REALM Project

Archives, Libraries,
and Museums


REALM Frequently Asked Questions

These frequently asked questions about the REALM project address information in the following categories:

New questions will be added to the list as needed, and a glossary of terms is also available. If your question is not answered here, please submit a question to the REALM project team through this form.

About the project

What kind of research has the REALM project done? 

OCLC, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and Battelle have conducted reviews of the published scientific research, curated evidence-based resources, and conducted laboratory testing on SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) to provide information that can inform operational considerations for libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs).

Reviews of the scientific literature are designed to evaluate existing research about SARS-CoV-2  that may pertain to the materials, physical settings, and operations of LAMs. This areas of inquiry include how the virus is transmitted, how to mitigate its spread, and the effectiveness of various disinfection and cleaning methods.  These reviews and research briefings can be found under Research section of this website.

Battelle laboratory tests investigated how long the virus remained viable and infectious on various materials that are commonly used or found in LAMs.  The results from these tests can be found under the Research section of this website. 

Illustrative examples from LAMs and information resources from subject matter experts and related fields have been collected and reviewed on an ongoing basis. These examples can be found in the Resources section of this website.

What is the timing for this project? 

The three-phased project began in May 2020 and is scheduled through September 2022: 

  • Phase 1: Preparing for Reopened Libraries (May – August 2020) 
    In this phase, information and illustrative practices for handling physical library collections and facilities were collected, curated, and disseminated to support phased-in or full reopening of public library buildings and services.  Research deliverables included the results of two rounds of testing (Tests 1 and 2) and a systematic literature review. 

  • Phase 2: Additional Research to Support Operations of Libraries, Archives, and Museums (June – October 2020)  
    This phase is studying an additional set of materials and workflows across libraries, archives/special collections, and museums. This will include materials and workflows that have factors that were not addressed in Phase 1 but are important to the function of archives, libraries, and/or museums. Three rounds of testing (Tests 3, 4, and 5) and a second systematic literature review will be conducted, and a new project website will also be launched in this phase.  

  • Phase 3: Monitor, Update, Communicate (October 2020 – September 2022)  
    The project will continue to monitor and review emerging research that may require updates and additions to the first two phases, and additional testing and desk research will be determined. As the rate of transmission for the virus changes over time and communities adjust to those changes, the policies and practices of libraries and museums may also warrant change.  The project will convene discussions with LAM community representatives to identify additional information, training, initiatives, networks, and other resources that can help cultural heritage institutions plan for, navigate through, and recover from public health crises.

How long did the testing take?

Each round of testing took approximately four weeks. The testing plan followed protocols to ensure the testing is accurate and well documented. While it is important not to take shortcuts when conducting scientific research, the project team has been committed to sharing authoritative results emerging from the lab work as quickly as possible. As soon as results have been cleared for publication, they were added to the project website and communicated broadly to the communities of archives, libraries, and museums and the member organizations that support those fields.  

How can I stay up to date on progress? 

Project updates are available on the “Happening Now” page of the website.  You can sign up to receive project updates by email and/or bookmark this page: as the primary source for sharing all program results and resources. You can also follow OCLC on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn for the latest project updates and join the conversation using #REALMproject.  

Can I book a REALM project representative for a speaking engagement?

Representatives of the REALM project are available to share project information and findings through presentations to member associations and support organizations that serve libraries, archives, and museums. Please contact Nancy Lensenmayer ( to discuss speaking engagement requests.

Laboratory Testing Methodology 

Could you describe the testing methodology? 

The test plan is available here. The methodology and results are explained in detail in the webinar, REopening Archives, Libraries, and Museums: Materials Testing and Resource Overview.

Could you explain what LOQ and LOD mean? Which of these represents a “safe” amount?  

Above the limit of quantitation (LOQ) Battelle researchers are able to plug results into an equation and obtain quantifiable data (e.g., virus count). Below this LOQ threshold, the researchers simply note a positive or negative to indicate presence or nonpresence of virus. When the virus is no longer seen through the microscope on any of the samples, it is recorded as below the limit of detection (LOD). The infectious dose for humans remains unknown, so it is not yet possible to correlate the amount surviving on a surface as "safe" or "unsafe."

How similar are the library materials used in the lab testing to typical library materials that have been handled by multiple patrons, possibly with unwashed hands, sneezing while holding the book, etc.?  

Battelle is conducting the testing on previously circulated materials provided by Columbus Metropolitan Library; the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled, Library of Congress; and the National Archives and Records Administration. Battelle researchers did not clean the materials prior to adding virus to them via a synthetic form of saliva, but process controls ensure that the material were not already infected with SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens.

