Dataset Information

Filtration performance, fit test and side effects of respiratory personal protective equipment following decontamination: Observations for user safety and comfort.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

While facing personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, several institutions looked to PPE decontamination and reuse options. This study documents the effect of two hydrogen peroxide treatments on filtration efficiency and fit tests as well as the side effects for volunteers after the decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). We also propose an efficient and large-scale treatment protocol that allows for the traceability of this protective equipment in hospitals during PPE shortages.

Methods

The effects of low-temperature hydrogen peroxide sterilization and hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) on two FFR models (filtration, decontamination level, residual emanation) were evaluated. Ten volunteers reported comfort issues and side effects after wearing 1h FFRs worn and decontaminated up to five times.

Results

The decontamination process does not negatively affect FFR efficiency, but repeated use and handling tend to lead to damage, limiting the number of times FFRs can be reused. Moreover, the recommended 24-h post-treatment aeration does not sufficiently eliminate residual hydrogen peroxide. Prolonged aeration time increased user comfort when using decontaminated FFRs.

Conclusions

HPV and low-temperature hydrogen peroxide sterilization seem to be appropriate treatments for FFR decontamination when the PPE is reused by the same user. PPE decontamination and reuse methods should be carefully considered as they are critical for the comfort and safety of healthcare workers.

SUBMITTER: Turgeon N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9870121 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Filtration performance, fit test and side effects of respiratory personal protective equipment following decontamination: Observations for user safety and comfort.

Turgeon Nathalie N Pagé Mélissa M Robillard Justin J Goulet Véronique V Bahloul Ali A Brochot Clothilde C Saidi Mohamed Nejib MN Dumont-Leblond Nathan N Duchaine Caroline C

PloS one 20230123 1

<h4>Objective</h4>While facing personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, several institutions looked to PPE decontamination and reuse options. This study documents the effect of two hydrogen peroxide treatments on filtration efficiency and fit tests as well as the side effects for volunteers after the decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). We also propose an efficient and large-scale treatment protocol that allows for the traceability of ...[more]

PMID: 36689487

Similar Datasets

Project description:AbstractThe pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.

Dataset Information

Filtration performance, fit test and side effects of respiratory personal protective equipment following decontamination: Observations for user safety and comfort.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Filtration performance, fit test and side effects of respiratory personal protective equipment following decontamination: Observations for user safety and comfort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets