Literature DB >> 32360745

Counterfeit filtering facepiece respirators are posing an additional risk to health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic.

Mariachiara Ippolito1, Cesare Gregoretti1, Andrea Cortegiani2, Pasquale Iozzo3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32360745      PMCID: PMC7189852          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.04.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Infect Control        ISSN: 0196-6553            Impact factor:   2.918


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: Occupational safety measures, such as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), are of great importance during an epidemic or pandemic. These situations are usually characterized by a shortage of PPE supplies, especially in nonproducer countries. This was also the case of the current coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a huge number of health care workers have been infected and died. The spread of the virus and the lack of appropriate knowledge about the transmission routes lead a sense of insecurity in the general population, causing panic buying (and shortage) of filtering facepiece respirators (FFR). FFR are disposable protective devices, supposed to protect from the inhalation of droplets and droplet nuclei (eg, FFP2, FFP3, N95, KN95). Their filtration properties and fit characteristics are attested according to national regulations. An appropriate certification and a correct label usually attest the adherence to these regulations proving safety for the wearer. Even if slightly variable, national regulations usually provide for similar standard test conditions, and FFR from different countries can be referred as “equivalent.” During the current COVID-19 pandemic, some institutions had to rely on private donations for PPE provision. Besides, many health care workers have decided to get their PPE on their own, from unofficial retailers or using e-commerce. In this context, it may be difficult to perform quality control checks, with the risk for health care of receiving and using low-quality products or frauds in clinics. The phenomenon of counterfeiting or altering FFR is not new, and it has already been reported during 2009 flu epidemic. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration had already issued warnings about the importance to check for the presence of markings witnessing the certification by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Counterfeit FFR are defined as “products that are falsely marketed and sold as being NIOSH-certified and may not be capable of providing appropriate respiratory protection to workers, and altered FFR as ‘non-approved modifications to a NIOSH-certified respirator’.” Beside the lack of availability, the cheapness of counterfeit FFR is another common reason for their easy spread in the market. The presence of an industrial lockdown, imposing a stop to non-necessary productions, can also lead factories to perform a rapid reconversion toward the production of FFR, thus contributing to the attractiveness of counterfeiting. Moreover, FFR can be altered just to enhance their appearance. This is the case of the so-called “fashion respirators,” including original respirators with additional logos, decorations or materials glued or stapled. All these cases represent risks for workers’ safety. Several cases of counterfeiting have already been reported. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has listed out some suspect characteristics of counterfeit respirators. Table 1 summarizes the main suspect characteristics of counterfeit compared to appropriate FFR. Among the suspect features, there are ear loops designs, the absence of markings or references to national regulation or approval number on the FFR or the presence of flawed ones, the presence of decorative add-ons, a declared approval for children or multiple packaging.
Table 1

A comparison between legitimate and potentially counterfeit FFR

LegitimatePotentially counterfeit
DesignHeadbandsEar loops
MarkingsApproval numberNo approval number
Brand name or registered trademarkNo name or altered name
Filter class and filtering efficiency levelFilter class and filtering efficiency level can be both present or absent or spelled incorrectly
Clear referring to national regulationNo markings or flawed reference
External appearanceNo decorationsDecorative materials or adds-on
Declared approvalFor adults onlyFor adults or children
SellerAuthorized, consistent prices and items over time, email address connected to the website as primary contact,Previously trading different items (ie, trendy items), price fluctuations, hidden contacts or free email as primary contact, blank pages, broken links or errors in the website.

FFR, filtering facepiece respirators.

