Replies

Here is the paper, I believe (in preprint)

Evaluation of heating and chemical protocols for inactivating SARS-CoV-2

Boris Pastorino, Franck Touret, Magali Gilles, Xavier de Lamballerie, Remi N. Charrel
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.036855
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF
Abstract

Clinical samples collected in COVID-19 patients are commonly manipulated in BSL-2 laboratories for diagnostic purpose. We used the French norm NF-EN-14476+A2 derived from the European standard EN-14885. To avoid the risk of exposure of laboratory workers, we showed that Sodium-dodecyl-sulfate and Triton-X100 must be added to guanidinium thiocyanate-lysis buffers to obtain a 6-log reduction of infectious virus. Heating protocol consisting of 92°C-15min was more effective rather than 56°C-30min and 60°C-60min to achieve 6-log reduction.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.036855v1

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.036855v1.full.pdf

Just did a quick read of the PDF. I think this is more for laboratory workers. I'll check out the references shortly. I think the fomites issues are resolved with the lower heating, specifically 65C and 70C for 15 to 30 minutes.

Viral reduction at the MERs study temperatures were still substantial for concentrated virus.

On the PDF they locked the copy feature for the references which will make it slow to review. I haven't seen that before.