Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States News

EPA Approves Two Lysol Products as the First To Effectively Kill Novel Coronavirus on Surfaces (cnn.com) 89

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has approved two Lysol products as effective against the novel coronavirus when used on hard, non-porous surfaces. From a report: Lysol Disinfectant Spray and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist meet the EPA's criteria for use against the SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the ongoing pandemic, based on laboratory testing that found both products kill the virus two minutes after contact, the agency announced in a statement.

While there are more than 420 products on the list of disinfectants that the EPA says are strong enough to ward off "harder-to-kill" viruses than the novel coronavirus, the two Lysol products are the first to have been tested directly against the virus and proved effective. [...] The news comes one month after a CDC survey found that people said they were cleaning more frequently because of the pandemic, but only about half said that they really knew how to clean and disinfect their home safely. Of those people who were surveyed that acknowledged that they used high-risk cleaning practices to prevent the spread of Covid-19, more were likely to report health problems related to cleaning.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Approves Two Lysol Products as the First To Effectively Kill Novel Coronavirus on Surfaces More

EPA Approves Two Lysol Products as the First To Effectively Kill Novel Coronavirus on Surfaces

Comments Filter:

  • You heard it here first (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2020 @04:50PM (#60272734)

    Guarantee products will be conspicuously labeled, "For external use only."

    • This is not a new product, this is the testing of two existing products specifically for this exact virus.

      They are already labelled for external use only. (Duh)

      And 70% isopropyl alcohol only takes 30 seconds, this takes 2 minutes, but don't expect any brands of rubbing alcohol to pay for this EPA testing.

      • The active ingredient in Lysol (ADBAC or ADBA S) stays on the surface longer whereas isopropyl alcohol evaporates. You already knew that.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by hawguy ( 1600213 )

        This is not a new product, this is the testing of two existing products specifically for this exact virus.

        The summary didn't say anything about them being new products.

        And 70% isopropyl alcohol only takes 30 seconds, this takes 2 minutes, but don't expect any brands of rubbing alcohol to pay for this EPA testing.

        Rubbing alcohol isn't safe for all surfaces like varnished wood -- ruined an old coffee table by spilling some 70% rubbing alcohol on it, yet that same surface stands up to Lysol disinfecting wipes without a problem.

        • This is not a new product, this is the testing of two existing products specifically for this exact virus.

          The summary didn't say anything about them being new products.

          So? You know that's just some introductory words somebody typed, not an authoritative technical disclosure... right?

          Did you know you have to think, in order to understand?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hawguy ( 1600213 )

            This is not a new product, this is the testing of two existing products specifically for this exact virus.

            The summary didn't say anything about them being new products.

            So? You know that's just some introductory words somebody typed, not an authoritative technical disclosure... right?

            Did you know you have to think, in order to understand?

            So you're just making up words that they didn't say and them complaining about it?

        • One of the two listed products, Lysol Disinfectant Spray, is 58% alcohol. So it's pretty much the same as rubbing alcohol.

          It has 0.10 aklyds. 41.9% "other ingredients" (water).

      • Oh, I don't know. The cost of isopropyl has skyrocketed. It might be worth someone's time to become the only official brand that beats Lysol in tests to fight the Coronavirus.

    • Really? I have been using it intravenously. Maybe that is why the needles keep clogging. I guess I should read the instructions.

    • Guarantee products will be conspicuously labeled, "For external use only."

      That's only because the libs and the SJWs don't want you to know how delicious it is over ice with a splash of Diet Coke.

  • Drink up, or shoot up - what could go wrong ?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      Well apart from the substances adde to actually make you throw up (to stop alcoholics drinking it ) , tou will probably ruin you digestion system as it relies to som extent on bacteria, the very stuff disinfectant kills,I'm not a dovrtor so I cab't real say what happens if you inject it streight into your blod , but I imagine it won't be very beneficial

  • Worth trying? (Score:5, Funny)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2020 @04:55PM (#60272768)

    I'm thinking why not use this intravenously, it kills the virus doesn't it? It might be worth trying, what do you have to lose?

    Kind of odd the scientists haven't thought of this, sometimes when they're caught up doing their nerdy sciency stuff they forget the obvious.

  • Lazy fucking reporting (Score:3)

    by nyet ( 19118 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2020 @05:05PM (#60272814) Homepage

    I love how they don't bother listing the active ingredients, or the mechanism by which it "kills" SARS-CoV-2

    • This is not a scientific or engineering study, so of course they don't run their mouths imagining what the mechanism might be.

      This is testing of a specific product, in the packaged form, to see if it kills the tested virus. That is it. (hint: Clinical medicine also doesn't care about scientific shit like "what is the mechanism.")

