Shan Yan1,2, Chavis A Stackhouse1,3, Iradwikanari Waluyo4, Adrian Hunt4, Kim Kisslinger5, Ashley R Head5, David C Bock1,2, Esther S Takeuchi1,2,3,6, Kenneth J Takeuchi1,2,3,6, Lei Wang1,2, Amy C Marschilok1,2,3,6. 1. Institute for Electrochemically Stored Energy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, United States. 2. Interdisciplinary Science Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, United States. 4. National Synchrotron Light Source II, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, United States. 5. Center for Functional Nanomaterials, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, United States. 6. Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, United States.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in imminent shortages of personal protective equipment such as face masks. To address the shortage, new sterilization or decontamination procedures for masks are quickly being developed and employed. Dry heat and steam sterilization processes are easily scalable and allow treatment of large sample sizes, thus potentially presenting fast and efficient decontamination routes, which could significantly ease the rapidly increasing need for protective masks globally during a pandemic like COVID-19. In this study, a suite of structural and chemical characterization techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle, X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Raman were utilized to probe the heat treatment impact on commercially available 3M 8210 N95 Particulate Respirator and VWR Advanced Protection surgical mask. Unique to this study is the use of the synchrotron-based In situ and Operando Soft X-ray Spectroscopy (IOS) beamline (23-ID-2) housed at the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National Laboratory for near-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (NEXAFS).
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in imminent shortages of personal protective equipment such as face masks. To address the shortage, new sterilization or decontamination procedures for masks are quickly being developed and employed. Dry heat and steam sterilization processes are easily scalable and allow treatment of large sample sizes, thus potentially presenting fast and efficient decontamination routes, which could significantly ease the rapidly increasing need for protective masks globally during a pandemic like COVID-19. In this study, a suite of structural and chemical characterization techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle, X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Raman were utilized to probe the heat treatment impact on commercially available 3M 8210 N95 Particulate Respirator and VWR Advanced Protection surgical mask. Unique to this study is the use of the synchrotron-based In situ and Operando Soft X-ray Spectroscopy (IOS) beamline (23-ID-2) housed at the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National Laboratory for near-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (NEXAFS).
The COVID-19 pandemic
has caused imminent local shortages of personal
protective equipment such as face masks in hospitals, healthcare facilities,
and individual households,[1] necessitating
reuse.[2] Reuse of these masks can minimize
waste, protect the environment, and help solve the current acute shortage
of masks. To address the shortage, new sterilization or decontamination
procedures for masks are quickly being developed and deployed.[3] The main requirements for decontamination methods
are that they should not (1) damage the structural integrity of the
mask, (2) impact proper fitting, (3) impact filtration efficiency,
or (4) leave residual chemicals.[4] One such
approach is the use of vaporous hydrogen peroxide,[5] while other decontamination procedures include the use
of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), moist heat or steam,
exposure to ethylene oxide gas, as well as the use of liquid hydrogen
peroxide.[6]Soap and water have been
shown to degrade the filtration efficiency
of multiple N95 models, allowing for markedly increased penetration.[7] Similarly, immersion within alcohol reagents
such as ethanol, isopropanol, and bleach-containing solutions negatively
affects N95 filtration efficiency[7,8] and can result
in electret degradation,[9] discouraging
use of household disinfectants to decontaminate face masks. The use
of bleach-containing wipes can decontaminate some pathogens without
damaging the mask material; however, associated health risks for asthmatic
and sensitized users discourage their usage without an extended outgassing
protocol prior to application.[8,10,11] Promising applicable mask decontamination methods have included
exposure to hydrogen peroxide vapor, UV-C radiation, and humid heat.[12,13] Hydrogen peroxide vapor inactivates the novel SARS-CoV-2, among
other viruses and resistant bacterial spores without damaging filter
quality or strapping over multiple exposure cycles of some types of
N95 respirators.[14] However, hydrogen peroxide
vapor treatment leads to some incompatibility with N95 face covering
respirators that utilize cellulose as a component, negatively impacting
the fit of some N95 models and may pose respiratory and skin irritation
hazards without sufficient outgassing. UV-C radiation of greater than
1 J/cm2 inactivates viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2; however,
if the radiation reaches the inner N95 layers, some damage at higher
doses (≥120 J/cm2) can emerge, thus must be paired
with additional chemical disinfection methods to decontaminate strappings.[15−18]Both dry heat and steam sterilization processes are easily
scalable
and allow treatment of large sample sizes, thus potentially presenting
