Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277105›Full record

ArticleMedical hypotheses2021

Why does SARS-CoV-2 survive longer on plastic than on paper?

Denis E Corpet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical hypotheses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Denis E CorpetEmeritus Professor of Hygiene, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire Toulouse, University of Toulouse, ENVT, 23 chemin des Capelles, 31300 Toulouse, France; Ex team-leader, Food and Cancer team E9, INRAE Toxalim laboratory, Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement, France. Electronic address: d.corpet@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Covid-19 coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is inactivated much faster on paper (3 h) than on plastic (7 d). By classifying materials according to virus stability on their surface, the following list is obtained (from long to short stability): polypropylene (mask), plastic, glass, stainless steel, pig skin, cardboard, banknote, cotton, wood, paper, tissue, copper. These observations and other studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may be inactivated by dryness on water absorbent porous materials but sheltered by long-persisting micro-droplets of water on waterproof surfaces. If such physical phenomenons were confirmed by direct evidence, the persistence of the virus on any surface could be predicted, and new porous objects could be designed to eliminate the virus faster.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPaperPlasticsAdsorptionAnimalsCOVID-19DehydrationFomitesHumansHumidityIn Vitro TechniquesPorositySARS-CoV-2Surface PropertiesSwineVirus InactivationPlasticsWaterCoronavirusEnveloped virusInactivationMechanismsPersistenceSurface

Identifiers

PMID33277105
PMCPMC7695943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.