Addressing personal protective equipment (PPE) decontamination: Methylene blue and light inactivates severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on N95 respirators and medical masks with maintenance of integrity and fit.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), underscoring the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate masks and respirators exposed to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We hypothesized that methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, which has various clinical applications, could decontaminate PPE contaminated with coronavirus. DESIGN: The 2 arms of the study included (1) PPE inoculation with coronaviruses followed by MB with light (MBL) decontamination treatment and (2) PPE treatment with MBL for 5 cycles of decontamination to determine maintenance of PPE performance. METHODS: MBL treatment was used to inactivate coronaviruses on 3 N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and 2 medical mask models. We inoculated FFR and medical mask materials with 3 coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and we treated them with 10 µM MB and exposed them to 50,000 lux of white light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes. In parallel, integrity was assessed after 5 cycles of decontamination using multiple US and international test methods, and the process was compared with the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. RESULTS: Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all 3 coronaviruses with 99.8% to >99.9% virus inactivation across all FFRs and medical masks tested. FFR and medical mask integrity was maintained after 5 cycles of MBL treatment, whereas 1 FFR model failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. CONCLUSIONS: MBL treatment decontaminated respirators and masks by inactivating 3 tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5 cycles of decontamination. MBL decontamination is effective, is low cost, and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in low- to high-resource settings.

The use of germicidal ultraviolet light, vaporised hydrogen peroxide and dry heat to decontaminate face masks and filtering respirators contaminated with an infectious norovirus.

In the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, reuse of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators has been recommended. Their reuse necessitates procedures to inactivate contaminating human respiratory and oral pathogens. We previously demonstrated decontamination of masks and respirators contaminated with an infectious SARS-CoV-2 surrogate via ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, vaporised hydrogen peroxide, and use of dry heat. Here, we show that these same methods efficiently inactivate a more resistant, non-enveloped oral virus; decontamination of infectious murine norovirus-contaminated masks and respirators reduced viral titres by over four orders of magnitude on mask or respirator coupons.

"Don, doff, discard" to "don, doff, decontaminate"-FFR and mask integrity and inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a norovirus following multiple vaporised hydrogen peroxide-, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation-, and dry heat decontaminations.

BACKGROUND: As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic accelerates, the supply of personal protective equipment remains under strain. To combat shortages, re-use of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators has been recommended. Prior decontamination is paramount to the re-use of these typically single-use only items and, without compromising their integrity, must guarantee inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 and other contaminating pathogens. AIM: We provide information on the effect of time-dependent passive decontamination (infectivity loss over time during room temperature storage in a breathable bag) and evaluate inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a non-enveloped model virus as well as mask and respirator integrity following active multiple-cycle vaporised hydrogen peroxide (VHP), ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), and dry heat (DH) decontamination. METHODS: Masks and respirators, inoculated with infectious porcine respiratory coronavirus or murine norovirus, were submitted to passive decontamination or single or multiple active decontamination cycles; viruses were recovered from sample materials and viral titres were measured via TCID50 assay. In parallel, filtration efficiency tests and breathability tests were performed according to EN standard 14683 and NIOSH regulations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Infectious porcine respiratory coronavirus and murine norovirus remained detectable on masks and respirators up to five and seven days of passive decontamination. Single and multiple cycles of VHP-, UVGI-, and DH were shown to not adversely affect bacterial filtration efficiency of masks. Single- and multiple UVGI did not adversely affect respirator filtration efficiency, while VHP and DH induced a decrease in filtration efficiency after one or three decontamination cycles. Multiple cycles of VHP-, UVGI-, and DH slightly decreased airflow resistance of masks but did not adversely affect respirator breathability. VHP and UVGI efficiently inactivated both viruses after five, DH after three, decontamination cycles, permitting demonstration of a loss of infectivity by more than three orders of magnitude. This multi-disciplinal approach provides important information on how often a given PPE item may be safely reused.

Reproducibility of repeated measurements with the Kikuhime pressure sensor under pressure garments in burn scar treatment.

This study investigated the reproducibility of repeated measurements with the Kikuhime pressure sensor under two different types of pressure garments used in the treatment and prevention of scars after burns. Also efficiency of garments was assessed in clinical circumstances by assessing pressure loss and residual pressure after 1 month. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and repeated measurements with 1-month time lapse were examined on 55 sites in 26 subjects by means of intra-class correlation coefficients and standard error of measurements. Results showed good to excellent ICC and low SEMs in the two conditions. There was a significant difference in pressure after 1 month between elastic tricot and weft knit garments, although evolution of pressure loss after 1 month was similar. Concerning different locations, there was a significant difference in pressure loss after 1 month between gloves and sleeves with the largest pressure loss for sleeves. Considering these results we concluded that the Kikuhime pressure sensor provides valid and reliable information and can be used in comparative clinical trials to evaluate pressure garments used in burn scar treatment. Secondly, elastic tricot garments in our study tended to have higher clinical pressures but both types of garments had similar pressure loss over time.