fast and efficient decontamination routes,[4] which could significantly ease the rapidly increasing need for protective
masks globally during a pandemic like COVID-19. Both steam and dry
heat treatment have long been recognized as efficient methods of virus
inactivation by altering conformations of viral proteins involved
in the attachment to and replication within host cells.[19] Dry heat treatment (>65 °C) has previously
been shown to inactivate SARS-CoV in suspension,[20] while at a temperature of 102 °C for 60 min, infectious
porcine respiratory coronavirus reduced by more than three orders
of magnitude on surgical masks.[21] A temperature
of 70 °C was identified to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in solution.[22]Dry heat treatment at 70 °C for 1
h can ensure the decontamination
of surgical face masks and N95 respirators while maintaining their
filtering efficiency and shape for up to at least three rounds of
treatment.[23] A temperature of 100 °C
was demonstrated to not significantly alter the filtration efficiency
of N95 respirators within 20 cycles of treatment.[24] It was reported by 3M that moist heat for 30 min at 60
°C, 80% relative humidity (RH) did not affect the filter performance
of N95.[25,26] Another report suggested that the surgical
masks and N95 respirators retained their filtration efficacy even
after being steamed in boiling water for 2 h.[27] Steam heating of the N95 respirators in an autoclave for 15 min
at 121 °C led to the death of almost 100% of Bacillus
subtilis spores. Additionally, dry heat decontamination
in a rice cooker for 3 min at temperatures of 149–164 °C
was shown to have no negative impact on the performance of the respirator.[28] However, if the temperature and treatment time
are not carefully controlled, the mask fibers may be damaged, resulting
in increases in the particle penetration, poorly fitting loose masks,
and eventual decreases in the filtration efficiency, which could result
in exposure to harmful byproducts during mask use.Since both
dry heat and steam sterilization could serve as promising
strategies in the fight against mask shortages due to COVID-19, the
focus of this study is to provide a more detailed understanding of
the chemical properties and physical structure of mask materials before
and after dry heat and steam sterilization processes. In this study,
a suite of structural characterization techniques, including scanning
electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle, X-ray diffraction (XRD),
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Raman were utilized to
probe the heat treatment impact on commercially available 3M 8210
N95 Particulate Respirator and VWR Advanced Protection surgical mask.
SEM can provide morphological information regarding the thickness
and three-dimensional (3D) network structure of the mask materials
before and after heat treatment, while XRD and XPS can characterize
the changes in crystallinity and surface chemical moieties upon the
heat treatment. Contact angle measurements were performed to characterize
the wetting properties of mask material surfaces toward artificial
saliva solution, which was used to mimic interactions of respiratory
droplets.[29] A contact angle higher than
90° suggests low wettability and poor contact between the fluid
and the surface, while a favorable wettability of the surface evinces
a contact angle less than 90°, and the fluids will spread over
a large area of the measured surface. Raman spectra were acquired
to not only characterize the composition and crystallinity of individual
layers in the N95 respirators and VWR surgical masks but also to monitor
the conformational order/disorder (regularity) along the chain length
of the polymer materials.Unique to this study is the use of
synchrotron-based In situ and
Operando soft X-ray spectroscopy (IOS) beamline (23-ID-2) housed at
the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory for near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS)
spectroscopy. To our best knowledge, this demonstrates the first use
of the carbon K-edge NEXAFS to study the heat treatment impact on
commercial mask materials. The spectra of the N95 and surgical mask
materials were collected using two different detection modes: partial
fluorescence yield (PFY) and total electron yield (TEY).[30] The depth sensitivity of the XAS technique depends
on the decay products that are collected, photons (“fluorescence
yield” or FY), or electrons (“electron yield”
or EY). The much smaller interaction cross section of X-rays in solids,
as compared to electrons, makes the EY method much more surface sensitive
than the FY method; the sampling depth d in EY mode is material dependent
and typically smaller than 10 nm, while it is of the order of 100
nm for FY mode for photon energies smaller than 1 keV.[31] By collecting both PFY and TEY Carbon K-edge
spectra, the impact of heat treatment on the structural integrity
of mask materials at different thickness levels can be assessed.
Experimental Methods
Heat Treatment Procedures
Dry
Heat Treatment
Dry heat treatment of mask materials
was carried out with a Binder oven (BF 56—UL) at 100 °C
for four cycles, with 30 min for heating at 100 °C and 10 min
for cooling per cycle at room temperature.
Steam Treatment
Steam treatment of mask materials was
carried out using a Revolutionary Science Saniclave-Autoclave 200
with use of 4 cycles of the Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation (AAMI)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
hospital sterilization protocol at 123 °C for each cycle with
30 min allotted for heating to 123 °C, for dwelling at 123 °C,
and for cooling at room temperature.
