3 ms·
Not sure why they used viruses? Most of the interesting fecal pathogens are bacteria — particularly E. coli, Clostridium dificile, Vibrio spp., Shigella spp.. T
by scythe 3y ago
Not sure why they used viruses? Most of the interesting fecal pathogens are bacteria — particularly E. coli, Clostridium dificile, Vibrio spp., Shigella spp.. The major exception is polio, which has thankfully become rare. Bacteria are a bit larger and probably less diffusive than viruses, raising questions about the generalizability.
- jallbrit 3y ago> Aerosolization of viruses via toilet flushing may be more impactful, compared with aerosolization of bacteria, given differences in response to humidity and in droplet size. Various studies have indicated that viruses retain viability at both low or high relative humidities and, therefore can remain infectious in droplet nuclei and other aerosols, which may stay suspended in the air for hours to days. Also, viruses are likely to aerosolize more easily than bacteria and 94% of virus has been shown to partition into liquid phase rather than solid phase.
- Aachen 3y agoIf my very rudimentary biology knowledge serves me well, viruses are a lot smaller than bacteria because they're just little bits of RNA and bacteria have a whole bunch of stuff around that to actually live. Wouldn't the smallest realistically dangerous particle be the thing to test with? Larger things might not be carried by the droplets, but shouldn't the other way around be fine? I'm just guessing/reasoning it out here and would be happy to learn more if you know this isn't correct!
- scythe 3y agoMy suggestion is that the more diffusive, small particles are less likely to be trapped by a lid. That could mean that larger, heavier bacteria follow more ballistic and less Brownian trajectories and their distribution would be affected more by putting the lid down.