N95 filtering face piece respirators remain effective after extensive reuse during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fabre V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7971774 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
N95 filtering face piece respirators remain effective after extensive reuse during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Fabre Valeria V Cosgrove Sara E SE Hsu Yea-Jen YJ Jones George F GF Helsel Taylor T Bukowski James J Sobota Mark M Sick-Samuels Anna C AC Milstone Aaron M AM Maragakis Lisa L LL Rock Clare C
Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20210219 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDuring the current COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) have been severely disrupted and many products, particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks") are in short supply. As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union.MethodsWe conducted a survey of mask in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer. We then assembled a simple apparatus for performing a necessary (but not sufficient) test of filtration performance and tested masks from the inventory; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus.ResultsOur survey showed that, seven months after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 100 different makes and models of N95-type masks are in the inventory of local hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many did not perform to accepted standards and are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers in the FDA EUA and confusing or inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate and counterfeit products.ConclusionsMany of the FFR masks available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations for end users to assist in acquiring legitimate products. In particular, institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for U.S and Chinese regulatory agencies with regard to labeling and public disclosure aimed at increase pandemic resilience.
| S-EPMC7386520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination.ObjectivesTo synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.Data sourcesWe used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.MethodsTwo reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.ResultsIn total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.ConclusionsEvidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.
| S-EPMC7588721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an extraordinary demand for N95 and similarly rated filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) that remains unmet due to limited stock, production constraints, and logistics. Interest in decontamination and reuse of FFR, a product class designed for single use in health care settings, has undergone a parallel surge due to shortages. A worthwhile decontamination method must provide effective inactivation of the targeted pathogen(s), and preserve particle filtration, mask fit, and safety for a subsequent user. This discussion reviews the background of the current shortage, classification, structure, and functional aspects of FFR, and potentially effective decontamination methods along with reference websites for those seeking updated information and guidance. The most promising techniques utilize heat, hydrogen peroxide, microwave-generated steam, or ultraviolet light. Many require special or repurposed equipment and a detailed operational roadmap specific to each setting. While limited, research is growing. There is significant variation between models with regard to the ability to withstand decontamination yet remain protective. The number of times an individual respirator can be reused is often limited by its ability to maintain a tight fit after multiple uses rather than by the decontamination method itself. There is no single solution for all settings; each individual or institution must choose according to their need, capability, and available resources. As the current pandemic is expected to continue for months to years, and the possibility of future airborne biologic threats persists, the need for plentiful, effective respiratory protection is stimulating research and innovation.
| S-EPMC7571614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSurgical masks and N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and protect medical personnel. Increased demands for surgical masks and N95 FFRs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the shortage crisis. However, there is no standard protocol for safe reuse of the N95 FFRs. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing decontamination methods of surgical masks and N95 FFRs and provide evidence-based recommendations for selecting an appropriate decontamination method.MethodsWe performed systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE electronic databases. The last search was performed April 11, 2020. Any trials studying surgical masks and/or N95 FFRs decontamination were included. Outcomes were disinfections of virus and bacteria, restoration of the filtration efficiency, and maintenance of the physical structure of the mask.ResultsOverall, 15 studies and 14 decontamination methods were identified. A low level of evidence supported 4 decontamination methods: ultraviolet (UV) germicidal irradiation (9 studies), moist heat (5 studies), microwave-generated steam (4 studies), and hydrogen peroxide vapor (4 studies). Therefore, we recommended these 4 methods, and we recommended against use were given for the other 10 methods.ConclusionsA low level of evidence supported the use of UV germicidal irradiation, moist heat, microwave-generated steam, and hydrogen peroxide vapor for decontamination and reuse of N95 FFRs. These decontamination methods were effective for viral and bacterial disinfection as well as restoration of the filtration efficiency, and the physical structure of the FFRs.