Structural Characterizations
SEM
Characterization
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
images were collected using a high-resolution SEM (JEOL 7600F) instrument.
SEM images were acquired at an accelerating voltage of 5 kV. A thin
layer of Ag with 10 nm thickness was applied to the mask materials
to reduce charging.
X-ray Diffraction (XRD)
XRD measurements
were performed
using X-ray powder diffraction using a Rigaku SmartLab X-ray diffractometer
with Cu Kα radiation and Bragg–Brentano focusing geometry.
XPS
XPS experiments were performed at the Center for
Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Both sample
preparation and XPS measurements were performed in a lab-based ambient
pressure photoelectron spectrometer[32] by
SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH, with PHOIBOS 150 NAP hemispherical
analyzer. The system has a sample preparation chamber and an analysis
chamber separated by a gate valve; the base pressure in the analysis
chamber is <10–9 mbar. A monochromated Al Kα
(Ehν = 1486.6 eV) anode was used as the excitation
source and was focused to a 300 μm × 300 μm spot.
A pass energy of 20 eV was used for the O 1s and C 1s core-level regions.
An electron flood gun was used to control charge build-up on the insulating
samples. For each spectral region, a pass energy of 20 eV and step
size of 0.1 eV were used, with a minimum of 10 scans per region. Data
were analyzed using CasaXPS software. A Shirley background was subtracted
prior to peak deconvolution. Fitting was performed using a symmetric
line shape consisting of the product of Gaussian and Lorentzian functions.[33] Typically, 70% Gaussian character was determined
to result in best fits to the data.
Raman
Raman spectra
of the pristine and treated mask
materials were recorded on a HORIBA Scientific XploRA instrument with
a 532 nm laser at 10% intensity using a 20× objective and a grating
of 1200 lines/mm. The spectra were calibrated with a Si standard.
Contact Angle
The contact angle as a function of time
was determined by use of a Kyowa DM-501 instrument and measured with
the half-angle method. Each experiment was run for 10 duplicate trials,
using 20 μL or 10 μL of artificial saliva (AS) solution,
and data points were recorded every 100 ms for 10 min, and the volume
change as a function of time was determined using the droplet profile
and Kyowa FAMAS software.
Carbon K-Edge NEXAFS
C K-edge NEXAFS
measurements were
performed at the IOS (23-ID-2) beamline at NSLS-II. To avoid surface
water contamination from the environment onto the mask materials,
individual layers of the mask materials were secured onto the copper
sample holder using indium foil, which was subsequently sealed in
an Al pouch inside a humidity-controlled dry room before getting transferred
to the ultra-high vacuum sample measurement chamber. Carbon K-edge
NEXAFS spectra were recorded over a wide energy range from 280 to
380 eV using in a step scan (280–290 eV: 0.1 eV step, 290–300
eV: 0.2 eV step, 300–320 eV: 0.5 eV step, 320–380 eV:
1 eV step), with the incident beam at 90 degree. The spectra were
acquired in total electron yield (TEY) through drain current measurement
and partial fluorescence yield (PFY) (using a Vortex EM silicon drift
detector) modes at multiple locations of each sample. The spectra
were normalized by setting the flat low energy region (∼280
eV) to zero and the peak maxima to one to provide a qualitative assessment
of spectra changes. Energy calibration was verified with respect to
the C–C π* transition in the graphene oxide reference
compound.[34] XAS data were processed using
Athena software packages.[35]
Results
and Discussion
Morphology Evolution and Wetting Behaviors
of N95 Respirators
and VWR Surgical Masks after Heat Treatment
SEM images of
the masks before and after heat treatment were acquired to investigate
the morphology evolution (Figure ). The pristine 3M Particulate Respirator 8210 N95
respirator was separated into four individual layers (Figure A). The 1st layer measures
around 200 μm in thickness, which is composed of polyester[1] microfibers, with a diameter of ∼20 μm.
The 2nd layer is around 400 μm thick, containing polypropylene
microfibers[1] measuring ∼1–10
μm. The 3rd layer is around 200 μm in thickness, consisting
of polypropylene microfibers[1] with similar
size shown in the second layer. The lofty nonwoven fibers can stack
and create a 3D network that has a porosity of 90%, leading to very
high air permeability.[36] The 4th layer
is around 200 μm in thickness and contains polyester microfibers,[1] with a diameter around 30 μm. After the
dry heat treatment at 100 °C, minimal damage was observed in
layers 1–3, with only a few defects noted in the 4th layer,
which indicated that the dry heat treatment does not induce significant
structural degradation to the N95 masks. More severe damage (broken
and etched fibers) was observed in the steam-treated samples with
defects circled in the layers, suggesting a stronger structural degradation.
