Literature DB >> 22206440

Performance of conventional and antimicrobial-treated filtering facepiece respirators challenged with biological aerosols.

Michael B Lore1, John M Sebastian, TeAnne L Brown, Andrew S Viner, Nicole V McCullough, Steven H Hinrichs.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the filtration performance of four commercially available models of National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) against both biological and inert aerosols at a flow rate of 85 L/min. Conventional N95 and P100 FFRs and two antimicrobial (AM)-treated FFRs (an N95 and a P95, both with iodine-based AM treatments) were tested for both physical penetration (PEN(P)) and viable penetration (PEN(V)) with three different bioaerosols, including MS2 bacteriophage virus, and the spores and vegetative cells of Bacillus atrophaeus bacteria, in addition to inert sodium chloride (NaCl) aerosol. For each FFR model, the PEN(P) measured with NaCl was predictive of its MS2 PEN(P), and it was observed that spores and bacteria aerosols were also filtered similarly to the inert aerosol. For both conventional FFRs, up to a 1-log reduction in PEN(V) in comparison with PEN(P) was observed and attributed to the experimental variability of the test system. For both models of AM-FFRs, no statistically significant differences between PEN(V) and PEN(P) for any of the three different bioaerosol challenges were observed. Thus, no bioaerosol filtration enhancement over the conventional FFRs was detected for either iodine-based AM-FFR. In the absence of any standardized test methods, we recommend that future studies evaluating the filtration performance of AM-treated FFRs incorporate the experimental best practices described herein.
Copyright © 2012 JOEH, LLC

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22206440     DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2011.640273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of five bacteriophages as models for viral aerosol studies.

Authors:  Nathalie Turgeon; Marie-Josée Toulouse; Bruno Martel; Sylvain Moineau; Caroline Duchaine
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Comment on Scheepers et al. Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1599.

Authors:  Andrew Viner; Stewart Ayrey
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Validation and application of models to predict facemask influenza contamination in healthcare settings.

Authors:  Edward M Fisher; John D Noti; William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Ronald E Shaffer
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Universal and reusable virus deactivation system for respiratory protection.

Authors:  Fu-Shi Quan; Ilaria Rubino; Su-Hwa Lee; Brendan Koch; Hyo-Jick Choi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Viable viral efficiency of N95 and P100 respirator filters at constant and cyclic flow.

Authors:  Paul D Gardner; Jonathan P Eshbaugh; Shannon D Harpest; Aaron W Richardson; Kent C Hofacre
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 6.  A comprehensive review on antimicrobial face masks: an emerging weapon in fighting pandemics.

Authors:  Gayathri Pullangott; Uthradevi Kannan; Gayathri S; Degala Venkata Kiran; Shihabudheen M Maliyekkal
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.361

Review 7.  Efficacy and safety of decontamination for N95 respirator reuse: a systematic literature search and narrative synthesis.

Authors:  Benjamin E Steinberg; Kazuyoshi Aoyama; Mark McVey; David Levin; Asad Siddiqui; Farrukh Munshey; Neil M Goldenberg; David Faraoni; Jason T Maynes
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 6.713

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.