A comparison between legitimate and potentially counterfeit FFR FFR, filtering facepiece respirators. The CDC has provided additional tips for the users to detect unreliable sellers, for example, when unlimited stocks are declared or if websites contain bad grammar and other errors. The European Commission offers an alert system for dangerous products, including FFR, to receive reports from the authorities of the member states about suspected products found on the market. Through the EU commission portal, users can search for alerted products, seeing pictures, characteristics and if measures were ordered by public authorities. It is also provided a list of contacts to make a report to national authorities. To date, the risk of infection associated with the use of counterfeit FFR has not been estimated since no specific data are available. However, it is reasonable to believe that counterfeit FFR pose an additional risk of contagion to health care workers due the potentially lower protecting capacity. An analysis conducted by the US National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory demonstrated that the filtering capacity of not NIOSH-approved FFR can vary considerably, from 24.1% to equal to the standard (minimum level >95% for N95 type). Health care workers should alert local competent authorities when in doubt about the appropriateness of FFR in use. Should health care workers’ safety rely on the individual ability to detect counterfeit FFR before using? Are institutions making all the possible efforts to avoid making these products available to health care workers? Countermeasures are urgently needed at both government and institutional levels. Informative campaigns to increase awareness, formal training on how to recognize counterfeit FFR and rigid quality standard check before the distribution to health care setting can help limiting the risk associated with this phenomenon. The table briefly provides the characteristics of legitimate FFR in comparison with potentially counterfeit ones that can be used as warnings signs for the user. Information were retrieved from CDC. ,
  1 in total

Review 1.  Medical masks and Respirators for the Protection of Healthcare Workers from SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.

Authors:  Mariachiara Ippolito; Filippo Vitale; Giuseppe Accurso; Pasquale Iozzo; Cesare Gregoretti; Antonino Giarratano; Andrea Cortegiani
Journal:  Pulmonology       Date:  2020-04-27
  1 in total
  10 in total

Review 1.  Review of drug recalls and quality of pharmaceutical products in Nepal.

Authors:  Astha Neupane; Maheshwor Bastakoti; Sabita Tamang; Basant Giri
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Optimized and Non-Optimized Personal Protective Equipment Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Thailand: A National Cross-Sectional Survey in a Resource-Limited Setting.

Authors:  Visal Moolasart; Weerawat Manosuthi; Varaporn Thienthong; Uajai Jaemsak; Winnada Kongdejsakda; Pimonamorn Pantool; Suthat Chottanapund
Journal:  Environ Health Insights       Date:  2021-04-30

3.  Global risk to the community and clinical setting: Flocking of fake masks and protective gears during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Simon Ching Lam; Lorna Kwai Ping Suen; Teris Cheuk Chi Cheung
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 2.918

4.  Personal protective equipment use by healthcare workers in intensive care unit during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a secondary analysis of the PPE-SAFE survey.

Authors:  Mariachiara Ippolito; Mahesh Ramanan; Davide Bellina; Giulia Catalisano; Pasquale Iozzo; Andrea Di Guardo; Alessandra Moscarelli; Giacomo Grasselli; Antonino Giarratano; Matteo Bassetti; Alexis Tabah; Andrea Cortegiani
Journal:  Ther Adv Infect Dis       Date:  2021-02-25

5.  KN95 and N95 Respirators Retain Filtration Efficiency despite a Loss of Dipole Charge during Decontamination.

Authors:  Wonjun Yim; Diyi Cheng; Shiv H Patel; Rui Kou; Ying Shirley Meng; Jesse V Jokerst
Journal:  ACS Appl Mater Interfaces       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 9.229

6.  Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head.

Authors:  Christian M Sterr; Inga-Lena Nickel; Christina Stranzinger; Claudia I Nonnenmacher-Winter; Frank Günther
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Disinfection chain: A novel method for cheap reusable and chemical free disinfection of public places from SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Sushanta Debnath; Mohiul Islam
Journal:  ISA Trans       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 5.911

8.  Discrepancy of particle passage in 101 mask batches during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany.

Authors:  Lukas T Hirschwald; Stefan Herrmann; Daniel Felder; Anna M Kalde; Felix Stockmeier; Denis Wypysek; Michael Alders; Maik Tepper; Jens Rubner; Peter Brand; Thomas Kraus; Matthias Wessling; John Linkhorst
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Rapid Review of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Viability, Susceptibility to Treatment, and the Disinfection and Reuse of PPE, Particularly Filtering Facepiece Respirators.

Authors:  José G B Derraik; William A Anderson; Elizabeth A Connelly; Yvonne C Anderson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  An accessible method for screening aerosol filtration identifies poor-performing commercial masks and respirators.

Authors:  Katherine Schilling; Drew R Gentner; Lawrence Wilen; Antonio Medina; Colby Buehler; Luis J Perez-Lorenzo; Krystal J Godri Pollitt; Reza Bergemann; Nick Bernardo; Jordan Peccia; Vincent Wilczynski; Lisa Lattanza
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 6.371

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.