Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Occup Environ Hyg. 2022 Jan 28;19(2):91–101. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2021.2015075

Figure 3:

Figure 3:

Efficacy of cleaning methods against MHV-A59 in simulated saliva. Cleaning method efficacy (Log10 reduction; solid bars, left-y axis) and dynamic range (Log10; patterned bars; right y-axis) across all coupon materials immediately p.i. (A, C) or 2-hours (B, D) p.i. of MHV in simulated saliva onto the surface. Black bars, coupons pre-wetted with a solution containing Dawn Ultra (A, B) or Tide Plus Bleach Alternative (C, D) and wiped with a water-dampened wipe. Light gray bars, coupons pre-wetted with hard water by trigger-pull sprayer and wiped with a damp wipe. Dark gray bars, coupons wiped with a water-dampened wipe only (no pre-wetting step). Displayed is the mean and standard deviation. The target 3-log reduction is indicated by a dashed line on the y-axis. Statistical significance was determined by 2-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. *, p ≤0.05; **, p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; ****, p ≤ 0.0001.