There is not yet any direct data on the survivability of the Influenza A H1N1 swine flu virus on different surfaces, but there is data for the survival of the Influenza A virus on various surfaces. Weber and Stilianakis (2008) published some data (22°C, 50-60% RH):
Hands 5 minutes
Paper and other porous surfaces 12 hours
Copper 6 hours
Stainless steel, plastic 24-48 hours
I am sure there are figures for gloves somewhere, but I would expect that to vary depending on glove type. Microscopically, gloves have lots of small pits and crevices, so I would expect the survival to be between paper and plastic – hours. It seems that the salty environment of the hand makes survival on the skin very short – perhaps an argument for not using gloves.
It is interesting that the survival on smooth surfaces like stainless steel and plastic is so long, compared with paper – perhaps an argument for using paper over such surfaces. I wonder if the copper ion has something to do with the shorter survivability on copper surfaces.
Weber, T. P. and N. I. Stilianakis (2008). “Inactivation of influenza A viruses in the environment and modes of transmission: A critical review.” Journal of Infection 57(5): 361-373.
“The relative importance of airborne, droplet and contact transmission of influenza A virus and the efficiency of control measures depends among other factors on the inactivation of viruses in different environmental media. Methods: We systematically review available information on the environmental inactivation of influenza A viruses and employ information on infectious dose and results from mathematical models to assess transmission modes. Results: Daily inactivation rate constants differ by several orders of magnitude: on inanimate surfaces and in aerosols daily inactivation rates are in the order of 1-10(2), on hands in the order of 10(3). Influenza virus can survive in aerosols for several hours, on hands for a few minutes. Nasal infectious dose of influenza A is several orders of magnitude larger than airborne infectious dose. Conclusions: The airborne route is a potentially important transmission pathway for influenza in indoor environments. The importance of droplet transmission has to be reassessed. Contact transmission can be limited by fast inactivation of influenza virus on hands and is more so than airborne transmission dependent on behavioral parameters. However, the potentially large inocula deposited in the environment through sneezing and the protective effect of nasal mucus on virus survival could make contact transmission a key transmission mode.“
