Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
PLoS One ; 18(1): e0280426, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2214800

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Respiratory Protective Devices , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide , Decontamination/methods , Pandemics , Equipment Reuse , Personal Protective Equipment
2.
Ann Work Expo Health ; 65(3): 358-366, 2021 04 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894558

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The high demand of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) worldwide during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a critical situation for decision-makers regarding their supply. After authorizing the use of FFRs certified by other regions of the world, decision-makers in many countries have published alerts, particularly concerning the 'KN95' type. METHODS: This paper investigated the filtration performance of different FFRs using an experimental setup already employed during several studies on FFRs filtration performance. Its high-resolution measuring devices permit to determine filtration performance according to the normative criteria: the pressure drop and the filtration efficiency. Eight different FFRs have been used: four NIOSH-approved FFRs and four not NIOSH-approved with a 'KN95' shape available during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The data show a high disparity between different FFRs purchased by healthcare establishments, and between those that are NIOSH-approved and those that are not NIOSH-approved. The results confirm that the NIOSH certification offers good protection according to the normative criteria. The 'KN95' types present pressure drops which correspond to the normative value, however their efficiencies are lower than the efficiencies of FFRs certified by NIOSH and lower than 95% at the most penetrate particle size. CONCLUSIONS: FFRs marking is not sufficient to conclude on the FFRs' efficiency. Visual inspection can not determine which samples are counterfeit or have manufacturing defects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Exposure , Respiratory Protective Devices , Aerosols , Equipment Design , Humans , Materials Testing , N95 Respirators , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Ventilators, Mechanical
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL