Effective Heat Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2

Wang, Tony T.; Lien, Christopher Z.; Li, Shufeng; Selvaraj, Prabhuanand

doi:10.1101/2020.04.29.20085498

Cited by 53 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among environmental surfaces specimens in our study, all positive specimens were collected within 3 days (≤3 days) after diagnosis. It means that without disinfection, the SARS-CoV-2 could survive on environmental surfaces for at least 3 days, and in other studies, the survival time was 0 to 14 days [33][34][35][36], which was consistent with current understanding. Therefore, enhance surfaces cleaning and disinfection were important and essential [20].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases

Luo

Liú

Zhang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air in non-health care settings among COVID-19 cases.Methods and findingsWe explored the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air by collecting air and swabbing environmental surfaces among 39 COVID-19 cases in Guangzhou, China. The specimens were tested by RT-PCR testing. The information collected for COVID-19 cases included basic demographic, clinical severity, onset of symptoms, radiological testing, laboratory testing and hospital admission. A total of 641 environmental surfaces and air specimens were collected among 39 COVID-19 cases before disinfection. Among them, 20 specimens (20/641, 3.1%) were tested positive from 9 COVID-19 cases (9/39, 23.1%), with 5 (5/101, 5.0%) positive specimens from 3 asymptomatic cases, 5 (5/220, 2.3%) from 3 mild cases, and 10 (10/374, 2.7%) from 3 moderate cases. All positive specimens were collected within 3 days after diagnosis, and 10 (10/42, 23.8%) were found in toilet (5 on toilet bowl, 4 on sink/faucet/shower, 1 on floor drain), 4 (4/21, 19.0%) in anteroom (2 on water dispenser/cup/bottle, 1 on chair/table, 1 on TV remote), 1 (1/8, 12.5%) in kitchen (1 on dining-table), 1 (1/18, 5.6%) in bedroom (1 on bed/sheet pillow/bedside table), 1 (1/5, 20.0%) in car (1 on steering wheel/seat/handlebar) and 3 (3/20, 21.4%) on door knobs. Air specimens in room (0/10, 0.0%) and car (0/1, 0.0%) were all negative.ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 was found on environmental surfaces especially in toilet, and could survive for several days. We provided evidence of potential for SARS-CoV-2 transmission through contamination of environmental surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases

Luo

Liú

Zhang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, heat treatment is often used to inactivate saliva patient samples, 29,30 thus conferring added biosafety by decreasing the likelihood of viral transmission via sample handling by personnel. Common conditions for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation are heating at 56-60°C for 30-60 min, 30,31 although other temperature and times have been examined. 30 Using intact, γirradiated SARS-CoV-2 spiked into fresh human saliva (that was confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 negative), we observed dramatic time-and temperature-dependent improvement in SARS-CoV-2 detection by direct RT-qPCR, without the use of RNA extraction.…”

Section: Development Of a Direct Saliva-to-rt-qpcr Process For Detectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the time and duration of heating the saliva sample is critical. Standard protocols for heat inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 call for heating at ~60 o C for 30 minutes;30,31 while these conditions inactivate the virus, they do not allow for successful SARS-CoV-2 detection via direct RT-qPCR, likely because of the persistence of as-yet-unidentified factors in saliva that are inhibitory to RT-qPCR. Heating at 95°C for 30 minutes likely inactivates these inhibitory components and allows for excellent SARS-CoV-2 detection in this direct process that bypasses RNA isolation/purification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Saliva-Based Molecular Testing for SARS-CoV-2 that Bypasses RNA Extraction

Rañoa

Holland

Alnaji

et al. 2020

Preprint

124

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Convenient, repeatable, large-scale molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 would be a key weapon to help control the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols are invasive and rely on numerous items that can be subject to supply chain bottlenecks, and as such are not suitable for frequent repeat testing. Specifically, personal protective equipment (PPE), nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, the associated viral transport media (VTM), and kits for RNA isolation and purification have all been in short supply at various times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 is spread through droplets and aerosols transmitted through person-to-person contact, and thus saliva may be a relevant medium for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Here we describe a saliva-based testing method that bypasses the need for RNA isolation/purification. In experiments with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus spiked into saliva, this method has a limit of detection of 500-1000 viral particles per mL, rivalling the standard NP swab method, and initial studies also show excellent performance with 100 clinical samples. This saliva-based process is operationally simple, utilizes readily available materials, and can be easily implemented by existing testing sites, thus allowing for high-throughput, rapid, and repeat testing of large populations. Graphical Abstract3 BackgroundThe slow roll-out and inconsistent availability of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has hobbled efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries. Testing protocols based on the use of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs as the collection agent, placed in a tube containing viral transport media (VTM), followed by RNA isolation/purification and subsequent analysis by RT-qPCR is currently the most common method ( Figure 1A). 1,2 While some variant of this process has been implemented worldwide, there are multiple challenges with this workflow. Sample collection using NP swabs requires healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) to collect samples, the swabs can be uncomfortable for the patients during collection, and the swabs and the associated VTM have been in short supply at many times and in most locations. In addition, RNA isolation/purification is another significant bottleneck, both in the time and labor required for this process, and in the availability of the equipment and reagents. All of these components also add to the cost of the testing process.There is emerging consensus that widespread, frequently repeated testing is necessary for a safer return to activities that are important for society. Given the data suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread by pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic carriers, 3-6 localized outbreaks could be dramatically reduced or prevented if individuals shedding SARS-CoV-2 could be readily identified and isolated. For example, imagine a testing bubble placed over a group that desires face-to-face interaction -employees of a company, members of a sports team, extended family networks, etc. If all members of...

show abstract

“…SARS‐CoV‐2 in virus transport medium (optimal conditions for virus survival) is highly stable at 4°C (< 0.7 log 10 reduction on day 14; Chin et al ., 2020). This is similar to experiments carried out with SARS‐CoV which demonstrated that the virus could survive for up to 14 days at 4°C in hospital wastewater, domestic sewage and dechlorinated tap water, but only persists for 2 days at 20°C (Wang et al ., 2020b). Similarly, a human coronavirus causing common cold (HCoV 229E) remained infectious for 10–100 days in tap water, yet for only 2–4 days in wastewater as determined by TCID 50 (tissue culture infectious dose 50% technique; Gundy et al ., 2008).…”

Section: Persistence Of Sars‐cov‐2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In virus transport medium, SARS‐CoV‐2 was inactivated after 5 min at 70°C (Chin et al ., 2020). In cell culture supernatant, the virus was inactivated in less than 30 and 15 min at 56°C and 65°C respectively (Wang et al ., 2020b). This set of data confirm that pasteurization will inactivate SARS‐CoV‐2 and substantiate the WHO statement that SARS‐COV‐2 is not more resistant to heat than the usual bacteria found in food.…”

Section: Sars‐cov‐2 Inactivation Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID 19: challenges for virologists in the food industry

Zuber

Brüssow

2020

Microbial Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only a challenge for public health and hospitals, but affects many aspects of our societies. This Lilliput minireview deals with problems that the pandemic causes for the food industry, addressing the presence and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in the food environment, methods of virus inactivation and the protection of the food worker and the consumer. So far food has not been implicated in the transmission of the infection, but social disruptions caused by the pandemic could cause problems with food security.

show abstract

Effective Heat Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2

Cited by 53 publications

References 2 publications

Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases

Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases

Saliva-Based Molecular Testing for SARS-CoV-2 that Bypasses RNA Extraction

COVID 19: challenges for virologists in the food industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About