Figure 1
SEM images
of individual layers in pristine, dry heat, and steam-treated
N95 respirators (A) and VWR surgical masks (B).
SEM images
of individual layers in pristine, dry heat, and steam-treated
N95 respirators (A) and VWR surgical masks (B).The pristine VWR surgical mask was separated into three layers
(Figure B). The 1st
layer and 3rd layer show a similar thickness of around 200 μm,
composed of microfibers with a diameter of around 20 μm. The
only difference is that the 1st layer has a green dye. The middle
2nd layer measures 100 μm in thickness with thinner microfibers
in the range of 2–10 μm. All three layers are made of
polypropylene microfibers. Both dry heat and steam heat treatments
seem to induce surface damage in the 1st and 3rd layers, as indicated
by the red circles, while for the middle 2nd layer, the steam treatment
led to stronger damage.The greater structural damage observed
in the steam-treated N95
respirators and surgical masks in this study is consistent with previous
literature, where most N95 respirator types with autoclave (steam)
treatment appeared to have some physical damage to the overall structure
and shape of the respirators and failed quantitative fit testing for
multiple respirator types tested.[37−39] Although autoclaving
(i.e., steam at ∼121 °C and >15 psi) is a proven method
of sterilization of most pathogens, it has been noted previously that
moist heat can degrade filter efficiency in some cases, making it
less effective for decontamination of used respirators.[40]The artificial saliva contact angle and
volume change as a function
of time for the material layers of the 3M Particulate Respirator 8210
N95 respirators is shown in Figure . Figure A–C depicts the outside surface of the 1st layer of N95, which
shows the contact angle at 133°, and the droplet volume did not
show significant change in 60 s. Upon dry heat treatment, the contact
angle decreased minutely to 130°. Steam treatment evinced the
most pronounced change, reducing the contact angle to 110°, implying
a sharp increase in surface adsorption to the artificial saliva droplet,
indicating that steam treatment can potentially increase the adsorption
of transmitted saliva from outside to the outermost layer of the N95
respirator, lowering the protection efficacy. The 2nd layer of N95,
shown in Figure D–F,
displayed a contact angle around 115° and did not show a significant
change within 60 s, while the volume slightly decreased as a function
of time. Upon dry heat treatment, the contact angle decreased minutely
to 110°, implying an increase in surface adsorption to the artificial
saliva droplet. Steam treatment, however, showed little change from
the pristine sample, evincing an observed contact angle of 116°.
The 3rd layer of N95 shown in Figure G–I displayed a contact angle around 124°
and did not show a significant change in 60 s, while the volume slightly
decreased as a function of time. Upon dry heat treatment, the contact
angle increased to 129°, implying a decrease in surface adsorption
to the artificial saliva droplet. Steam treatment, again, showed little
change from the pristine sample, evincing an observed contact angle
of 125°.
Figure 2
Contact angle as a function of time for the 1st layer
(A), heat-treated
1st layer (B), steam-treated 1st layer (C), 2nd layer (D), heat-treated
2nd layer (E), steam-treated 2nd layer (F), 3rd layer (G), heat-treated
3rd layer (H), and steam-treated 3rd layer (I) of 3M Particulate Respirator
8210 N95.
Contact angle as a function of time for the 1st layer
(A), heat-treated
1st layer (B), steam-treated 1st layer (C), 2nd layer (D), heat-treated
2nd layer (E), steam-treated 2nd layer (F), 3rd layer (G), heat-treated
3rd layer (H), and steam-treated 3rd layer (I) of 3M Particulate Respirator
8210 N95.The contact angle and volume change
as a function of time for the
material layers of the VWR surgical mask is shown in Figure . Figure A–C displays the 1st layer of the
VWR surgical mask, which shows the contact angle around 119°
and does not show a significant change in 60 s. Both dry heat and
steam treatments caused the contact angle to decrease minutely to
115° to show increased surface adsorption. The 2nd layer of the
VWR surgical mask, shown in Figure D–F, displayed a contact angle around 134°
and did not show significant change within 60 s, while the volume
similarly remained constant. Only the dry heat treatment evinced a
change to the observed contact angle, which reduced to 121° to
imply increased surface adsorption. The 3rd layer of the VWR surgical
mask shown in Figure G–I displayed a contact angle around 118° and did not
show a significant change in 60 s. Both dry heat and steam treatments
caused the contact angle to decrease minutely to 111° to show
increased surface adsorption. Collectively, with respect to the VWR
surgical mask, the steam and dry heat exposures served to increase
the surface adsorption toward the artificial saliva or evoke no change
at all.