    • I love how they don't bother listing the active ingredients, or the mechanism by which it "kills" SARS-CoV-2

      Here's the complete EPA list: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-... [epa.gov]

    • If only there was some great repository of knowledge that a person could, you know, query, by typing in a question like "active ingredients in Lysol". And then somehow a whole list of references were presented, which addressed that very query. And whereby you could take an action and expand each reference so you can find the answer desired! Then you could learn what is in Lysol [wikipedia.org] that makes it work.

    • I love how they don't bother listing the active ingredients, or the mechanism by which it "kills" SARS-CoV-2

      Maybe I'm misinformed, but maybe... soap and water? 'Cuz we've known for a couple months that two Happy Birthdays worth of that kills SARS-CoV-2.

      Or is there some special reason beyond random money-making to reinvent the wheel?

  • Its nice to know these products can kill SARS-CoV-2 but it doesn't do much good if hardly anyone can buy such.
  • I understand the bohemoth that is Dow Chemical but is the chemical formula for bleach really that big of a mystery?

    • Have you ever met the generic drug process? It doesn't matter if you have the exact same formula as someone else, you still have to go through independent FDA approval for yours. The decks are stacked in favor of the entrenched.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Bleach has a number of issues, least of which being that it's an oxizider that breaks down over time, becoming less effective. Your bottle of bleach will substantially degrade over time, including before it ever reached your store shelves. It becomes extremely difficult to give meaningful measures of how much bleach works, without using overkill amounts.

      Benzalkonium works as a phase transfer catalyst and surfactant (it's a quaternary ammonium cation), which seems to be the main method of its biocidal action

      • Bleach has a number of issues, least of which being that it's an oxizider that breaks down over time, becoming less effective. Your bottle of bleach will substantially degrade over time, including before it ever reached your store shelves. It becomes extremely difficult to give meaningful measures of how much bleach works, without using overkill amounts.

        Benzalkonium works as a phase transfer catalyst and surfactant (it's a quaternary ammonium cation), which seems to be the main method of its biocidal action:

        The greatest biocidal activity is associated with the C12 dodecyl and C14 myristyl alkyl derivatives. The mechanism of bactericidal/microbicidal action is thought to be due to disruption of intermolecular interactions. This can cause dissociation of cellular membrane lipid bilayers, which compromises cellular permeability controls and induces leakage of cellular contents. Other biomolecular complexes within the bacterial cell can also undergo dissociation. Enzymes, which finely control a wide range of respiratory and metabolic cellular activities, are particularly susceptible to deactivation. Critical intermolecular interactions and tertiary structures in such highly specific biochemical systems can be readily disrupted by cationic surfactants.

        Why you would choose to post this anonymously I don't know, but thanks!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Those of us who've ever worked with anything needing a sterile environment already have cans of Lysol and ADBAC wipes. If it's worked for decades for the virus researchers in BSL4 labs, it seemed probable without testing that Lysol would continue working against a coronavirus.

      We already had decades of data. This is just confirmation that Lysol ("lyse all") still works.

  • Trust? (Score:1)

    by gtall ( 79522 )

    Why would anyone trust anything from the alleged administration's EPA?

  • This will likely cause resistance in bacteria if heavily used.
  • Why is the EPA approving this?
    WHO, Sure.
    FDA, OK.
    CDC, Hell yeah.

    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency.

    I small something fishy.

    • Nothing fishy about this. Remember, this stuff isn't actually intended for use on/in the human body. It's a surface disinfectant.

      https://www.lysol.com/products... [lysol.com]

      As such, why would the FDA care about it? It isn't a food or a drug. WHO doesn't worry about "name brands", and again, is more worried about tracking and distributing medical advice. Same with the CDC, they're not into checking that, yeah, a chemical that kills 99.9% of microbial stuff on contact also kills COVID.

      The EPA is actually the logica

      • If you say so. Thanks for the explanation.
        Still seems really strange to me.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hall ( 962 )
          The EPA has been approving and registering disinfectants, biocides, virucides, etc for decades. They go far beyond products that work against COVID19. No conspiracy theory or anything fishy going on in that regard.

  • It's silly. Most people don't need something like this - we already know the virus doesn't survive well on most surfaces, and there's no real evidence that surface-to-human transmission is much of a problem.

    I suppose that some commercial entities might arguably benefit from it, but I doubt they'll be able to find it.

  • It will eat the finish off of whatever you spray it on LOL.

  • What also works are:

    70% ethanol. Soap. Heat. UV light. Vodka. Chloride. Toilet cleaner. Sun light. Scrubbing. Laundry agent. Dish wash soap. And pretty much anything else.