Protection from visible light by commonly used textiles is not predicted by ultraviolet protection.

Interest is increasing in the prevention of acute and chronic actinic damage provided by clothing. This interest has focused mainly on protection against ultraviolet irradiation, but it has now also turned to protection against visible light. This change is mainly due to the action spectrum in the visible light range of some photodermatoses and the increasing interest in photodynamic therapy. The ultraviolet protection provided by commercially available textiles can be graded by determining an ultraviolet protection factor. Several methods have already been used to determine the ultraviolet protection factor. The fact that protection from visible light by textiles cannot be predicted by their ultraviolet protection makes the situation more complicated. This study attempts to determine whether or not the ultraviolet protection factor value of a particular textile is a good parameter for gauging its protection in the visible light range and concludes that a protection factor of textile materials against visible light needs to be developed. This development should go beyond the protection factor definition used in this article, which has some limitations, and should take into account the exact action spectrum for which the protection is needed.

The assessment of erythema and thickness on burn related scars during pressure garment therapy as a preventive measure for hypertrophic scarring.

The aim of this study was threefold: (1) Assess the pressure loss of two types of pressure garments that are used in the treatment of hypertrophic scars after burn injury, (2) investigate the influence of two different levels of compression on erythema and thickness of burn scars and (3) examine the association between erythema and thickness. The study was a prospective trial in which 76 burn scars in 60 patients were objectively assessed with the Minolta Chromameter CR-300 for erythema and with the Dermascan C for thickness of the scar over a period of 3 months. Each patient was randomly assigned to a "normal" or "lower" compression class treatment, with respectively mean values of 15 and 10 mmHg pressure after wearing the garment for 1 month. Measurements for both parameters were taken at 0, 1, 2 and 3 months of treatment. Pressure garments with "normal" compression did lose significantly more compression over 1 month (4.82 mmHg) than did the garments from the low compression class (2.57 mmHg). Scars that were treated with garments from a "normal" compression class did score significantly better for thickness compared to the "low" compression class. The difference in thickness was most evident at 1 month. Thereafter no further significant improvement between the two different treatments over time could be obtained. This difference was not found for erythema. Positive correlations could be found between erythema and thickness values at all of the three test points while changes in erythema and thickness only correlated significantly after the first month. The pattern of change of both parameters correlated at a high level of significance after 3 months of treatment. These data suggest that pressure garments that deliver a pressure of at least 15 mmHg pressure tend to accelerate scar maturation and that measurements of the pattern of change of the erythema can be used to predict changes in scar thickness and vice versa.

European standards for protective apparel against UV radiation.

The first European standard which describes the test procedure to determine the UV-protection factor of clothing is about to be completed. A second part of the same standard, dealing with labelling and marking aspects, is ready to be submitted to public enquiry. In this effort a group of experts from most EU member states have cooperated with a high degree of consensus. In this chapter we explain this European standard together with the standard developed in the UK.

Sun protection offered by fabrics: on the relation between effective doses based on different action spectra.

BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation threshold levels have been suggested by the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP action spectrum differs from the action spectrum proposed by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE). Industrial hygienist employs the first approach while dermatologists and photobiologists commonly use the CIE spectrum. OBJECTIVES: By means of the ICNIRP and CIE action spectra we aimed to calculate the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) for clothing as a function of the UV index, and to elucidate the relation between the two action spectra. METHODS: Using a theoretically calculated solar spectrum that was determined by means of radiation transfer modelling the relation between the effective doses were assessed which were obtained by using the ICNIRP or the CIE action spectra. Employing the guidelines set out by the ICNIRP and the CIE the protection requirements for clothing were also calculated. RESULTS: It was found that the UPF of a textile material should be at least 2.25 times the maximum UV index observed on a cloudless day to comply with the guidelines of the CIE, or should be at least 4.13 times the maximum UV index to comply with the guidelines of the ICNIRP. CONCLUSIONS: In Northern Europe a UPF 40 + should indeed comply with the exposure limits (EL) proposed by the CIE or ICNIRP. However, in Southern Europe, where UV index can, as in Australia, be as high as 11 the EL can in principle be exceeded for outdoor workers or individuals staying outside the whole day. Taken into consideration the exposure geometry a clearly lower UPF seem to be sufficient in a realistic exposure situation. Nevertheless we recommend a UPF 40 + that is sufficient in extreme exposure situations in every geographical location and also resistant against UPF-decreasing effects ('worst case scenario').