnormal presentation of Mpox, healthcare professionals may have incorrectly diagnosed Mpox patients with ordinary STDs without thoroughly considering the range of other possible differential diagnoses. Some of the outbreak’s less frequently reported cases may also be due to the less severe clinical symptoms associated with clade 2 MPXV. Patients who feel good might also not seek medical attention (Patrono et al., 2020; Jonge et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Sharkey et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a,b; CDC, 2023d).
Semen samples from asymptomatic people in this outbreak contained MPXV DNA, suggesting hat asymptomatic transmission may have contributed to the virus’s spread. In a recent investigation, rectal swabs from 200 asymptomatic MSM cases revealed positive Mpox qPCR results. To establish the presence of a contagious virus, isolating it from tested samples is necessary because qPCR results cannot precisely predict the chance of infection. The existence of asymptomatic Mpox cases raises concerns that the true number of patients may be underestimated and that the virus may be spread to close contacts even when there are no symptoms. Collecting more accurate epidemiologic data on the prevalence, clinical signs, transmission mechanism, and asymptomatic cases in the general population and individuals with other STDs is necessary (Patrono et al., 2020; Jonge et al., 2022; Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022; Sharkey et al., 2022; Wurtzer et al., 2022; Gazecka et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023; Wannigama et al., 2023; CDC, 2023d).
3 Environmental contamination of MPXV
3.1 MPXV persistence on surfaces in healthcare settings
The contamination of healthcare settings by MPXV and its ability to cause infection is also vital when dealing with the recent outbreak, significantly helping protect healthcare providers from getting infected (Nakoune et al., 2017). Healthcare professionals are a high-risk group for getting infected and infecting others as they are exposed to many patients daily.
Few cases of healthcare-associated human Mpox have been recorded in endemic African nations throughout history. These cases were documented in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1983 (Ježek et al., 1986), the Republic of the Congo in 2003 (Learned et al., 2005), the Central African Republic in 2015 and 2016 (Nakoune et al., 2017), and Nigeria in 2017 and 2018 (Ogoina et al., 2019). Although all these exposures took place in hospital Settings, the precise routes of spread could not be determined. Between 2003 and 2021, at least 250 healthcare professionals had varying levels of unprotected contact with MPXV while working in a hospital environment. Yet, only one incidence of nosocomial transmission is documented in the literature (Vaughan et al., 2020; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022). That case report represented a healthcare worker identified as having Mpox in the UK in 2018 and whose only known exposure risk was replacing a patient’s possibly contaminated bedding (Vaughan et al., 2020).
Further, fomite transmission has been reported as a single route of transmission of Mpox in two cases out of 3,924 cases (Salvato et al., 2022). In this study, two cases of fomite transmission involved healthcare workers who spent an hour at the patient’s home, wore PPE (N95 masks, eye protection, gowns), only used gloves when taking clinical samples from patients, and avoided direct physical contact with the patient. Authors reported that Mpox could have been transmitted exclusively through fomites in those two cases in contrast to 2,420 out of 3,924 cases with direct physical or sexual contact as the transmission mode (Salvato et al., 2022). Although indirect transmission through contaminated objects or surfaces has been reported, the evidence of fomite transmission for Mpox is currently limited (Vaughan et al., 2020; Kozlov, 2022). However, it is still a rare method of transmission. Other transmission methods are already considered, and variable preventive measures are applied for their prevention.
After demonstrating the evidence of the possibility of nosocomial transmission and evidence of surface contamination at the homes of the infected persons, the question of whether surface contamination in hospital settings and whether contaminated objects are a cause of Mpox dissemination is one the scientific community is preoccupied with (Kozlov, 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022).
A study conducted in Germany evaluated the contamination of surfaces in hospital rooms and found that the most significant virus loads were found in toilets. However, contamination was present on all surfaces contacted directly by the patients. It was also detected on the patients’ mobile phones, toilet seats, and chair seat surfaces (Nörz et al., 2022). Fabrics used frequently by the patients were also contaminated with viruses. After touching these fabrics by investigators, the investigator’s gloves were swabbed on the palmar side, and the contamination on that side was determined. Interestingly, these samples showed positive culture, which supports the evidence of infection from touching and objects used or touched by any infected person. In addition, all hand-contact sites, such as the door handle, in the anteroom that were investigated showed positive qPCR findings (CDC, 2003b; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022).
A more extensive study in a UK hospital (Gould et al., 2022) found MPXV DNA in 56 (93%) of 60 surface swab samples taken from patient bedrooms and toilets. Some of the samples that tested positive were from places patients were not likely to have touched directly, such as the air vent over the bathroom door and the air vent above the bedroom door, indicating non-contact contamination, presumably through respiratory droplets or particles suspended in the air after changing bedding.
The DNA of the virus was also detected from two samples swapped from the gloves. The discovery of the contagious MPXV in air samples taken during a bedding change emphasizes the necessity of respiratory protection for healthcare professionals while conducting activities that could contain infectious material in contaminated settings (Ježek et al., 1986; CDC, 2003b; Nakoune et al., 2017; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Ferré et al., 2022; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Ogoina and Yinka-Ogunleye, 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022b).
There was variability in the frequency of virus detection from one patient’s room to another. That can be attributed to disease severity as the extent of contamination varies depending on viral load. Patients suffering from severe illness are more likely to have a higher viral load, leading to increased shedding and potentially higher environmental contamination. Also, the period during the patient’s illness when environmental sampling was done, staff or patient behavior, and Infection control measures. However, no variation in cleaning procedures might account for the variations in environmental sample data, and none of the patients’ clinical features can account for the variations in the findings of the air sampling for the various isolation rooms examined.
Other factors might have accounted for this variability, necessitating further investigation (Ježek et al., 1986; CDC, 2003b; Nakoune et al., 2017; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Ferré et al., 2022; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022b).
In a cross-sectional study, Hernaez et al. (2023) assessed the presence of MPXV DNA in saliva, exhaled droplets from a mask, and aerosols from patients with qPCR-confirmed Mpox infection attending two healthcare centers in Spain. They reported high viral load detected by qPCR in saliva samples and viable virus in 66% of qPCR-positive saliva samples. These findings signify that saliva might assist in contaminating surfaces with the infectious virus, respiratory droplets, aerosols. According to studies above (Gould et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022), MPXV DNA has been found by qPCR on various surfaces in hospital rooms occupied by Mpox patients. Some contained the contagious virus, which the previous findings could explain. The exact persistence of MPXV in healthcare settings and its availability to cause infection is not identified definitively. However, the evidence of its persistence for 15 days in a home setting is alarming and should increase our attention (Morgan et al., 2022). Thus, measuring its infectivity power and its existence raises a major concern. Numerous variables might affect a human being successfully being infected with a virus; therefore, just because a virus is detected in environmental samples does not always indicate that transmission resulting in infection would occur if that virus were exposed to a person (Gould et al., 2022). These variables include modes of transmission, host susceptibility, environmental elements that may impair the virus capacity to replicate and infect cells, and the quantity of virus to which a person is exposed (Gould et al., 2022). The infectious dosage ofMPXV in people is unknown and may vary depending on the body part exposed to the virus.
Various lessons should be considered during this outbreak to protect healthcare providers and prevent the spread of the virus in hospital settings. Firstly, the pervasive surface contamination of the patient care environment necessitates a methodical, standard approach to surface disinfection of hospital settings and homes of patients with Mpox. Secondly, the discovery of MPXV DNA on personal protective equipment (PPE), in doffing areas, and air samples were taken at different distances from the patient bed and during bed sheet changes emphasizes the significance of using and removing PPE properly by healthcare professionals to prevent exposure to Mpox while providing patient care (Gould et al., 2022).
Third, since changing bedding may spread MPXV particles, staff members should wear surgical masks (with or without a face shield) at the very least to protect their mucous membranes (CDC, 2003b; Gould et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022). Therefore, disinfectants must be used for sites of isolation of Mpox patients.
3.2 MPXV persistence on surfaces in households
Surface contamination may contribute to the spread of infection and is therefore essential to study, especially in the presence of asymptomatic cases that may contribute to virus transmission. Several studies have been conducted to measure MPXV contamination on different surfaces (Nörz et al., 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022b). Despite this, little is known about the extent of surface contamination by MPXV. There are several gaps in knowledge, such as the duration of contamination of different surfaces, and further studies are necessary to provide more detailed and accurate information.
CDC and the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (UDHHS) investigated MPXV surface contamination on frequently used household surfaces in May 2022 (Pfeiffer et al., 2022). Patients were still symptomatic at the time of sample collection, obtained from 9 different locations throughout the house and examined using qPCR. Of them, 21 of the 30 samples from porous objects tested positive for Mpox, and 17 of 25 non-porous items developed positive qPCR results. Fabric surfaces such as blankets and chaise lounge tested, and hard surfaces such as light handles and a keyboard tested positive. However, none of the surfaces that tested positive by qPCR yielded a positive viral culture test. It is suggested that cleaning or passing of time may have affected the viral load and inactivated the virus (Ježek et al., 1986; CDC, 2003b; Ogoina et al., 2019; Vaughan et al., 2020; Gould et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Zachary and Shenoy, 2022).
Additionally, environmental sampling was carried out in the house of a resident in the USA who had confirmed infection with the west African clade after travelling to Nigeria 15 days after the patient left the residence. Results suggested substantial MPXV DNA contamination as seven samples yielded viable viruses isolated in cell culture. That study demonstrated no difference in qPCR positivity between porous and non-porous surfaces but noted a significant difference in the virus detected in cultures. That suggests that porous surfaces may pose a higher risk of Mpox infection (Morgan et al., 2022).
In June 2022, another study investigated the presence and extent of surface contamination in the hospital rooms of two patients infected with MPXV on the fourth hospitalization day. All surfaces touched by both patients showed viral contamination, with the highest detected on bathroom surfaces. According to the number of viral copies per cm2 in the first patient, the highest viral load was found on the tap control lever, the seating surface toilet seat, and the mattress cover. In the second, the highest viral load was found on the towel in bed, soap dispenser lever, and pillowcase used to cover cooling packs, followed by the glove used by the examiner. After handling fabrics, the examiners’ gloves were immediately swabbed from the palmer side and found to have contamination levels in both patients (Nörz et al., 2022). The investigators had successfully isolated MPXV using three different samples, each containing a minimum of 106 virus copies. As a result, contaminated surfaces that carry such viral loads or higher may be contagious (Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a; CDC, 2023d).
The CDC in the United States of America has advised that close contacts of Mpox patients should watch for any MPXV symptoms for 3 weeks following the last exposure. In addition, the CDC recommended getting vaccinated and seeking medical attention if an unexplained rash emerged after touching an infected person. Sharing dishes, towels, bed sheets, clothes, drinking glasses, or other private belongings is also not advised (CDC, 2003b; Brown and Leggat, 2016; Patrono et al., 2020; Dye and Kraemer, 2022; Gould et al., 2022; Jonge et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2022; Sharkey et al., 2022; Wurtzer et al., 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a,b; Gazecka et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023; Wannigama et al., 2023; CDC, 2023d). It is strongly recommended to disinfect surfaces, and this should be done with cleaning supplies from the CDC and Environmental Protection Agency lists to prevent cross-contamination. Disposable gloves, a face mask, and clothing covering their arms and legs are all recommended when disinfecting. These suggestions are examples of ways to stop the transmission of Mpox; however, other nations may have different laws; therefore, they may not apply there (Klein, 1963; Kampf et al., 2002; Wutzler and Sauerbrei, 2004; Kampf et al., 2007; Rabenau et al., 2010; Steinmann et al., 2012; Brown and Leggat, 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Becker et al., 2017; Siddharta et al., 2017; Dye and Kraemer, 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Upadhayay et al., 2022).
3.3 MPXV contaminating wastewater
Another concern was the contamination of wastewater. It is not fully known how MPXV ends up in sewage. Excretion and secretion of MPXV through faeces were observed in infected animals and humans (Patrono et al., 2020; Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022). Another plausible transmission mode is by skin flakes from affected body areas that wash into wastewater; this is supported by the high viral concentration found in blisters and scabs (Jonge et al., 2022).