Figure 3
Contact angle and volume change as a function of time for the 1st
layer (A), heat-treated 1st layer (B), steam-treated 1st layer (C),
2nd layer (D), heat-treated 2nd layer (E), steam-treated 2nd layer
(F), 3rd layer (G), heat-treated 3rd layer (H), and steam-treated
3rd layer (I) of VWR Advanced Protection surgical mask.
Contact angle and volume change as a function of time for the 1st
layer (A), heat-treated 1st layer (B), steam-treated 1st layer (C),
2nd layer (D), heat-treated 2nd layer (E), steam-treated 2nd layer
(F), 3rd layer (G), heat-treated 3rd layer (H), and steam-treated
3rd layer (I) of VWR Advanced Protection surgical mask.
Bulk Crystallinity and Bond Evolution of N95 Respirators and
VWR Surgical Masks after Heat Treatment
XRD characterization
was used to identify the composition and crystallinity of each layer
of mask materials. The XRD characterization of 3M Particulate Respirator
8210 N95 is shown in Figure A–D, including pristine, dry heat treatment, and steam
treatment. The XRD patterns of the layer 1 and layer 4 indicated the
semicrystalline feature, and as marked therein, the major diffraction
patterns appear due to reflections from (010), (1̅10), and (100)
planes of the polyester phase (PDF #50-2275), as shown in Figure A,D. The XRD patterns
of layer 2 and layer 3 indicated the semicrystalline feature, and
as marked therein, the major diffraction patterns appear due to reflections
from (110), (045), (130), and (1̅31) planes of the polypropylene
phase (PDF #50-2397), as shown in Figure B,C. The XRD pattern of the dry treatment
sample did not show an obvious difference from the pristine samples,
which indicates that the N95 has stable composition and crystalline
structure under dry heat treatment. The XRD patterns of the steam
treatment sample show a slight difference at each layer from pristine
materials. As shown in Figure A,D, the (01̅1) peak disappears after steam treatment
in layer 1 and layer 4, and the peak at (1̅11) separates from
the peak (1̅10) after steam treatment in layer 1. The peak intensity
increased after steam treatment in layer 2, indicating more crystallinity
features after steam treatment (Figure B). In layer 3, the peak at (111) becomes more distinct
after steam treatment (Figure C). The XRD characterization of each layer in the VWR surgical
mask is shown in Figure E–G, including pristine, dry heat treatment, and steam treatment.
The XRD patterns of layers 1–3 indicated the semicrystalline
feature. Specifically, layer 2 (Figure F) is relatively more amorphous than layer 1 (Figure E) and layer 3 (Figure G). As marked therein,
the major diffraction patterns appear due to reflections from (110),
(045), (130), and (1̅31) planes of the monoclinic α-polypropylene
phase (PDF #50-2397). The pristine layer 2 material has an obvious
broadening of the (110) peak, which suggests the variation of fiber
diameter with the fabric’s axis being (110).[41] However, the peak intensity increased, and the peaks were
sharper after dry heat and steam treatment, especially for layer 2
as shown in Figure F, indicating more crystalline features were observed after dry heat
and steam treatment. The increased crystallinity of polymer fibers
after steam treatment might increase the polymer hardness but decrease
the elasticity, which could impact the fit and filtration efficiency
of the treated mask.[42]
Figure 4
XRD spectra of four layers
in N95 respirators (A–D) and
three layers in VWR surgical masks (E–G) before and after dry
heat and steam heat treatments.
XRD spectra of four layers
in N95 respirators (A–D) and
three layers in VWR surgical masks (E–G) before and after dry
heat and steam heat treatments.Raman spectra of mask materials not only indicate the composition
and crystallinity of each layer but also are sensitive to the conformational
order/disorder (regularity) along the chain length of polymer materials.
Based on the acquired Raman spectra, layers 1 and 4 of N95 respirators
can be assigned to polyester material (Figure A,D),[43] as indicated
by the strong C=C stretching band (ring deformation) at 1615
cm–1 and C=O stretching band at 1730 cm–1. A group of bands at 1115, 1094, and 998 cm–1 have been previously attributed to mixed modes of ring CH in-plane
bending, glycol C–O stretching, COC and CCO bending, and C–C
stretching of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET).[44] A peak at 1002 cm–1 can be identified
in all of the polyethylene (PE) mask materials, which was previously
assigned to C–C and C–O stretching of the ethylene glycol
group and only appears when the material is crystalline or semicrystalline,
with a trans glycol conformation.[45] The
1st layer of N95 shows higher intensity of this peak with narrow bandwidth
than that in the 4th layer, which possibly suggests higher crystallinity
of the polyester in the 1st layer. Overall, no significant differences
of Raman spectra were observed in the bulk structure of layers 1 and
4 in N95 masks before and after heat treatment, suggesting the minimal
changes in crystallinity and bond orientation of the outer layer and
inner layer of 3M Particulate Respirator 8210 N95 are quite stable
under heat treatment.