| S-EPMC7438629 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7318975 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11581496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of single-use N95 filtering facepiece respirators. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation as one of the most promising decontamination methods during crisis-capacity surges; however, understanding the mechanism of pathogen inactivation and post-treatment respirator performance is central to effective UV-C decontamination. Objective: We summarize the UV-C N95 decontamination evidence and identify key metrics. Methods: We evaluate the peer-reviewed literature on UV-C decontamination to inactivate SARS-CoV-2, viral analogues, and other microorganisms inoculated on N95s, as well as the resulting effect on respirator fit and filtration. Where peer-reviewed studies are absent, we discuss outstanding questions and ongoing work. Key Findings: Evidence supports that UV-C exposure of ≥1.0 J/cm2 inactivates SARS-CoV-2 analogues (≥3-log reduction) on the majority of tested N95 models. The literature cautions that (1) viral inactivation is N95 model-dependent and impeded by shadowing, (2) N95 straps require secondary decontamination, (3) higher doses may be necessary to inactivate other pathogens (e.g., some bacterial spores), and (4) while N95 fit and filtration appear to be preserved for 10-20 cycles of 1.0 J/cm2, donning and doffing may degrade fit to unacceptable levels within fewer cycles. Results and Discussion: Effective N95 UV-C treatment for emergency reuse requires both (1) inactivation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, achieved through application of UV-C irradiation at an appropriate wavelength and effective dose, and (2) maintenance of the fit and filtration efficiency of the N95. Conclusions: UV-C treatment is a risk-mitigation process that should be implemented only under crisis-capacity conditions and with proper engineering, industrial hygiene, and biosafety controls.
| S-EPMC9134326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains for many types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks"). As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed use of industrial N95 respirators and importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union.MethodsWe conducted a survey of masks in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer or supplier. We then assembled a testing apparatus at a university laboratory and performed a modified test of filtration performance using KCl and ambient particulate matter on masks from hospital inventories; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus.ResultsOver 100 different makes and models of traditional and nontraditional filtering facepiece respirators (N95-type masks) were in the inventory of surveyed U.S. teaching hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many are not correctly labelled and do not perform to accepted standards and a subset are obviously dangerous; many of these masks are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers and inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit products.ConclusionsMany FFRs available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations to assist end users in acquiring legitimate products. Institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for regulatory agencies regarding labeling and public disclosure aimed at increasing pandemic resilience.
| S-EPMC8319695 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7967080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is global shortage of Personal Protective Equipment due to COVID-19 pandemic. N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (N95-FFRs) provide respiratory protection against respiratory pathogens including SARS-CoV-2. There is scant literature on reprocessing methods which can enable reuse of N95-FFRs.AimWe conducted this study to evaluate research done, prior to COVID-19 pandemic, on various decontamination methods for reprocessing of N95-FFRs.MethodsWe searched 5 electronic databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, Crossref, Ovid, ScienceDirect) and 1 Grey literature database (OpenGrey). We included original studies, published prior to year 2020, which had evaluated any decontamination method on FFRs. Studies had evaluated a reprocessing method against parameters namely physical changes, user acceptability, respirator fit, filter efficiency, microbicidal efficacy and presence of chemical residues post-reprocessing.Findings and conclusionsOverall, we found 7887 records amongst which 17 original research articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. Overall, 21 different types of decontamination or reprocessing methods for N95-FFRs were evaluated. Most commonly evaluated method for reprocessing of FFRs was Ultraviolet (Type-C) irradiation (UVGI) which was evaluated in 13/17 (76%) studies. We found published literature was scant on this topic despite warning signs of pandemic of a respiratory illness over the years. Promising technologies requiring expeditious evaluation are UVGI, Microwave generated steam (MGS) and based on Hydrogen peroxide vapor. Global presence of technologies, which have been given Emergency use authorisation for N95-FFR reprocessing, is extremely limited. Reprocessing of N95-FFRs by MGS should be considered for emergency implementation in resource limited settings to tackle shortage of N95-FFRs.Systematic review identifierPROSPERO, PROSPERO ID: CRD42020189684, (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020189684).
| S-EPMC7678983 | biostudies-literature