According to data from various body fluids, viral shedding can occur from several body sites, including saliva, semen, urine, and faeces. That suggests that bodily fluids may play a part in the spread of disease (Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022).
To check for the existence of MPXV nucleic acids, a team of researchers examined the presence of DNA and RNA extracts from wastewater. Viral particles were investigated by examining the presence of packaged DNA in the viral capsid. Wastewater included human beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) RNA, indicating that excretion and washing can cause the nucleic acids found in human cells to be discovered in sewage (Jonge et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Peiró-Mestres et al., 2022; Sharkey et al., 2022; Wurtzer et al., 2022; Gazecka et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023). Midway through July, MPXV was found in the wastewater treatment facility for the first time. Over time, higher quantities were observed. Data also revealed a correlation between wastewater levels and the amount of reported clinical cases (Brown and Leggat, 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Dye and Kraemer, 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Tiwari et al., 2023).
In addition, a recent study in Amsterdam detected MPXV DNA in wastewater samples from two wastewater treatment facilities, Schiphol Airport, and five different city districts. The sample was deemed positive if both the generic and west-African qPCR were present. Out of 108 wastewater samples, MPXV DNA was discovered in 45 of them. Because infected people may have passed through, samples from the airport occasionally tested positive for MPXV DNA. A sporadic rise in the number of positive samples taken in Schiphol was associated with an increase in confirmed cases. That is consistent with the study’s findings described earlier. To verify the DNA specificity, qPCR and an extra traditional qPCR were performed on a predetermined subset of the obtained samples (Klein, 1963; Kampf et al., 2002; Wutzler and Sauerbrei, 2004; Kampf et al., 2007; McDevitt et al., 2007; CDC, 2008; McDevitt et al., 2008; Russell, 2008; Eterpi et al., 2009; Rabenau et al., 2010; de Oliveira et al., 2011; Steinmann et al., 2012; Bleichert et al., 2014; Eggers et al., 2015; Brown and Leggat, 2016; Campagna et al., 2016; Petersen et al., 2016; Becker et al., 2017; Siddharta et al., 2017; Dye and Kraemer, 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Upadhayay et al., 2022; Meister et al., 2023).
Researchers collected wastewater samples between May and August 2022 from 63 sewered and non-sewered places in Bangkok’s city centre. qPCR was used to measure the MPXV DNA copy counts, and Sanger sequencing was used to validate the results as positive. Beginning in the second week of June 2022, wastewater samples containing MPXV DNA had a mean copy number of 16.4 copies/mL. Sanger sequencing of positive samples confirmed the MPXV’s existence. According to preliminary analyses, the MPXV DNA from wastewater samples also belonged to the West African lineage. All places where MPXV DNA was detected had closed, un-severed sewage systems and were either public or commercial (Wannigama et al., 2023).
Investigators in Spain found MPXV DNA in 56 of 312 wastewater samples they took from various country locations. Their CT scores varied from 39.98 to 34.5. Interestingly, samples taken from Madrid WWTPs during week 23 of 2022, when just 275 cumulative cases had been reported across the entire region, consistently contained MPXV DNA. Additionally, some WWTPs with limited confirmed clinical patients reported intermittent detection (Girón-Guzmán et al., 2023). That could mean that silent infections are occurring more frequently than anticipated and that the reported clinical cases appear to be underestimated. To estimate the actual number of Mpox cases, wastewater monitoring is crucial during an outbreak. Another Polish study that revealed no relationship between the quantity of hospitalized patients in a given area and MPXV detection in WWTPs supports this result (Gazecka et al., 2023). That is in contrast to a study that found that the discovery and quantification of the MPXV genome in sewersheds in Paris coincided temporally with the discovery of the first case of infection and the spread of the disease throughout the population connected to the sewage system (Wurtzer et al., 2022).
Wastewater surveillance is a well-established supplemental epidemiologic tool that has been effectively employed for viral infectious illnesses, including SARS-CoV-2 and polio; therefore, investigating potential strategies for monitoring MPXV through these systems is crucial. Three distinct PCR tests that were previously developed for clinical samples were put to the test by a research team. To lessen the impact of nucleotide mismatches, they altered the tests by making alterations to the primer and probe sequences. Using real-time or nested PCR and sequencing, three samples out of 20 tested positive for MPXV, demonstrating that these techniques can be used for wastewater-based epidemiology for Mpox outbreaks and offering fundamental resources, such as analytical techniques (La Rosa et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023).
Untreated wastewater can track the movement and dispersal of many diseases. As it contains a variety of biological materials, such as skin, vesicular fluid, saliva, semen, faeces, and respiratory and nasal secretions, it is perfect for monitoring. A customizable platform called wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) can show in real-time when infectious pathogens are being shed; genetic material may be discovered days before symptoms or a healthcare facility’s confirmation of infection. WBS has advantages and disadvantages; benefits include cost-effectiveness, independence from testing capacity, patient permission to test, and data utilization by third parties. Disadvantages include the absence of standardization and interference from different substances; since WBE is not always sensitive enough to pick up minute amounts of pathogens, it might be challenging to obtain reliable results from wastewater samples (Gerba et al., 1980; Farahbakhsh and Smith, 2004; John and Rose, 2005; McDevitt et al., 2007; CDC, 2008; McDevitt et al., 2008; Russell, 2008; Gundy et al., 2009; de Oliveira et al., 2011; Bleichert et al., 2014; Campagna et al., 2016; Sassi et al., 2018; Meister et al., 2023).
Detection of MPXVs in wastewater depends on many variables, including infection rate, water flow, viral shedding, and the process used for detection and analysis. Cross-reaction between the assay and non-targeted pathogens is a challenging possibility as wastewater contains many different microbes from multiple sources. The most concerning challenge with WBS is the lack of standard procedures and methodology used to collect samples, measure viral concentrations, extract DNA, and interpret data. Due to the scarcity of essential data on Mpox infection, it’s challenging to create a prediction model or to establish a correlation between reported clinical cases and available WBS data. Further research is necessary to fill in critical knowledge gaps, such as the persistence of MPXV in different environments, MPXV DNA shedding in other body fluids, and the extent of MPXV infectivity in wastewater. Filling in these gaps is necessary to quickly develop a robust global WBS network (Klein, 1963; Wutzler and Sauerbrei, 2004; McDevitt et al., 2007, 2008; Eterpi et al., 2009; Rabenau et al., 2010; de Oliveira et al., 2011; Bleichert et al., 2014; Eggers et al., 2015; Campagna et al., 2016; Meister et al., 2023).