    The thing is, it doesn't even matter if it disinfects or not, because contact surfaces are not the primary way this virus spreads. It's airborne. It are the smallest aerosols that get real deep in your lungs, not your hands touching your nose with infectious stuff. Air pollution -smog- seems to be a significant factor too. And closed air c

  • POISONS, don't breathe the vapor: Lysol Disinfectant Spray and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist.

    My opinion: Anything besides clean air is not good for your health.

  • Novel Coronavirus (Score:3)

    by Lonng_Time_Lurker ( 6285236 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2020 @06:45PM (#60273280)

    Can we stop calling it the novel coronavirus?

    It might've been novel before it was in the news cycle and on everyone on the planets minds for the last 6 months. I don't think it's novel anymore.

  • Instead of 'novel', could this be 'short story' coronavirus, or better yet, 'vignette' coronavirus? A vignette is even shorter than a short story, and both are way, way shorter than a 'novel'.
    Just please, for fuck's sake can we not make this gods-be-damned thing a three-book-deal? PLEASE!?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      Looks like book 2 has already been released in America. The European release would've been at the same time, but their governments are a bit too bibliophobic.

  • What does this have to do with environmental protection?

    I hope it was at least revenue generating, but somehow I doubt it. Otherwise it's a misuse of tax dollars.

    • What does this have to do with environmental protection?

      I hope it was at least revenue generating, but somehow I doubt it. Otherwise it's a misuse of tax dollars.

      It's just not forests and lakes, your environment is also your kitchen countertop (you really shouldn't ingest cleaning products so it isn't an FDA issue, no matter what someone might or might not have said). Considering the circumstances testing and making a long list of the available products that kills the corona virus have health benefits that are seemingly obvious.

      • No, there's no reason for the EPA to test this. We know these products kill the virus. We know that simpler, cheaper products kill the virus.

        But now, Lysol gets to advertise they are the only ones proven to work. It's a money grab. Plainly.

        My only question is: does the EPA make money from the Lysol people who file the petition or is it Lysol taking advantage of a system where we have not setup the appropriate passing on of public costs.

        • No, there's no reason for the EPA to test this. We know these products kill the virus. We know that simpler, cheaper products kill the virus.

          But now, Lysol gets to advertise they are the only ones proven to work. It's a money grab. Plainly.

          My only question is: does the EPA make money from the Lysol people who file the petition or is it Lysol taking advantage of a system where we have not setup the appropriate passing on of public costs.

          The complete EPA list is here https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-... [epa.gov] and lists 431 tested products and their active ingredients, the two Lysol products are just the most recent additions. They also state that other products will work, how they should be labeled a how you can check their EPA registration.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hall ( 962 )

          My only question is: does the EPA make money from the Lysol people who file the petition or is it Lysol taking advantage of a system where we have not setup the appropriate passing on of public costs.

          The EPA charges a fee for their review process. I'm not sure that "make money" is accurate though. Any company can have their product(s) reviewed and/or approved too. You can bet there is a backlog of products in the queue and Lysol is simply the first to be completed. How did they get done first ? No idea if there were strings pulled or not but it's entirely possible.

  • If you need a hack job or trusted Instagram verification process contact @certificationz on Instagram or whatsapp +447506Ã870358
  • COVID19 has a weak lipid layer so it doesn't take much cleaning/cutting/scrubbing to kill the virus. The real problem is effecting a large enough surface to clean everywhere a microparticle might land or scrubbing everything that might have micro particles on it and no spray can do that unless your laying it down with like bug/pressure sprayer. Soo really most any tough cleaner that cuts disinfects or likely even just a tough grease cutter will kill COVID19. Bleach and Hydrogen Peroxide will tend to kill i
  • These are the only two products that have the explicit claim against this particular virus. Plenty of other disinfectants (>400 on the EPA's List N currently) will work against this virus on hard surfaces. And for all the folks going on about the FDA, they have nothing to do with this process -- it's the EPA. Part of my job is regulatory things in this area. My beef with the reporting is that most folks will read the headline and think "WTF?! Only Lysol kills SARS-CoV-2?"

  • You can't kill what's already dead.

  • Two things strike me about the EPA press release:

    First, I find it odd that they would announce a branded product in a press release. I understand they do test and certify specific products, but why a press release specifically naming Lysol?

    Why not identify the active ingredients that make this work? Are there other products that use the same ingredients? For something important enough for a press release, shouldn't they tell us what works and then list other products that might be effective - even without s

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Like on Amazon, Walmart, etc. Grrr. :(

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Close