Table 4.

Effectiveness of the UV decontamination method in inactivating viable MS2 virus on hydrophilic sample-G FFRs

UV dose (mj/cm2)	Liquid droplet deposition		Vapor deposition		Aerosol deposition
	MS2 recovered (log)*	ED†	MS2 recovered (log)*	ED†	MS2 recovered (log)*	ED†
0 (control)	5.56 ± 0.32	Not determined	6.15 ±0.19	Not determined	6.08± 0.14	Not determined
90	5.09 ± 0.19	0.47 ± 0.41	5.44 ± 0.25	0.71 ± 0.27	5.27 ± 0.19	0.81 ±0.10
252	4.49 ± 0.46	1.07 ±0.30	4.73 ± 0.38	1.42 ± 0.30	4.50 ± 0.24	1.58 ±0.41
480	3.83 ± 0.23	1.73 ±0.41	4.01 ± 0.23	2.14 ± 0.29	3.82 ± 0.15	2.26 ± 0.21
738	3.12 ±0.17	2.44 ± 0.10	3.39 ± 0.21	2.76 ± 0.26	3.20 ± 0.14	2.88 ± 0.25
1488‡	0.31 ± 0.32	5.25 ± 0.26	0.29 ± 0.26	5.86 ± 0.49	0.10 ±0.23	5.98 ± 0.49

^*Log: Log reduction is unitless that correlates to a 10-fold reduction.

^†Mean ED (effectiveness of the decontamination) ± RSD (n = 3).

^‡1,488 mj/cm²: at this UVGI dose, 94% of our experiments yielded to levels below minimum detection limit (B-MDL).