4 Controlling Mpox transmission
4.1 Disinfection of surfaces
The use of disinfectants to eliminate MPXV from the surfaces and environment is now considered a vital issue after proving its presence on the surfaces and in the environment and its possibility to cause infection (Gould et al., 2022; Nörz et al., 2022; Ogoina and Ogunsola, 2022; Atkinson et al., 2022a). Therefore, disinfection around the confirmed cases may be necessary to lessen the risk of viral transmission via contaminated surfaces. Consequently, it is crucial to understand which disinfectants and biocidal chemicals are efficient against MPXV and other orthopoxviruses, even though it is doubtful that mpox would cause a worldwide health disaster (Dye and Kraemer, 2022).
Vaccinia virus has been extensively studied and used as a surrogate for other orthopoxviruses, including MPXV, due to its availability, ease of handling, and well-established protocols for inactivation an disinfection (Brown and Leggat, 2016). Many disinfection protocols and guidelines for orthopoxviruses, including those recommended by the World Health Organization, are based on studies using vaccinia virus as a surrogate (Petersen et al., 2016). While there may be some differences between the vaccinia virus and MPXV in their behavior in certain disinfection conditions (Upadhayay et al., 2022), vaccinia virus as a surrogate is generally considered appropriate, especially when primary data for MPXV is unavailable.
Ethanol (ranging 50%–90%) proved effective in suspension experiments against the vaccinia virus strain Elstree and the modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) at concentrations ranging from 50% to 95% within 1 min, even with varied organic loads (Kampf et al., 2002, 2007; Steinmann et al., 2012; Siddharta et al., 2017). Phosphoric acid added to ethanol at 45% also worked for 30 s. However, ethanol only showed marginal effectiveness in doses of 40% or less (Steinmann et al., 2012). Formulas containing two kinds of alcohol and a combined alcohol content between 75% and 77.8% were likewise quite effective in 15 s (Kampf et al., 2002, 2007).
Peroxides also showed good effectiveness against the vaccinia virus (Kampf et al., 2002). In suspension experiments, hydrogen peroxide proved efficient against the vaccinia virus at 14.4% concentration in 30 s (Wutzler and Sauerbrei, 2004; Rabenau et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2017). Additionally, it was shown that peracetic acid rapidly rendered vaccinia viruses inactive at concentrations between 0.005 and 0.2% within 1 min and with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) as an organic load (Rabenau et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2017). Glutaraldehyde was successful in suspension tests against the vaccinia virus strains Elstree and MVA at concentrations between 0.05 and 0.5% within 5 min, often in the presence of 10% FCS (Klein, 1963; Rabenau et al., 2010). However, significant activity against vaccinia viruses was not documented at shorter contact periods of 30 s or 2 min (Klein, 1963; Rabenau et al., 2010).
With a low organic load, chlorine proved effective against vaccinia viruses in suspension testing at 0.64% in 1 min and 0.525% in 3 min (Eterpi et al., 2009; Eggers et al., 2015). Lower concentrations either needed longer exposure durations or were not powerful enough. However, increased albumin content as an organic load decreased the virucidal effectiveness (Eterpi et al., 2009). Under clean and unclean test circumstances, iodine was also potent against vaccinia viruses at concentrations between 0.045 and 1% within 1 min (de Oliveira et al., 2011; Eggers et al., 2015). However, under dirty test circumstances on artificially contaminated stainless-steel carriers, sodium hypochlorite (0.25% and 2.5%) proved also efficient against the vaccinia virus in one minute (Eterpi et al., 2009; de Oliveira et al., 2011; Eggers et al., 2015).
An alkaline cleanser at 0.9% was shown to inactivate the vaccinia virus in 10 min under unclean conditions on artificially polluted stainless-steel carriers (Eterpi et al., 2009). Ultraviolet light (254 nm) has been shown to inactivate aerosolized vaccinia virus strain WR in a tabletop one-pass aerosol chamber in 7.6 s (McDevitt et al., 2007, 2008).
The vaccinia virus was more vulnerable to UVC with decreased relative air humidity (McDevitt et al., 2007). Similar outcomes were seen when the Western Reserve strain of the vaccinia virus was exposed to UVC light for 10 min through aerosol (254 nm) (McDevitt et al., 2007, 2008).
In summary, vaccinia viruses could be rendered inactive by a 1 min application of 70% ethanol, 0.25% and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, 14.4% hydrogen peroxide, 0.64% chlorine, and 0.045 and 1% iodine. It also can be killed by a 3 min application of 99.9 copper or 0.525% chlorine, 5 min of 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde, 10 min of 2% glutaraldehyde, 0.2% peracetic acid, 0.9% alkaline cleanser, or 254 nm ultraviolet light. Few studies investigated the efficacy of some disinfectants on Mpox. For example, one study found that in 3 min, copper with a purity of 99.9% was as effective against the vaccinia virus as it was against MPXV (Bleichert et al., 2014). Another study on the hand rub formulations and alcohols recommended by the WHO found that, despite these disinfectants being effective, MPXV showed the greatest stability compared with other enveloped viruses (Meister et al., 2023). It is crucial to note that the efficacy of a disinfectant against MPXV can be influenced by parameters such as the kind and amount of organic material present, disinfectant concentration and contact time, and environmental temperature and humidity (CDC, 2008; Russell, 2008; Campagna et al., 2016). However, we recommend validating disinfection protocols using MPXV to ensure their effectiveness in real-world settings.
4.2 Treatment of wastewater
Treatment of wastewater is a crucial step to avoid the further spread of diseases. Conventional treatment plants consist of a primary sedimentation step, secondary aerobic treatment and chlorination before reuse and discharge. The survival of viruses is mainly dependent on temperature; high temperatures denature proteins and increase enzymatic activity, decreasing viral survival rates (Gerba et al., 1980; John and Rose, 2005). Solvents and detergents also play a role as they remove viral envelopes. Anaerobic treatment denatures proteins and nucleic acids (Gundy et al., 2009; Sassi et al., 2018).
Removal of viruses is usually greater in the secondary treatment plant; this is attributed to sludge and suspended solids in the secondary effluent to which viruses attach. Viruses are mainly adsorbed in the second treatment (John and Rose, 2005). Viral inactivation especially takes place in tertiary treatment, which is the most crucial step to stop the transmission of infection. Advanced treatment is membrane separation, used in water reuse. It also plays a role in removing viruses from wastewater. A study revealed that using foul membranes for microfiltration removed more viruses than clean membranes (Farahbakhsh and Smith, 2004).
The currently implemented wastewater treatment systems are adequate at removing MPXV from wastewater and helping prevent the spread of infection. However, further studies may be needed to provide more information regarding the optimal temperature and best-suited disinfectant to rid wastewater from MPXV completely.
5 Conclusion
Current evidence demonstrates the contamination of surfaces by infected persons with mpox that has been proven to be stable and viable in the environment, surviving for a varying time depending on factors that impact virus survival, such as the contaminated surface, humidity, and temperature. This is to be emphasized that positive qPCR results do not necessarily means viral infectivity. It is essential to keep in mind that indirect transmission of mpox through contaminated surfaces may present a significant issue for international health organizations by highlighting the risks of long-distance transmission, bringing back the virus into an area that has attained regional elimination with extended outbreak duration. Due to asymptomatic cases, it is currently more challenging to identify the infection’s origin and spread. Thus, personal protective measures, such as hand washing and regular disinfection, should reduce environmental contamination and the possibility of virus transmission.
Wastewater surveillance is imperative in developing systems for efficient, timely control of diseases. However, poor urban planning structures, growing populations, and transportation challenges worsen the wastewater treatment problem in these countries. As a result, appropriate wastewater treatment services must be established.
In summary, focusing on interventions related to the highest-risk-associated settings for mpox infection spread and transmission is an effective strategy for preventing and reducing the risk of mpox spread. Furthermore, our findings could form the base for future research into mpox transmission and persistence in the environment. It assists in preventing and reducing the negative consequences of this disease. Further research is needed to fill in knowledge gaps, to help understand the persistence of the virus on surfaces in healthcare settings and the environment, viral shedding and DNA levels in different body fluids and skin lesions, and the persistence of MPXV DNA and its infectivity in wastewater. Improvements in the analytical methods used to detect MPXV DNA in sewage are also needed.
Author contributions
AT: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BK: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AH: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OA: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SR: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DN: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KS-C: Writing – review & editing. AR-M: Writing – review & editing. AM: Writing – review & editing. DB-A: Writing – review & editing. RS: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. APCs for this article were covered by Universidad Continental, Huancayo, Peru.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adler, H., Gould, S., Hine, P., Snell, L. B., Wong, W., Houlihan, C. F., et al. (2022). Clinical features and management of human monkeypox: a retrospective observational study in the UK. Lancet Infect. Dis. 22, 1153–1162. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00228-6
Americo, J. L., Earl, P. L., and Moss, B. (2023). Virulence differences of mpox (monkeypox) virus clades I, IIa, and IIb. 1 in a small animal model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120:e2220415120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2220415120
Arita, I., Ježek, Z., Khodakevich, L., and Ruti, K. (1985). Human monkeypox: a newly emerged orthopoxvirus zoonosis in the tropical rain forests of Africa. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 34, 781–789. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1985.34.781
Atkinson, B., Burton, C., Pottage, T., Thompson, K. A., Ngabo, D., Crook, A., et al. (2022a). Infection-competent monkeypox virus contamination identified in domestic settings following an imported case of monkeypox into the UK. Environ. Microbiol. 24, 4561–4569. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.16129
Atkinson, B., Gould, S., Spencer, A., Onianwa, O., Furneaux, J., Grieves, J., et al. (2022b). Monkeypox virus contamination in an office-based workplace environment. J. Hosp. Infect. 130, 141–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2022.08.009
Becker, B., Bischoff, B., Brill, F. H. H., Steinmann, E., and Steinmann, J. (2017). Virucidal efficacy of a sonicated hydrogen peroxide system (Trophon® EPR) following European and German test methods. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control 12:Doc02. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000287
Beer, E. M., and Rao, V. B. (2019). A systematic review of the epidemiology of human monkeypox outbreaks and implications for outbreak strategy. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13:e0007791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007791
Bleichert, P., Espírito Santo, C., Hanczaruk, M., Meyer, H., and Grass, G. (2014). Inactivation of bacterial and viral biothreat agents on metallic copper surfaces. Biometals 27, 1179–1189. doi: 10.1007/s10534-014-9781-0
Brown, K., and Leggat, P. A. (2016). Human monkeypox: current state of knowledge and implications for the future. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 1:8. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed1010008
Campagna, M. V., Faure-Kumar, E., Treger, J. A., Cushman, J. D., Grogan, T. R., Kasahara, N., et al. (2016). Factors in the selection of surface disinfectants for use in a laboratory animal setting. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 55, 175–188. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27025810/
CDC (2003a). Update: multistate outbreak of monkeypox—Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2003. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 52, 561–564. Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. Environmental infection control guidelines CDC. (2003b). Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. Efficacy disinfection & sterilization guidelines guidelines library infection control CDC. (2008). Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. (2022) 2022 Mpox outbreak global map. Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. How it spreads Mpox poxvirus CDC. (2023a). Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. Science brief: detection and transmission of Mpox (formerly monkeypox) virus during the 2022 clade IIb outbreak. (2023b). Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. Clinical recognition Mpox poxvirus CDC. (2023c). Available at: www.cdc.gov
CDC. If you’re a close contact Mpox poxvirus CDC. (2023d). Available at: www.cdc.gov
de Oliveira, T. M. L., Rehfeld, I. S., Guedes, M. I. M. C., Ferreira, J. M. S., and Kroon, E. G. (2011). Lobato ZIP susceptibility of vaccinia virus to chemical disinfectants. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 85, 152–157. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.11-0144