Figure 5
Raman spectra of four layers in N95 respirators (A–D)
and
three layers in VWR surgical masks (E–G) before and after dry
heat and steam heat treatments.
Raman spectra of four layers in N95 respirators (A–D)
and
three layers in VWR surgical masks (E–G) before and after dry
heat and steam heat treatments.Layers 2 and 3 of N95 (Figure B,C), and all three layers in the VWR surgical masks
(Figure E–G),
have spectra features that resemble polypropylene materials. It is
noted that the 1st layer in the VWR surgical mask (Figure E) showed high fluorescence,
as indicated by the broad peak features, possibly due to the dye used
in this layer. The fluorescence became even more severe after the
treatment, and no obvious polymer peaks can be discerned below 1500
cm–1, indicating some impact of heat on the 1st
layer. The band at 1435 cm–1 has been assigned to
the CH2 group deformation. The 972 cm–1 band has been assigned to the symmetry of the 31 helical
structure. The broad asymmetric band observed at approximately 830
cm–1 apparently splits into two bands at 808 and
840 cm–1 upon crystallization. This indicates that
the 830 cm–1 band is a fundamental frequency of
the chemical repeat unit that is altered by the symmetry of the helical
chain conformation due to inter-molecular coupling between adjacent
groups.[46,47] The 810 cm–1 band can
be assigned to helical chains within the crystals, while a broader
band at 840 cm–1 is assigned to chains in nonhelical
conformation.[48] The ratio of two bands
at 810 and 840 cm–1 decreased after steam heat treatment
in layers 2 and 3 in N95 (Figure B,C), suggesting the shorting of helical chain conformation
of polypropylene after heat treatment.[49] The VWR surgical mask’s 2nd layer Raman bands are broader
and weaker than those in the 3rd layer, which potentially suggested
lower crystallinity in this layer due to the narrower thickness of
the fibers.[50] The changes in the peak intensity
and peak ratio of two bands at 810 and 840 cm–1 are
more obvious in the 2nd layer in comparison with the 3rd layer, possibly
suggesting more structural damage in the 2nd layer. Similar to the
XRD observations in Figure B,C, the Raman peaks in layers 2 and 3 in the N95 respirators
as well as layer 2 in the VWR surgical mask became sharper after the
steam treatment, indicating improved crystallinity of the polymers
in these layers. Overall, the Raman results suggested that there might
be some level of shorting of helical chain conformation and potentially
weaker mechanical strength in the 2nd and 3rd layers of the N95 respirators
and the 2nd layer of the VWR surgical mask, while the 3rd layer shows
the highest stability toward heat treatment.
Changes in Surface Chemistry
of N95 Respirators and VWR Surgical
Masks after Heat Treatment
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
(XPS) was used to characterize the surface chemistry of the mask materials
before and after heat treatments. The XPS spectra for C 1s and O 1s
regions collected on the 3M Particulate Respirator 8210 N95 are shown
in Figures and 7, respectively. For the pristine material, C 1s
spectra show that all four layers of the materials have a significant
C–C/C–H binding component. For layer 1, additional peaks
are also observed at ca. 286.5 eV and ca. 288 eV, assigned to C–O
and C=O bonds, respectively. Some residual signal at the low
B.E. side of the C 1s peak may be an artifact of charge compensation
using the electron gun.[51] Prominent carbon
to oxygen bonding was also observed at ca. 532–533 eV in the
O 1s spectra for layers 1 and 4. These spectra are consistent with
these layers being comprised of polyester,[52] in good agreement with the XRD results. Layers 2 and 3 exhibit primarily
C–C/C–H bonding, consistent with polypropylene,[53] which was also assigned from XRD indexing. A
very low-intensity signal is observed in the O 1s spectra, possibly
due to the absorption of molecular water.[54] Because the O 1s spectra are slightly more surface sensitive than
the C 1s spectra due to the lower kinetic energy of the O 1s photoelectrons,
there could be some contribution from C–O and C=O that
is not seen in the C 1s data. It is worth mentioning that there was
a noticeable intensity increase after the steam treatment in the O
1s spectra of N95 layer 4, which possibly suggested that the steam
treatment induced more physisorption of oxygenated species on the
polymer fibers such as H2O and O2.
Figure 6
C 1s XPS spectra
of pristine, dry-heat-treated, and steam-treated
N95 respirators.