The graph of test results from Test 2 shows that the amount of virus detected on glossy magazine pages drops to almost nothing on day 3, and then increased slightly on day 4. What accounts for this increase on day 4?

This is a possibility that can occur with the type of lab tests that Battelle is conducting, which is a cell-based assay. For each material studied, five samples are inoculated with the virus and examined at each time point. At levels below LOQ (the limit of quantitation), the Battelle researchers simply record a positive or negative to indicate either presence or lack of presence of virus, not the actual number of virus particles. This is a qualitative assessment based on observation through a microscope: the researchers look at each of the five samples and record whether they see any virus; the resulting number is an average across those five samples.  When the infectious virus load starts at a very high level (i.e., up to 100,000 particles), the difference at the low end of 1 or none can be somewhat variable.

How much virus is applied to the materials being tested? How does this amount relate to the amount needed to infect someone? (see also, How much virus in a typical sneeze?) 

The lab tests apply approximately 100,000 virulent virus particles, which for SARS-CoV-2, represents the highest achievable concentration using classical cell culture methods. Battelle researchers believe this amount simulates a realistic, or possibly worst-case, scenario (i.e., a highly infectious sneeze). The amount of virus needed to infect someone is not yet known; that amount could fall close to or below the LOQ (limit of quantitation) or well above it. Each variant of the virus adds additional differences in the viral load and infectability. Without that knowledge to draw conclusions from, the REALM Project is providing data that shows the rate of natural attenuation of the virus over time and how long before it becomes undetectable (< LOD).

Are all the virus particles that are detected on the materials in the lab testing merely present, or are they also viable and infectious?  

All virus recovered and measured by this test are viable infectious materials. The lab testing uses a cell-based assay method, so virus particles are recovered and quantified by their ability to infect cells.

Are the REALM project findings being peer reviewed?  

The test plan and tests were reviewed and discussed by the Scientific Working Group prior to their release. The completed study was published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology in early 2022.

Why did a test end while there was still detectable amounts of virus left?  

Time points for each test were selected in advance, based on input from researchers and the Scientific Working Group, and to mimic real-world options, such as quarantining items for a few days or up to a week. Time points cannot be adjusted within a test once it is underway, but different time points can be selected for future tests based on findings of previous tests. For most of the materials tested, only a trace amount of virus was detected by the final time point examined.  


What materials were tested?  

The list of materials tested and the results can be found here. The selection of materials was determined by several factors, including the emerging results from previous rounds of tests and in the published scientific literature, the prevalence and usage of the materials, and their relative priority among plans for resuming operations and services in libraries, archives, and museums.  

What kind of “glossy pages” were tested in Test 2?  

The “glossy pages” that were tested are the type of paper frequently found in a coffee table book or art book. This is a paper with a coated finish; therefore, it is less porous than an uncoated paper stock.

Will you test electronic devices, computer monitors and keyboards, laptops, and related equipment?  

The findings from the Test 3 study of plastics may be able to inform decisions about other plastics-based items, such as computer monitors and keyboards. These items are more “disinfectant-friendly”, compared to paper-based items. Please consult the list of EPA-reviewed disinfectants for products that can aid in killing the virus:

Will you test the materials under different environmental or storage conditions?

For Tests 1 to 6, standard atmospheric conditions were used. Tests 7 and 8 retested a selection of materials at higher and lower temperatures.

What is meant by a "stacked" configuration of the materials being tested?

In tests where the materials are described as being in a stacked configuration, after the samples were brushed with the synthetic saliva that contains the virus they were covered completely with other materials, to create full surface-to-surface contact. This simulates a contaminated sneeze trapped on a page inside a book, or a contaminated book cover stacked in the middle of a vertical pile or on a tightly packed shelf. In a stacked configuration, the virus is "sandwiched" between surfaces, which means it is less likely to be affected by ambient air or light. 


How much virus does a typical sneeze produce? 

The amount of virus shed in a sneeze is currently unknown. It is known that a sneeze can generate up to 200,000 particles. What we don’t know is how many SARS-CoV-2 virus particles might be contained within each droplet of a sneeze. The lab tests apply up to about 100,000 virulent virus particles, which represents the most that can be achieved via classical cell culture methods. We believe this amount simulates a realistic or possibly the worst-case scenario (i.e., a highly infectious sneeze).

How much virus is needed to infect someone? Is the amount below the limit of detection safe?