Di Giulio, D. B., and Eckburg, P. B. (2004). Human monkeypox: an emerging zoonosis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 4, 15–25. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00856-9
Dye, C., and Kraemer, M. U. G. (2022). Investigating the monkeypox outbreak: Here’s what we know, and what we need to know. BMJ, 19–20. doi: 10.1136/bmj.o1314
Eggers, M., Eickmann, M., and Zorn, J. (2015). Rapid and effective virucidal activity of povidone-iodine products against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA). Infect. Dis. Ther. 4, 491–501. doi: 10.1007/s40121-015-0091-9
Eterpi, M., McDonnell, G., and Thomas, V. (2009). Disinfection efficacy against parvoviruses compared with reference viruses. J. Hosp. Infect. 73, 64–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.05.016
Farahbakhsh, K., and Smith, D. W. (2004). Removal of coliphages in secondary effluent by microfiltration—mechanisms of removal and impact of operating parameters. Water Res. 38, 585–592. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.10.018
Ferré, V. M., Bachelard, A., Zaidi, M., Armand-Lefevre, L., Descamps, D., Charpentier, C., et al. (2022). Detection of monkeypox virus in anorectal swabs from asymptomatic men who have sex with men in a sexually transmitted infection screening program in Paris, France. Ann. Intern. Med. 175, 1491–1492. doi: 10.7326/M22-2183
Gammon, D. B., Gowrishankar, B., Duraffour, S., Andrei, G., Upton, C., and Evans, D. H. (2010). Vaccinia virus-encoded ribonucleotide reductase subunits are differentially required for replication and pathogenesis. PLoS Pathog. 6:e1000984. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000984
Gazecka, M., Sniezek, J., Maciolek, K., Kowala-Piaskowska, A., and Zmora, P. (2023). Mpox virus detection in the wastewater and the number of hospitalized patients in the Poznan metropolitan area, Poland. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 133, 75–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2023.05.014
Gerba, C. P., Goyal, S. M., Hurst, C. J., and Labelle, R. L. (1980). Type and strain dependence of enterovirus adsorption to activated sludge, soils and estuarine sediments. Water Res. 14, 1197–1198. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(80)90176-1
Girón-Guzmán, I., Díaz-Reolid, A., Truchado, P., Carcereny, A., García-Pedemonte, D., Hernáez, B., et al. (2023). Spanish wastewater reveals the current spread of monkeypox virus. Water Res. 231:119621. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.119621
Goldmann, D. A. (2000). Transmission of viral respiratory infections in the home. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 19, S97–S102. doi: 10.1097/00006454-200010001-00002
Gould, S., Atkinson, B., Onianwa, O., Spencer, A., Furneaux, J., Grieves, J., et al. Air and surface sampling for monkeypox virus in UK hospitals. medRxiv. (2022): Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.21.22277864. [Epub ahead of preprint]
Gundy, P. M., Gerba, C. P., and Pepper, I. L. (2009). Survival of Coronaviruses in Water and Wastewater. Food Environ. Virol. 1, 10–14. doi: 10.1007/s12560-008-9001-6
Hernaez, B., Muñoz-Gómez, A., Sanchiz, A., Orviz, E., Valls-Carbo, A., Sagastagoitia, I., et al. (2023). Monitoring monkeypox virus in saliva and air samples in Spain: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Microbe 4, e21–e28. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00291-9
Hutson, C. L., Olson, V. A., Carroll, D. S., Abel, J. A., Hughes, C. M., Braden, Z. H., et al. (2009). A prairie dog animal model of systemic orthopoxvirus disease using west African and Congo basin strains of monkeypox virus. J. Gen. Virol. 90, 323–333. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.005108-0
Isidro, J., Borges, V., Pinto, M., Sobral, D., Santos, J. D., Nunes, A., et al. (2022). Phylogenomic characterization and signs of microevolution in the 2022 multi-country outbreak of monkeypox virus. Nat. Med. 28, 1569–1572. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01907-y
Ježek, Z., Arita, I., Mutombo, M., Dunn, C., Nakano, J. H., and Szczeniowski, M. (1986). Four generations of probable person-to-person transmission of human monkeypox. Am. J. Epidemiol. 123, 1004–1012. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114328
Ježek, Z., Grab, B. S., Szczeniowski, M. V., Paluku, K. M., and Mutombo, M. (1988a). Human monkeypox: secondary attack rates. Bull. World Health Organ. 66, 465–470.
Ježek, Z., Szczeniowski, M., Paluku, K., and Mutombo, M. (1987). Human monkeypox: clinical features of 282 patients. J. Infect. Dis. 156, 293–298. doi: 10.1093/infdis/156.2.293
Ježek, Z., Szczeniowski, M. P., Paluku, K. M., Mutombo, M., and Grab, B. (1988b). Human monkeypox: confusion with chickenpox. Acta Trop. 45, 297–307.
John, D. E., and Rose, J. B. (2005). Review of factors affecting microbial survival in groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 7345–7356. doi: 10.1021/es047995w
Jonge, E. F. D., Peterse, C. M., Koelewijn, J. M., van der Drift, A. R., van der Beek, R. F. H. J., Nagelkerke, E., et al. (2022). Science of the Total Environment The detection of monkeypox virus DNA in wastewater samples in the Netherlands. Sci. Total Environ. 852:158265. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158265
Kaler, J., Hussain, A., Flores, G., Kheiri, S., and Desrosiers, D. (2022). Monkeypox: a comprehensive review of transmission, pathogenesis, and manifestation. Cureus 14, e26531–e26511. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26531
Kampf, G., Rudolf, M., Labadie, J. C., and Barrett, S. P. (2002). Spectrum of antimicrobial activity and user acceptability of the hand disinfectant agent Sterillium® Gel. J. Hosp. Infect. 52, 141–147. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2002.1281
Kampf, G., Steinmann, J., and Rabenau, H. (2007). Suitability of vaccinia virus and bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) for determining activities of three commonly-used alcohol-based hand rubs against enveloped viruses. BMC Infect. Dis. 7, 1–6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-7-5
Kannan, S. R., Sachdev, S., Reddy, A. S., Kandasamy, S. L., Byrareddy, S. N., Lorson, C. L., et al. (2022). Mutations in the monkeypox virus replication complex: potential contributing factors to the 2022 outbreak. J. Autoimmun. 133:102928. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2022.102928
Karagoz, A., Tombuloglu, H., Alsaeed, M., Tombuloglu, G., AlRubaish, A. A., Mahmoud, A., et al. (2023). Monkeypox (mpox) virus: classification, origin, transmission, genome organization, antiviral drugs, and molecular diagnosis. J. Infect. Public Health 16, 531–541. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.02.003
Kipkorir, V., Dhali, A., Srichawla, B., Kutikuppala, S., Cox, M., Ochieng, D., et al. (2022). The re-emerging monkeypox disease. Trop. Med. Int. Health 27, 961–969. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13821
Kozlov, M. (2022). How does monkeypox spread? What scientists know. Nature 608, 655–656. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-02178-w
La Rosa, G., Mancini, P., Veneri, C., Ferraro, G. B., Lucentini, L., Iaconelli, M., et al. (2023). Detection of monkeypox virus DNA in airport Wastewater, Rome. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 29, 193–196. doi: 10.3201/eid2901.221311
Ladnyj, I. D., Ziegler, P., and Kima, E. (1972). A human infection caused by monkeypox virus in Basankusu Territory, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Bull. World Health Organ. 46, 593–597.