Figure 7
C 1s XPS spectra of pristine,
dry-heat-treated, and steam-treated
VWR surgical masks.
C 1s XPS spectra
of pristine, dry-heat-treated, and steam-treated
N95 respirators.C 1s XPS spectra of pristine,
dry-heat-treated, and steam-treated
VWR surgical masks.Figures and S2 show the
C 1s and O 1s XPS spectra of VWR
surgical masks. For all three layers, primarily C–C/C–H
bonding was observed, which is again consistent with the diffraction
measurements that indicated polypropylene composition. No C–O
bonding was observed in the C 1s region; however, low levels of adventitious
oxygen were observed in the O 1s spectra, suggesting low levels of
molecular water absorption.[54] Treatment
by dry or steam heat did not change the surface chemistry of the materials.
Carbon K-Edge NEXAFS
Since steam treatment demonstrated
a higher level of structural change from SEM observations, the NEXAFS
measurements were collected only on the pristine and steam-treated
samples to investigate the change of surface structures of the mask
materials.In the 1st and 4th layers of N95 respirators containing
polyester fibers, two sets of peaks at 284.8 eV (π*C=C excitations) and 288.2 eV (π*C=O transitions)
are observed. Two subpeaks that are found in each set are due to conjugation
across the terephthalic segment in the repeat unit, resulting in a
splitting of the excited final state.[55,56] The high noise
observed above 290 eV in the PFY data are mainly due to the high level
of X-ray absorption due to the thick layer of mask material, making
detection of changes in the cross section no longer possible. In the
PFY data (Figure A–D),
no significant changes were observed before and after the steam treatment,
similar to the observations in the XPS data. Interestingly, in the
TEY data (Figure E,H),
where more surface features were observed, an obvious decrease of
the shoulder peak at 287.5 eV relative to the main peak at 288.2 eV
(π*C=O transitions) was observed (green rectangles).
The peak at 287.5 eV has been previously assigned to π*C=C/C=O
transition in the C–R(ring) of poly(ethylene terephthalate)
(PET) polymer.[57] The ratio change can possibly
suggest heat-induced ring-opening reactions that lead to the formation
of new carbonyl species. Additionally, despite the π*C=O
peak broadening with new features appearing between 289 and 290 eV
(yellow dashed box), the overall intensity relative to the π*C=C peak (284.8 eV) decreased. This could suggest that
some of the ester groups of the terephthalic unit can be destroyed
by the steam, resulting in CO and CO2 and benzoic acid
ester radicals.[58] The PFY data of the 2nd
and 3rd layers of N95 containing polypropylene fibers (Figure B,C) showed noisy and dampened
signals in the pristine material, which does not provide a useful
assessment of the heat impact. In the TEY data (Figure F,G), the pristine material depicted a small
peak around 285.0 eV, which is probably due to an additive or filler
within these layers or the small amount of beam damage during sample
measurement. The strong intensity peak located at 287.5 eV can be
attributed to the C 1s to σ*C–H transition, and the broad
feature around 292 eV corresponds to the σ*C–C bonds
in the chain backbone.[56] After steam treatment
in the 2nd layer (Figure F), the main peak at σ*C–H intensity decreased,
while the peak at 285 eV became broader, which suggested a possible
decrease of C–H bonds and the formation of C=C bonds
due to the degradation of the polymer. The main peak shifted to 288.3
eV with new π* features appearing at 288.8 eV (yellow dashed
box), which possibly suggested a small amount of C=O functionalities
during the degradation of polypropylene.[34,59] In the 3rd layer TEY data (Figure G), no peak broadening of the main peaks corresponding
to π* features were observed, indicating the damage might be
less severe in the 3rd layer in comparison with the 2nd layer.
Figure 8
C K-edge NEXAFS
spectra of N95 layer 1–4 collected in PFY
(A–D) and TEY (E–H) modes, respectively, where all spectra
were normalized by setting the flat low energy region (∼280
eV) to zero and the peak maxima to one.
C K-edge NEXAFS
spectra of N95 layer 1–4 collected in PFY
(A–D) and TEY (E–H) modes, respectively, where all spectra
were normalized by setting the flat low energy region (∼280
eV) to zero and the peak maxima to one.In the VWR surgical masks, the PFY data of all three layers (Figure A–C) showed
noisy and dampened signals, which does not provide a useful assessment
of the heat impact. In the TEY data, the peak located at 288.8 eV
in the pristine layer 1 material decreased in intensity after the
steam treatment (as indicated by the green dashed box), which could
be attributed to the degradation of the green dye used in the 1st
layer at the steam treatment (Figure D). In the 2nd layer TEY data (Figure E), the pristine fibers showed a major peak
at 287.5 eV and 292 eV, corresponding to the σ*C–H and
σ*C–C bonds, respectively. Upon steam treatment, new
peaks at 287.0, 288.2, and 288.8 eV appeared (yellow dashed box),
which can be attributed to the physisorption of O2 and
H2O molecules to the polymers during the steam treatment,
leading to symmetry breaking depending on bond strain in the chain
backbone.[59] No significant changes were
observed in the TEY data of the 3rd layer (Figure F), indicating that this layer has good stability
toward the steam treatment.
