Cargando…
Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus
BACKGROUND: Thermal inactivation is a conventional and effective method of eliminating the infectivity of pathogens from specimens in clinical and biological laboratories, and reducing the risk of occupational exposure and environmental contamination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, specimens from pat...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7 |
_version_ | 1785035863067983872 |
---|---|
author | Gu, Xinxia Cao, Ting Mou, Jun Liu, Jie |
author_facet | Gu, Xinxia Cao, Ting Mou, Jun Liu, Jie |
author_sort | Gu, Xinxia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Thermal inactivation is a conventional and effective method of eliminating the infectivity of pathogens from specimens in clinical and biological laboratories, and reducing the risk of occupational exposure and environmental contamination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, specimens from patients and potentially infected individuals were heat treated and processed under BSL-2 conditions in a safe, cost-effective, and timely manner. The temperature and duration of heat treatment are optimized and standardized in the protocol according to the susceptibility of the pathogen and the impact on the integrity of the specimens, but the heating device is often undefined. Devices and medium transferring the thermal energy vary in heating rate, specific heat capacity, and conductivity, resulting in variations in efficiency and inactivation outcome that may compromise biosafety and downstream biological assays. METHODS: We evaluated the water bath and hot air oven in terms of pathogen inactivation efficiency, which are the most commonly used inactivation devices in hospitals and biological laboratories. By evaluating the temperature equilibrium and viral titer elimination under various conditions, we studied the devices and their inactivation outcomes under identical treatment protocol, and to analyzed the factors, such as energy conductivity, specific heat capacity, and heating rate, underlying the inactivation efficiencies. RESULTS: We compared thermal inactivation of coronavirus using different devices, and have found that the water bath was more efficient at reducing infectivity, with higher heat transfer and thermal equilibration than a forced hot air oven. In addition to the efficiency, the water bath showed relative consistency in temperature equilibration of samples of different volumes, reduced the need for prolonged heating, and eliminated the risk of pathogen spread by forced airflow. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the proposal to define the heating device in the thermal inactivation protocol and in the specimen management policy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10153051 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101530512023-05-03 Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus Gu, Xinxia Cao, Ting Mou, Jun Liu, Jie Virol J Research BACKGROUND: Thermal inactivation is a conventional and effective method of eliminating the infectivity of pathogens from specimens in clinical and biological laboratories, and reducing the risk of occupational exposure and environmental contamination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, specimens from patients and potentially infected individuals were heat treated and processed under BSL-2 conditions in a safe, cost-effective, and timely manner. The temperature and duration of heat treatment are optimized and standardized in the protocol according to the susceptibility of the pathogen and the impact on the integrity of the specimens, but the heating device is often undefined. Devices and medium transferring the thermal energy vary in heating rate, specific heat capacity, and conductivity, resulting in variations in efficiency and inactivation outcome that may compromise biosafety and downstream biological assays. METHODS: We evaluated the water bath and hot air oven in terms of pathogen inactivation efficiency, which are the most commonly used inactivation devices in hospitals and biological laboratories. By evaluating the temperature equilibrium and viral titer elimination under various conditions, we studied the devices and their inactivation outcomes under identical treatment protocol, and to analyzed the factors, such as energy conductivity, specific heat capacity, and heating rate, underlying the inactivation efficiencies. RESULTS: We compared thermal inactivation of coronavirus using different devices, and have found that the water bath was more efficient at reducing infectivity, with higher heat transfer and thermal equilibration than a forced hot air oven. In addition to the efficiency, the water bath showed relative consistency in temperature equilibration of samples of different volumes, reduced the need for prolonged heating, and eliminated the risk of pathogen spread by forced airflow. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the proposal to define the heating device in the thermal inactivation protocol and in the specimen management policy. BioMed Central 2023-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10153051/ /pubmed/37131169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Gu, Xinxia Cao, Ting Mou, Jun Liu, Jie Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title | Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title_full | Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title_fullStr | Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title_full_unstemmed | Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title_short | Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
title_sort | water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guxinxia waterbathismoreefficientthanhotairovenatthermalinactivationofcoronavirus AT caoting waterbathismoreefficientthanhotairovenatthermalinactivationofcoronavirus AT moujun waterbathismoreefficientthanhotairovenatthermalinactivationofcoronavirus AT liujie waterbathismoreefficientthanhotairovenatthermalinactivationofcoronavirus |