Learned, L. A., Wassa, M. G., Li, D. W., Olson, Y., Karem, V. A., Stempora, K., et al. (2005). Extended interhuman transmission of monkeypox in a hospital community in the Republic of the Congo, 2003. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 73, 428–434. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2005.73.428
León-Figueroa, D. A., Barboza, J. J., Garcia-Vasquez, E. A., Bonilla-Aldana, D. K., Diaz-Torres, M., Saldaña-Cumpa, H. M., et al. (2022). Epidemiological situation of monkeypox transmission by possible sexual contact: a systematic review. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 7. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7100267
Lu, T., Wu, Z., Jiang, S., Lu, L., and Liu, H. (2022). The current emergence of monkeypox: the recurrence of another smallpox? Biosaf. Health 4, 369–375. doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2022.09.004
Mahase, E. (2022). Seven monkeypox cases are confirmed in England. BMJ 377:o1239. doi: 10.1136/bmj.o1239
McDevitt, J. J., Lai, K. M., Rudnick, S. N., Houseman, E. A., First, M. W., and Milton, D. K. (2007). Characterization of UVC light sensitivity of vaccinia virus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5760–5766. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00110-07
McDevitt, J. J., Milton, D. K., Rudnick, S. N., and First, M. W. (2008). Inactivation of poxviruses by upper-room UVC light in a simulated hospital room environment. PLoS One 3:e3186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003186
Meister, T. L., Tao, R., Brüggemann, Y., Todt, D., Steinmann, J., Timm, J., et al. (2023). Efficient inactivation of monkeypox virus by World Health Organization–recommended hand rub formulations and alcohols. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 29, 189–192. doi: 10.3201/eid2901.221429
Mellon, G., Rubenstein, E., Antoine, M., Ferré, V. M., Gabassi, A., Molina, J. M., et al. (2023). Air detection of monkeypox virus in a dedicated outpatient clinic room for monkeypox infection diagnosis. J. Infect. 86, 256–308. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.12.025
Moore, M., and Zahra, F. (2022). “Monkeypox” in Stat Pearls (Treasur Island (FL): Stat Pearls Publishing)
Morgan, C. N., Whitehill, F., Doty, J. B., Schulte, J., Matheny, A., Stringer, J., et al. (2022). Environmental persistence of monkeypox virus on surfaces in household of person with travel-associated infection, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2021. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 28, 1982–1989. doi: 10.3201/eid2810.221047
Nakoune, E., Lampaert, E., Ndjapou, S. G., Janssens, C., Zuniga, I., Van Herp, M., et al. (2017). A nosocomial outbreak of human monkeypox in the central African Republic. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 4, 1–4. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofx168
Nörz, D., Pfefferle, S., Brehm, T. T., Franke, G., Grewe, I., Knobling, B., et al. (2022). Evidence of surface contamination in hospital rooms occupied by patients infected with monkeypox. Euro Surveill. 27, 1–6. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.26.2200477
Ogoina, D., Izibewule, J. H., Ogunleye, A., Ederiane, E., Anebonam, U., Neni, A., et al. (2019). The 2017 human monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria-report of outbreak experience and response in the Niger Delta University Teaching Hospital, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. PLoS One 14:e0214229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214229
Ogoina, D., and Ogunsola, F. T. (2022). Monkeypox and the healthcare environment. Lancet Microbe 3, e889–e890. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00286-5
Ogoina, D., and Yinka-Ogunleye, A. (2022). Sexual history of human monkeypox patients seen at a tertiary hospital in Bayelsa, Nigeria. Int. J. STD AIDS 33, 928–932. doi: 10.1177/09564624221119335
Owhonda, G., Wali, I. A., Nwadiuto, I., Abikor, V., Solomon, L., Luke, A., et al. (2023). Monkeypox disease with predominant genital symptoms: A Nigerian case report. Arch. Curr. Res. Int. 23, 36–42. doi: 10.9734/acri/2023/v23i2557
Palich, R., Burrel, S., Monsel, G., Nouchi, A., Bleibtreu, A., Seang, S., et al. (2022). Viral loads in clinical samples of men with monkeypox virus infection: a French case series. Lancet Infect. Dis. 23, 74–80. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00586-2
Patrono, L. V., Pléh, K., Samuni, L., Ulrich, M., Röthemeier, C., Sachse, A., et al. (2020). Monkeypox virus emergence in wild chimpanzees reveals distinct clinical outcomes and viral diversity. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 955–965. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0706-0
Peiró-Mestres, A., Fuertes, I., Camprubí-Ferrer, D., Marcos, M., Vilella, A., Navarro, M., et al. (2022). Frequent detection of monkeypox virus DNA in saliva, semen, and other clinical samples from 12 patients, Barcelona, Spain, May to June 2022. Euro Surveill. 27. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.28.2200503
Petersen, B. W., Harms, T. J., Reynolds, M. G., and Harrison, L. H. (2016). Use of vaccinia virus smallpox vaccine in laboratory and health care personnel at risk for occupational exposure to orthopoxviruses—ecommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2015. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 65, 257–262. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6510a2
Pfeiffer, J. A., Collingwood, A., Rider, L. E., Minhaj, F. S., Matheny, A. M., Kling, C., et al. (2022). High-contact object and surface contamination in a household of persons with monkeypox virus. Infection-Utah, June 2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 71, 1092–1094. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7134e1
Rabenau, H. F., Rapp, I., and Steinmann, J. (2010). Can vaccinia virus be replaced by MVA virus for testing virucidal activity of chemical disinfectants? BMC Infect. Dis. 10, 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-185
Riopelle, J. C., Munster, V. J., and Port, J. R.. Atypical and unique transmission of monkeypox virus during the 2022 outbreak: an overview of the current state of knowledge. (2022).
