A preprint (a scientific article that has not yet undergone peer-review, so is not considered “vetted” yet) was recently posted on MedRxiv and has generated quite a lot of press. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1.full.pdf I wanted to put this work in some context.
To start with, this is very important work and it cannot be done by most scientists. It has to be done in a high security laboratory, also known as BioSafety Level-4 (BSL-4) because we currently have no treatment for SARS-CoV-2 (they call it HCoV-19 in the preprint, which is a little confusing) and it can be deadly. The work was done at the National Institutes of Health BSL-4 lab in Hamilton, Montana at the Rocky Mountain Labs.
The researchers put the virus in a nebulizer with some liquid to put the virus into small liquid droplets, kind of an artificial cough or sneeze. The droplets they made are smaller than 5 micrometers, so called aerosols. They also put the virus directly on various surfaces, copper, stainless steel, plastic, and cardboard. After they did these things to the virus, they waited and tested to see if the virus could make cells sick. To do this, they put the virus on cells in a petri plate (not exactly a petri plate, but similar). Then they used smaller and smaller amounts of the virus (dilutions) until it no longer made the cells sick. This is called a TCID50 test, (Tissue Culture, Infectious Dose 50% test). It is a pretty easy test to do, even I have done some (not with SARS-CoV-2, with flu vaccine!). You can tell how active or “viable” (the term used in the preprint) the virus is by how much you can dilute the virus before it stops making the cells sick. All of these experiments were done in controlled laboratory conditions (65% relative humidly (RH) and 21-23C for aerosols, 40% RH for surfaces).
The researchers found that the virus lost about 90% of its viability in aerosols after 3 hours. The virus lost about 99.9% of its viability, on plastic by 72 hours and on stainless steel by 48 hours but was still detectable. On copper the virus lost over 99% of its viability after 4 hours, and could not be detected after 4 hours. No virus could be detected after 24 hours on cardboard. Loss of viability in all conditions was exponential, so much more viability was lost earlier. The half-life (time until 1/2 of viability was gone) for aerosols was about 2.5 hours, for copper 3.5 hours, for cardboard 8.5 hours, for stainless steel 13 hours and for plastic 16 hours.
These viability values are all very similar to SARS-CoV-1, which is more deadly than SARS-CoV-2 but spreads much less well. So it is not clear why SARS-CoV-2 seems to spread much better than SARS-CoV-1, it does not appear to be due to it’s stability on aerosols or surfaces. The researchers state that SARS-CoV-2 transmission via aerosols (very small droplets) and surfaces is possible. They do not state, but I understand, that this means that the main means of transmission is probably directly through respiratory droplets, so keep your distance and cover your cough! Since transmission via surfaces is possible, also WASH YOUR HANDS!
There are a couple of caveats about this paper, all acknowledged by the researchers. All experiments were done in a controlled lab environment, what happens in the “real world” is less clear. More importantly, you may have noticed that I used viability instead of infectivity (as did the authors). We do not know what the infectious dose for SARS-CoV-2 is [N.B. I have been reminded, thanks Charles Haas, that infectious dose is a bit of a misnomer, it is really more of a statistical issue, but I did not want to get into details]. So maybe when the virus is in an aerosol or on a surface it could lose too much viability to be infectious, even if it is still detectable with this TCID50 test. These are very important numbers to know, but will be hard to test, since we can’t infect people with the virus in an experiment.