Cited by 271Infection Control in HealthcareInfection Control and VentilationAntimicrobial agents and applications

Efficacy of various disinfectants against SARS coronavirus

Open access
Rabenau, H.F., Kampf, G., Cinatl, J., Doerr, H.W.·2005·Journal of Hospital Infection

Abstract

The recent severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in Asia and Northern America led to broad use of various types of disinfectant in order to control the public spread of the highly contagious virus. However, only limited data were available to demonstrate their efficacy against SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). We therefore investigated eight disinfectants for their activity against SARS-CoV according to prEN 14476. Four hand rubs were tested at 30s (Sterillium, based on 45% iso-propanol, 30% n-propanol and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulphate; Sterillium Rub, based on 80% ethanol; Sterillium Gel, based on 85% ethanol; Sterillium Virugard, based on 95% ethanol). Three surface disinfectants were investigated at 0.5% for 30 min and 60 min (Mikrobac forte, based on benzalkonium chloride and laurylamine; Kohrsolin FF, based on benzalkonium chloride, glutaraldehyde and didecyldimonium chloride; Dismozon pur, based on magnesium monoperphthalate), and one instrument disinfectant was investigated at 4% for 15 min, 3% for 30 min and 2% for 60 min [Korsolex basic, based on glutaraldehyde and (ethylenedioxy)dimethanol]. Three types of organic load were used: 0.3% albumin, 10% fetal calf serum, and 0.3% albumin with 0.3% sheep erythrocytes. Virus titres were determined by a quantitative test (endpoint titration) in 96-well microtitre plates. With all tested preparations, SARS-CoV was inactivated to below the limit of detection (reduction factor mostly > or =4), regardless of the type of organic load. In summary, SARS-CoV can be inactivated quite easily with many commonly used disinfectants.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.12.023

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 similar to other beta coronaviruses, which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand-sanitiser preparations.

    “Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 similar to other beta coronaviruses (SARS‐CoV‐1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and human coronaviruses), which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand‐sanitiser preparations (Rabenau 2005; WHO 2020c).”

    From Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (2023) · cites this paper as Rabenau 2005

    The Results report that four alcohol-based hand rubs inactivated SARS-CoV within 30 seconds, and the Discussion says their use after hand contamination should help prevent transmission. The paper does not test SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, or human coronaviruses generally, so it supports the hand-hygiene expectation by analogy rather than establishing susceptibility across the viruses named in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 271

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [15]DGHM Liste der nach den “Richtlinien für die Prüfung chemischer Desinfektionsmittel” geprüften und von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie als wirksam befundenen Desinfektionsverfahren 2002 mhp-Verlag Wiesbaden 4970302

Authors
Rabenau, H. F., Kampf, G., Cinatl, J., & Doerr, H. W.
Affiliations
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Universität Greifswald (DE)
Corresponding author
Rabenau, H.F.
Venue
Journal of Hospital Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-10
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
107-111
ISSN
0195-6701 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004208437
Cited by
271
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
Keywords
SARS coronavirus, disinfectant efficacy, virus inactivation, hand sanitizer, surface disinfectants, instrument disinfection, benzalkonium chloride, glutaraldehyde, organic load
MeSH terms
Animals, Anti-Infective Agents, Local, Chlorocebus aethiops, Detergents, Disinfectants, Gels, Hand Disinfection, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Vero Cells, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review