The amount of virus needed to infect someone is not yet known; that amount could fall close to or below the LOQ (limit of quantitation) or well above it. Without that knowledge to draw conclusions from, the REALM project is providing data that shows the rate of natural attenuation of the virus over time and how long before it becomes undetectable (< LOD). Because the infectious dose in humans remains unknown, it is not yet possible to correlate the amount of virus surviving on a surface as being “safe” or “unsafe.” We could look at this in the context of other coronaviruses (SARS or MERS), which have an infectious dose around 100 to 1000 particles; or, COVID-19 could be similar to the flu, which is infectious at around 10 particles. We simply don't know yet.

There is a lot of data pointing to the airborne transmission of the virus. How much risk is there of surface (fomite-based) transmission? Staff and patrons are referencing articles that say surface transmission isn’t much of a concern.

SARS-CoV-2 is thought to mostly spread between people in close contact with one another and through respiratory droplets passed from person to person. Published research to date suggests that droplets expelled during actions like coughing, sneezing, speaking, and breathing may spread the virus through direct contact with other people or indirectly through contact with surfaces or dispersal into the air. There is a lot of excellent guidance for how to mitigate spread of COVID-19 through the air and direct contact with infected people, such as wearing masks, social distancing, washing hands, and having good ventilation.

More recent research is focused on aerosols – microscopic particles expelled in a sneeze/cough that can float in the air longer and farther than droplets. Aerosols may contribute to transmission more than droplets; however, there remain open questions about this form of transmission.

There is scientific evidence to suggest that spread via fomites (infected objects) is possible, from studies of samples of high-touch surfaces such as doorknobs, bathroom floors, toilets that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. However, a growing consensus in the scientific community is that fomite transmission (touching an infected surface and then touching your mouth, nose, or eyes) is much less likely to happen than transmission through direct contact or via airborne droplets.

The scientific literature reviews produced by REALM have gathered research findings on how the virus is transmitted, how to mitigate its spread, and the effectiveness of disinfecting and cleaning methods.



What is the recommended length of quarantine of library materials? Given the persistence of virus on book covers and magazines, does the project recommend a quarantine of four days or longer? Should open stack browsing of books and magazines be closed?

This project is not giving recommendations or guidance. We are providing data that shows the rate of natural attenuation of the virus over time and how long before it becomes undetectable (< LOD) to support staff making decisions for their specific, local contexts.

Disinfection and remediation

How can we avoid having to quarantine our library’s materials? If we wipe the covers of books with alcohol wipes, do we still need to quarantine the books when they are returned?

Disinfecting surfaces with the appropriate cleaning agents (see CDC guidelines and systematic literature review, p. 23) would kill the virus immediately. However, it would not address the pages inside the book, which would be difficult to clean by wiping down. Quarantining is an option for items that are not practical or possible to disinfect individually.

Could quarantining materials for one day (getting COVID below LOQ) plus disinfecting them be just as effective at not spreading COVID?

Quarantining is an option for items that are not practical or possible to disinfect individually. One would have to wipe down every page of a book, for example. The amount of virus needed to infect someone is not yet known; that amount could fall close to or below the LOQ (limit of quantitation) or well above it. Without that knowledge to draw conclusions from, the REALM project is providing data that shows the rate of natural attenuation of the virus over time and how long before it becomes undetectable (< LOD).

Could we use high-heat or UV devices such as bug zappers, bedbug ovens, or UV wands to kill the virus on library materials?

The REALM research is focusing on remediation methods that are scalable for high volumes of materials. Putting thousands of books through a bug zapper or bedbug oven or passing a UV wand over the entire outside surface and interior pages of library materials are likely not scalable. A forthcoming literature review may surface studies of the effects of UV and temperature, if there are such studies that have been published in the literature.

Could different storage conditions (e.g., higher temperatures, different relative humidity levels, other enclosure materials) speed up the natural attenuation process? Will you test the materials under different conditions?

Tests 1 to 6 studied materials held in standard office temperature and relative humidity. There is some scientific evidence that heat and humidity levels can affect the lifespan of SARS-CoV-2. Tests 7 and 8 studied materials at higher and lower tempertures, and the findings showed that the temperatures impacted how long the virus remained active on each surface.


Is REALM project research being shared with the CDC for their review? 

The CDC has been informed of the results of these studies and IMLS will continue to communicate results to the CDC and invite their input. A team member of CDC's COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force was a guest presenter during our April 15, 2021, webinar.

What kinds of quarantine policies and remediation methods have libraries outside the US implemented?   

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) website has information about library activities in other countries.