tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Virol J
. 2023 May 2;20(1):84.
doi: 10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7. Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus
Xinxia Gu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ting Cao[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jun Mou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jie Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
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.
Keywords: Biosafety; Heat transfer; Heating rate; Infectivity; Specific heat capacity; Virus.
. 2023 May 2;20(1):84.
doi: 10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7. Water bath is more efficient than hot air oven at thermal inactivation of coronavirus
Xinxia Gu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ting Cao[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jun Mou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jie Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 37131169
- DOI: 10.1186/s12985-023-02038-7
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.
Keywords: Biosafety; Heat transfer; Heating rate; Infectivity; Specific heat capacity; Virus.