Figure 9
C K-edge NEXAFS spectra of VWR surgical mask
layer 1–3 collected
in PFY (A–C) and TEY (D–F) modes, respectively, where
all spectra were normalized by setting the flat low energy region
(∼280 eV) to zero and the peak maxima to one.
C K-edge NEXAFS spectra of VWR surgical mask
layer 1–3 collected
in PFY (A–C) and TEY (D–F) modes, respectively, where
all spectra were normalized by setting the flat low energy region
(∼280 eV) to zero and the peak maxima to one.
Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a major
shortage of N95-level
facial respirators, which necessitates the effective recycling and
reuse of masks. These critical shortages put the medical professionals
at risk and result in a slower, effective response to the emerging
crisis. In this work, we investigated the impact of facile and scalable
heat treatment using both dry air and steam on the structural integrity
and surface chemistry of the N95 respirators and VWR surgical masks.
Although the treatment was not directly applied to face masks that
had been exposed to the COVID-19 virus, our results still provide
insights into how to select the proper treatment protocols that lead
to the maximum effectiveness in disinfection with minimum material
degradation, thus maintaining the functionality of the masks.Although previous literature studies have suggested that both steam
and dry heat treatment have been recognized as an efficient method
of COVID-19 virus inactivation, via altering the conformation of viral
proteins involved in the attachment to and replication within host
cells, our results indicated that the dry air treatment led to less
structural damage to the masks in comparison with the more rigorous
steam heat treatment, which represents a promising disinfection protocol
that may be applied to the recycling and reuse of facial masks. In
terms of helical chain stability in individual layers in the two masks,
the 3rd layer in VWR surgical masks seems to have a higher heat tolerance
toward the treatment. Helical chain length in the 2nd and 3rd layers
in the N95 respirators and the 2nd layer in the VWR surgical mask
can be impacted by heat treatment, especially with steam, which might
lead to changes in the mechanical strength of the material and will
require caution when handling the heat treatment. NEXAFS results suggested
that there might be physisorption of O2 and H2O molecules to the polymer backbone during the steam treatment, leading
to symmetry breaking depending on bond strain, where new carbonyl-based
species were present the 1st, 2nd, and 4th layers in the N95 respirators,
and the 2nd layer of the VWR surgical mask after the steam treatment.
Additionally, the dye in the 1st layer of the VWR surgical mask seemed
to degrade drastically after the heat treatment, which might lead
to negative impacts on the polymer fibers.In summary, our SEM
results suggested higher structural damage
to the polymers using steam treatment, which can lead to poor fit
and lower filtration efficiency. Contact angle measurements suggested
increased adsorption of artificial saliva to the 1st layer of N95,
especially after steam treatment, indicating the potential decreased
protection of N95 from the transmitted saliva from outside. The increased
crystallinity of polymer fibers after steam treatment noted from XRD
might increase the polymer hardness but decrease the elasticity, which
might impact the fit and filtration efficiency of the treated mask.[42] The shorting of helical chain conformation after
steam treatment might lead to the weaker mechanical strength of the
polymers. The goal herein was to introduce new approaches for the
characterization of pristine and treated mask materials. Future studies
will correlate the physical, chemical, and structural property changes
of mask treatment with quantitative mask fit tests.
Authors: Brian K Heimbuch; Kimberly Kinney; April E Lumley; Delbert A Harnish; Michael Bergman; Joseph D Wander Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Robert J Fischer; Dylan H Morris; Neeltje van Doremalen; Shanda Sarchette; M Jeremiah Matson; Trenton Bushmaker; Claude Kwe Yinda; Stephanie N Seifert; Amandine Gamble; Brandi N Williamson; Seth D Judson; Emmie de Wit; James O Lloyd-Smith; Vincent J Munster Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Anand Kumar; Samantha B Kasloff; Anders Leung; Todd Cutts; James E Strong; Kevin Hills; Frank X Gu; Paul Chen; Gloria Vazquez-Grande; Barret Rush; Sylvain Lother; Kimberly Malo; Ryan Zarychanski; Jay Krishnan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240