SARS-CoV-2 (click here) was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A).
A study performed on COVID-19 shows shorter times. That bothers me. I believe there needs to be peer review of the outcomes with COVID-19 when it comes to transmission and viability on fomite. If there are several labs stating the same results that would be best.
These are both coronavirus and their characteristics are the same, however, when it comes to the viability of the virus there needs to be replicated outcomes for COVID-19.
One thing to remember is that MATERIALS are different today. I would like to know the tests are on current materials as well as the standard materials.
Thank you.
I am also not used to reading about this in "Wired" either. I am glad the information is in publication to the public, but, it worries me when the actual study is difficult to find. Don't get me wrong, I like the public having this information, but, I rather the original study(ies) were linked to it. Thank you.
Potentially several hours, (click here) or even days, according to a preprint published this week by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, Princeton, and the University of California, Los Angeles. The researchers exposed various materials to the virus in the lab. They found that it remained virulent on surfaces for a lengthy period: from up to 24 hours on cardboard to up to two or three days on plastic and stainless steel. It also remained viable in aerosols—attached to particles that stay aloft in the air—for up to three hours. That’s all basically in line with the stability of SARS, the coronavirus that caused an outbreak in the early 2000s, the researchers note.
These are both coronavirus and their characteristics are the same, however, when it comes to the viability of the virus there needs to be replicated outcomes for COVID-19.
One thing to remember is that MATERIALS are different today. I would like to know the tests are on current materials as well as the standard materials.
Thank you.
I am also not used to reading about this in "Wired" either. I am glad the information is in publication to the public, but, it worries me when the actual study is difficult to find. Don't get me wrong, I like the public having this information, but, I rather the original study(ies) were linked to it. Thank you.
Potentially several hours, (click here) or even days, according to a preprint published this week by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, Princeton, and the University of California, Los Angeles. The researchers exposed various materials to the virus in the lab. They found that it remained virulent on surfaces for a lengthy period: from up to 24 hours on cardboard to up to two or three days on plastic and stainless steel. It also remained viable in aerosols—attached to particles that stay aloft in the air—for up to three hours. That’s all basically in line with the stability of SARS, the coronavirus that caused an outbreak in the early 2000s, the researchers note.
