Caryn Lawrence1, Delbert A Harnish2, Megan Sandoval-Powers1, Devin Mills1, Michael Bergman3, Brian K Heimbuch1. 1. Engineering Science Division, Applied Research Associates, Panama City, FL. 2. Engineering Science Division, Applied Research Associates, Panama City, FL. Electronic address: dharnish@ara.com. 3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care facilities are considering the use of reusable respiratory protective devices (RPDs) to mitigate a potential N95 filtering facepiece respirator shortage caused by an influenza pandemic. US regulators are also considering stockpiling reusable RPDs for pandemic preparedness, but limited data exist on the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection of these devices. This study defines reprocessing protocols and evaluates their effectiveness against a pandemic influenza strain in a laboratory setting. METHODS: Five half-mask elastomeric respirator models and 3 powered air-purifying respirator models were contaminated with influenza virus and artificial skin oil on multiple surfaces. RPDs were then manually treated with 1 of 2 methods: cleaned or cleaned and disinfected. Presence of viable influenza was determined via swab sampling and a median tissue culture infectious dose assay. RESULTS: Across 41 RPD surfaces, a mean log reduction in viable influenza of 4.54 ± 0.97 log10 median tissue culture infectious dose was achieved for all treated surfaces, which included both cleaned and cleaned and disinfected surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: The methods defined as part of this study are effective for eliminating viable influenza in the presence of artificial skin oil on most of the RPD surfaces tested. Material type and RPD design should be considered when implementing RPD reprocessing protocols.
BACKGROUND: Health care facilities are considering the use of reusable respiratory protective devices (RPDs) to mitigate a potential N95 filtering facepiece respirator shortage caused by an influenza pandemic. US regulators are also considering stockpiling reusable RPDs for pandemic preparedness, but limited data exist on the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection of these devices. This study defines reprocessing protocols and evaluates their effectiveness against a pandemic influenza strain in a laboratory setting. METHODS: Five half-mask elastomeric respirator models and 3 powered air-purifying respirator models were contaminated with influenza virus and artificial skin oil on multiple surfaces. RPDs were then manually treated with 1 of 2 methods: cleaned or cleaned and disinfected. Presence of viable influenza was determined via swab sampling and a median tissue culture infectious dose assay. RESULTS: Across 41 RPD surfaces, a mean log reduction in viable influenza of 4.54 ± 0.97 log10 median tissue culture infectious dose was achieved for all treated surfaces, which included both cleaned and cleaned and disinfected surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: The methods defined as part of this study are effective for eliminating viable influenza in the presence of artificial skin oil on most of the RPD surfaces tested. Material type and RPD design should be considered when implementing RPD reprocessing protocols.
Authors: Thomas R Talbot; Hilary Babcock; Arthur L Caplan; Deborah Cotton; Lisa L Maragakis; Gregory A Poland; Edward J Septimus; Michael L Tapper; David J Weber Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Timothy R Julian; Francisco J Tamayo; James O Leckie; Alexandria B Boehm Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Shobha S Subhash; Maria Cavaiuolo; Lewis J Radonovich; Aaron Eagan; Martin L Lee; Sheldon Campbell; Richard A Martinello Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Robert E Thewlis; Abhishek Vishnu; Kristina A Davis; Gang Cao; Jan E Palmer; Karen E Clark; Melanie A Fisher; Rashida Khakoo; Donald H Beezhold Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Stella Beckman; Barbara Materna; Suzi Goldmacher; Jennifer Zipprich; Maryann D'Alessandro; Debra Novak; Robert Harrison Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Devin Mills; Delbert A Harnish; Caryn Lawrence; Megan Sandoval-Powers; Brian K Heimbuch Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Abhijoy Chakladar; Claire G Jones; Jimmy Siu; Mohammed Osman Hassan-Ibrahim; Mansoor Khan Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Kathleen McMahon; Donald Jeanmonod; Ronald Check; Leah Rivard; Vamsi Balakrishnan; Brian Kelly; Jonathan Pester; Rebecca Jeanmonod Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Abirami Kirubarajan; Shawn Khan; Tiffany Got; Matthew Yau; Jennifer M Bryan; Steven Marc Friedman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Livia Fernandes Probst; Ana Tereza Gomes Guerrero; Andréia Insabralde de Queiroz Cardoso; Antonio Jose Grande; Mariana Garcia Croda; James Venturini; Maria Cristina de Camargo Fonseca; Anamaria Mello Miranda Paniago; Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto; Sandra Maria do Vale Leone de Oliveira Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-08-07