T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e

C or r e sp ondence

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2
as Compared with SARS-CoV-1
To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus thatis now named severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 andis now causing a pandemic.1 We analyzed theaerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 andcompared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely
related human coronavirus.2We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 andSARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces
and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian
regression model (see the Methods section in theSupplementary Appendix, available with the fulltext of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2
nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1
Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50%
tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter)
were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum tocreate an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between
20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples
obtained from the upper and lower respiratory
tract in humans.
Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 andSARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions(aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates.
SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols
throughout the duration of our experiment(3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction
was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1,
from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Fig. 1A).
SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic andstainless steel than on copper and cardboard, andviable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Fig. 1A), although
the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours
on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours
on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper,
no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours
and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after
8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 wasmeasured after 24 hours and no viable SARSCoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Fig. 1A).
Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, asindicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50
per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time
(Fig. 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 andSARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours
and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 forSARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1(Fig. 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses werealso similar on copper. On cardboard, the halflife of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARSCoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses wason stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately
5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours onplastic (Fig. 1C). Estimated differences in the halflives of the two viruses were small except for
those on cardboard (Fig. 1C). Individual replicate
data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there wasmore variation in the experiment, resulting in alarger standard error) for cardboard than forother surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise
caution in interpreting this result.
We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2
was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicatesthat differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from otherfactors, including high viral loads in the uppern engl j med﻿﻿  nejm.org﻿

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on April 4, 2020. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

1n engl j med

100101102

103

104

00.5

2.0

Hours

1.0

Aerosols

00

Hours

1.0

1.0

nejm.org

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on April 4, 2020. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
3.0

3.0

40

60

80

0204060

80004

SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-102468861010Copper100100102102101103103

101

104

104

1000

204060

80

4060

80

100

101102103

104

100

0246810Hours

SARS-CoV-1

Cardboard

20SARS-CoV-20101

10120102

102
100102

103

103
101

103

104

104

Hours

100

101

102

103

104

104

0

Cardboard

100

100

Copper101

101
0 1 4 8 24 48 72 96

102

102

Cardboard0 1 4 8 24 48 72 96

103

103

2SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-1

Aerosols

2.0

2.0

3.0

104

Copper104

246810C Half-Life of Viable Virus

100

101102103

104100101102

103

104

Aerosols

B Predicted Decay of Virus Titer

Titer(TCID50/liter of air)

Titer
(TCID50/liter of air)

Titer
(TCID50/liter of air)Half-Life (hr)

Titer
(TCID50/ml of medium)
Titer(TCID50/ml of medium)
Titer(TCID50/ml of medium)2
Half-Life (hr)A Titers of Viable Virus

40

40

60

60

80

80

SARS-CoV-1

Stainless Steel

20

20

SARS-CoV-200

Stainless Steel0 1 4 8 24 48 72 96

Stainless Steel

02

468

10100

101

102

103

104

100

101

102

103

104

100

101102

103

104

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

SARS-CoV-1

Plastic

SARS-CoV-2

00

Plastic

0 1 4 8 24 48 72 96

Plastic

SARS-CoV-1SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-1

SARS-CoV-2

T h e n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e

Correspondence

Figure 1 (facing page). Viability of SARS-CoV-1 andSARS-CoV-2 in Aerosols and on Various Surfaces.
As shown in Panel A, the titer of aerosolized viablevirus is expressed in 50% tissue-culture infectious
dose (TCID50) per liter of air. Viruses were applied tocopper, cardboard, stainless steel, and plastic maintained at 21 to 23°C and 40% relative humidity over
7 days. The titer of viable virus is expressed as TCID50
per milliliter of collection medium. All samples were
quantified by end-point titration on Vero E6 cells.
Plots show the means and standard errors (I bars)
across three replicates. As shown in Panel B, regression plots indicate the predicted decay of virus titerover time; the titer is plotted on a logarithmic scale.
Points show measured titers and are slightly jittered(i.e., they show small rapid variations in the amplitude or timing of a waveform arising from fluctuations) along the time axis to avoid overplotting. Linesare random draws from the joint posterior distribution of the exponential decay rate (negative of theslope) and intercept (initial virus titer) to show therange of possible decay patterns for each experimental condition. There were 150 lines per panel, including 50 lines from each plotted replicate. As shown inPanel C, violin plots indicate posterior distribution forthe half-life of viable virus based on the estimated exponential decay rates of the virus titer. The dots indicate the posterior median estimates, and the blacklines indicate a 95% credible interval. Experimental
conditions are ordered according to the posterior median half-life of SARS-CoV-2. The dashed lines indicate
the limit of detection, which was 3.33×10 0.5 TCID50
per liter of air for aerosols, 10 0.5 TCID50 per milliliterof medium for plastic, steel, and cardboard, and 101.5
TCID50 per milliliter of medium for copper.

respiratory tract and the potential for persons
infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit
the virus while asymptomatic.3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission ofSARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours
and on surfaces up to days (depending on theinoculum shed). These findings echo those withSARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission
were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events,5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
Neeltje van Doremalen, Ph.D.
Trenton Bushmaker, B.Sc.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Hamilton, MT

Dylan H. Morris, M.Phil.
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Myndi G. Holbrook, B.Sc.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Hamilton, MT

Amandine Gamble, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CABrandi N. Williamson, M.P.H.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Hamilton, MT

Azaibi Tamin, Ph.D.
Jennifer L. Harcourt, Ph.D.
Natalie J. Thornburg, Ph.D.
Susan I. Gerber, M.D.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, GA

James O. Lloyd-Smith, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CABethesda, MD

Emmie de Wit, Ph.D.
Vincent J. Munster, Ph.D.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Hamilton, MT
vincent.munster@nih.gov
Dr. van Doremalen, Mr. Bushmaker, and Mr. Morris contributed equally to this letter.
The findings and conclusions in this letter are those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent the official position ofthe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Namesof specific vendors, manufacturers, or products are included for
public health and informational purposes; inclusion does not
imply endorsement of the vendors, manufacturers, or productsby the CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and by contracts from the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA PREEMPT No. D18AC00031,to Drs. Lloyd-Smith and Gamble), from the National Science
Foundation (DEB-1557022, to Dr. Lloyd-Smith), and from theStrategic Environmental Research and Development Program of
the Department of Defense (SERDP, RC-2635, to Dr. Lloyd-Smith).
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available withthe full text of this letter at NEJM.org.
This letter was published on March 17, 2020, at NEJM.org.
1. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. Gene-va:​World Health Organization, 2020 (https://www​.who​.int/​
emergencies/​diseases/​novel​-­coronavirus​-­2019/​situation​-­reports/​).
2. Wu A, Peng Y, Huang B, et al. Genome composition and divergence of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating inChina. Cell Host Microbe 2020;​27:​325-8.
3. Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, et al. Presumed asymptomatic carriertransmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020 February 21 (Epub aheadof print).
4. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med.
DOI:​ 10.1056/NEJMc2001737.
5. Chen YC, Huang LM, Chan CC, et al. SARS in hospital emergency room. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;​10:​782-8.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973
Correspondence Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.

n engl j med﻿﻿  nejm.org﻿

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on April 4, 2020. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

3