Rex A Howard1, George W Lathrop2, Nathaniel Powell2. 1. Comparative Medicine Branch, Division of Scientific Resources, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: MSN2@cdc.gov. 2. Comparative Medicine Branch, Division of Scientific Resources, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are not recommended for usage in close proximity to sterile fields owing to concerns that exhaled, unfiltered air potentially may cause contamination; however, this has not been confirmed by experimental study. METHODS: After establishing background levels of airborne contamination, our team placed settling plates in a sterile field and collected contamination from participants who were performing particulate-generating actions. Participants performed the actions while wearing various forms of respiratory protection, including: (1) a full facepiece PAPR, (2) a full facepiece PAPR with a shoulder-length hood, (3) a surgical mask, and (4) no facial covering (as a positive control to determine contamination-reduction effectiveness). Specimens were collected at the end of a 10-minute sampling time frame. After incubation at 36.5˚C for 72 hours, we tabulated colony forming units as a marker of contamination. RESULTS: Surgical masks and the 2 PAPR configurations all drastically reduced aerosolized droplet contamination. Surgical masks reduced contamination by 98.48%, and both PAPRs reduced contamination by 100% (compared with the usage of no facial covering). There was no statistical difference between their effectiveness (surgical mask vs both PAPRs, P value = .588 and no hood PAPR vs hood PAPR, P value >.999). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the tested PAPR configurations are effective at reducing aerosolized droplet contamination into a sterile field, and further testing is warranted to assess other PAPR configurations as well as PAPR suitability in an operating room. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Currently, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are not recommended for usage in close proximity to sterile fields owing to concerns that exhaled, unfiltered air potentially may cause contamination; however, this has not been confirmed by experimental study. METHODS: After establishing background levels of airborne contamination, our team placed settling plates in a sterile field and collected contamination from participants who were performing particulate-generating actions. Participants performed the actions while wearing various forms of respiratory protection, including: (1) a full facepiece PAPR, (2) a full facepiece PAPR with a shoulder-length hood, (3) a surgical mask, and (4) no facial covering (as a positive control to determine contamination-reduction effectiveness). Specimens were collected at the end of a 10-minute sampling time frame. After incubation at 36.5˚C for 72 hours, we tabulated colony forming units as a marker of contamination. RESULTS: Surgical masks and the 2 PAPR configurations all drastically reduced aerosolized droplet contamination. Surgical masks reduced contamination by 98.48%, and both PAPRs reduced contamination by 100% (compared with the usage of no facial covering). There was no statistical difference between their effectiveness (surgical mask vs both PAPRs, P value = .588 and no hood PAPR vs hood PAPR, P value >.999). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the tested PAPR configurations are effective at reducing aerosolized droplet contamination into a sterile field, and further testing is warranted to assess other PAPR configurations as well as PAPR suitability in an operating room. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Yvonne Chan; Sarfaraz M Banglawala; Christopher J Chin; David W J Côté; Dustin Dalgorf; John R de Almeida; Martin Desrosiers; Richard M Gall; Artur Gevorgyan; A Hassan Hassan; Arif Janjua; John M Lee; Randy M Leung; Bradford D Mechor; Dominik Mertz; Eric Monteiro; Smriti Nayan; Brian Rotenberg; John Scott; Kristine A Smith; Doron D Sommer; Leigh Sowerby; Marc A Tewfik; Andrew Thamboo; Allan Vescan; Ian J Witterick Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-12-03
Authors: Denise J Jamieson; James P Steinberg; Richard A Martinello; Trish M Perl; Sonja A Rasmussen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.623