Paul T J Scheepers1, Heiman F L Wertheim2,3, Maurice van Dael1, Rob Anzion1, Henk Jan Holterman4, Steven Teerenstra5, Martijn de Groot6, Andreas Voss2,3,7, Joost Hopman2,3. 1. Department for Health Evidence, Research Laboratory Molecular Epidemiology, 6500 HB Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboudumc, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Radboudumc Centre for Infectious Diseases, Radboudumc, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Wageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University and Research, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department for Health Evidence, Section Biostatistics, Radboudumc, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Radboudumc REshape Center, Radboudumc, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, 6532 SZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there was shortage of the standard respiratory protective equipment (RPE). The aim of this study was to develop a procedure to test the performance of alternative RPEs used in the care of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A laboratory-based test was developed to compare RPEs by total inward leakage (TIL). We used a crossflow nebulizer to produce a jet spray of 1-100 µm water droplets with a fluorescent marker. The RPEs were placed on a dummy head and sprayed at distances of 30 and 60 cm. The outcome was determined as the recovery of the fluorescent marker on a membrane filter placed on the mouth of the dummy head. RESULTS: At 30 cm, a type IIR surgical mask gave a 17.7% lower TIL compared with an FFP2 respirator. At 60 cm, this difference was similar, with a 21.7% lower TIL for the surgical mask compared to the respirator. When adding a face shield, the TIL at 30 cm was further reduced by 9.5% for the respirator and 16.6% in the case of the surgical mask. CONCLUSIONS: A safe, fast and very sensitive test method was developed to assess the effectiveness of RPE by comparison under controlled conditions.
BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there was shortage of the standard respiratory protective equipment (RPE). The aim of this study was to develop a procedure to test the performance of alternative RPEs used in the care of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A laboratory-based test was developed to compare RPEs by total inward leakage (TIL). We used a crossflow nebulizer to produce a jet spray of 1-100 µm water droplets with a fluorescent marker. The RPEs were placed on a dummy head and sprayed at distances of 30 and 60 cm. The outcome was determined as the recovery of the fluorescent marker on a membrane filter placed on the mouth of the dummy head. RESULTS: At 30 cm, a type IIR surgical mask gave a 17.7% lower TIL compared with an FFP2 respirator. At 60 cm, this difference was similar, with a 21.7% lower TIL for the surgical mask compared to the respirator. When adding a face shield, the TIL at 30 cm was further reduced by 9.5% for the respirator and 16.6% in the case of the surgical mask. CONCLUSIONS: A safe, fast and very sensitive test method was developed to assess the effectiveness of RPE by comparison under controlled conditions.
Authors: Alyssa C Fears; William B Klimstra; Paul Duprex; Amy Hartman; Scott C Weaver; Kenneth S Plante; Divya Mirchandani; Jessica Ann Plante; Patricia V Aguilar; Diana Fernández; Aysegul Nalca; Aysegul Totura; David Dyer; Brian Kearney; Matthew Lackemeyer; J Kyle Bohannon; Reed Johnson; Robert F Garry; Doug S Reed; Chad J Roy Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Jessica J Bartoszko; Mohammed Abdul Malik Farooqi; Waleed Alhazzani; Mark Loeb Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Neeltje van Doremalen; Trenton Bushmaker; Dylan H Morris; Myndi G Holbrook; Amandine Gamble; Brandi N Williamson; Azaibi Tamin; Jennifer L Harcourt; Natalie J Thornburg; Susan I Gerber; James O Lloyd-Smith; Emmie de Wit; Vincent J Munster Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245