Russell, A. D. (2008). “Factors influencing the efficacy of antimicrobial agents” in Principles and practice of disinfection, preservation and sterilization (London: Blackwell), 98–127.
Salvato, R. S., Rodrigues Ikeda, M. L., Barcellos, R. B., Godinho, F. M., Sesterheim, P., Bitencourt, L. C. B., et al. (2022). Possible occupational infection of healthcare workers with monkeypox virus, Brazil. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 28, 2520–2523. doi: 10.3201/eid2812.221343
Sassi, H. P., Ikner, L. A., Abd-Elmaksoud, S., Gerba, C. P., and Pepper, I. L. (2018). Comparative survival of viruses during thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.205
Sharkey, M. E., Babler, K. M., Abelson, S. M., Alsuliman, B., Amirali, A., Comerford, S., et al. First detection of the monkeypox virus using wastewater-based surveillance in Miami-Dade County. (2022), Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4236277
Sharkey, M. E., Babler, K. M., Shukla, B. S., Abelson, S. M., Alsuliman, B., Amirali, A., et al. (2023). Monkeypox viral nucleic acids detected using both DNA and RNA extraction workflows. Sci. Total Environ. 890:164289. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164289
Siddharta, A., Pfaender, S., Vielle, N. J., Dijkman, R., Friesland, M., Becker, B., et al. (2017). Virucidal activity of World Health Organization–recommended formulations against enveloped viruses, including Zika, Ebola, and emerging coronaviruses. J. Infect. Dis. 215, 902–906. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix046
Spicknall, I. H., Koopman, J. S., Nicas, M., Pujol, J. M., Li, S., and Eisenberg, J. N. (2010). Informing optimal environmental influenza interventions: how the host, agent, and environment alter dominant routes of transmission. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6:e1000969-e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000969
Steinmann, J., Paulmann, D., Becker, B., Bischoff, B., and Steinmann, E. (2012). Comparison of virucidal activity of alcohol-based hand sanitizers versus antimicrobial hand soaps in vitro and in vivo. J. Hosp. Infect. 82, 277–280. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.08.005
Thornhill, J. P., Barkati, S., Walmsley, S., Rockstroh, J., Antinori, A., Harrison, L. B., et al. (2022a). Monkeypox virus infection in humans across 16 countries—April–June 2022. N. Engl. J. Med. 387, 679–691. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207323
Thornhill, J. P., Palich, R., Ghosn, J., Walmsley, S., Moschese, D., Cortes, C. P., et al. (2022b). Human monkeypox virus infection in women and non-binary individuals during the 2022 outbreaks: a global case series. Lancet 400, 1953–1965. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02187-0
Tiwari, A., Adhikari, S., Kaya, D., Islam, A., Malla, B., Sherchan, S. P., et al. (2023). Science of the total environment monkeypox outbreak: wastewater and environmental surveillance perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 856:159166. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159166
Upadhayay, S., Arthur, R., Soni, D., Yadav, P., Navik, U., Singh, R., et al. (2022). Monkeypox infection: the past, present, and future. Int. Immunopharmacol. 113:109382. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2022.109382
Vaughan, A., Aarons, E., Astbury, J., Brooks, T., Chand, M., Flegg, P., et al. (2020). Human-to-human transmission of monkeypox virus, United Kingdom, October 2018. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, 782–785. doi: 10.3201/eid2604.191164
Wannigama, D. L., Amarasiri, M., Hongsing, P., Hurst, C., Modchang, C., Chadsuthi, S., et al. (2023). Multiple traces of monkeypox detected in non-sewered wastewater with sparse sampling from a densely populated metropolitan area in Asia. Sci. Total Environ. 858:159816. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159816
Wieder-Feinsod, A., Zilberman, T., Erster, O., Kolasko, G. W., Biber, A., Gophen, R., et al. (2023). Overlooked monkeypox cases among men having sex with men during the 2022 outbreak—a retrospective study. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 128, 58–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.12.014
Wurtzer, S., Levert, M., Dhenain, E., Boni, M., Tournier, J. N., Londinsky, N., et al. (2022). First detection of monkeypox virus genome in sewersheds in France: the potential of wastewater-based epidemiology for monitoring emerging disease. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 9, 991–996. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00693
Wutzler, P., and Sauerbrei, A. (2004). Virucidal activity of the new disinfectant monopercitric acid. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 39, 194–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2004.01561.x
Zachary, K. C., and Shenoy, E. S. (2022). Monkeypox transmission following exposure in healthcare facilities in nonendemic settings: low risk but limited literature. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 43, 920–924. doi: 10.1017/ice.2022.152
Glossary
Keywords: Mpox, contamination, surface, hospital, epidemiology
Citation: Taha AM, Katamesh BE, Hassan AR, Abdelwahab OA, Rustagi S, Nguyen D, Silva-Cajaleon K, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Mohanty A, Bonilla-Aldana DK and Sah R (2023) Environmental detection and spreading of mpox in healthcare settings: a narrative review. Front. Microbiol. 14:1272498. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1272498
Edited by:
Shailendra Saxena, King George’s Medical University, IndiaReviewed by:
Ohad Shifman, Israel Institute for Biological Research, IsraelMilad Zandi, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Copyright © 2023 Taha, Katamesh, Hassan, Abdelwahab, Rustagi, Nguyen, Silva-Cajaleon, Rodriguez-Morales, Mohanty, Bonilla-Aldana and Sah. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: D. Katterine Bonilla-Aldana, dbonilla@continental.edu.pe