David Rempel1, John Henneman2, James Agalloco3, Jill Crittenden4. 1. Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Biosecurity Research Institute, Department of Animal Sciences & Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA. 3. Agalloco and Associates, Belle Mead, New Jersey, USA. 4. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Introduction: During a pandemic, when the supply of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) is limited, FFRs may be decontaminated by methods that inactivate pathogens as long as they do not damage FFR function. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is widely used for decontamination in medical settings. Objective: To review the literature on the use of H2O2 to decontaminate N95 FFRs and identify methods that inactivate virus and preserve FFR filtration efficiency and fit. Methods: The literature was searched for studies evaluating H2O2 decontamination methods on inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses and microorganisms inoculated on N95 FFRs and the effects on respirator filtration efficiency and fit. Current U.S. Federal guidelines are also presented. Results: Findings from relevant laboratory studies (N = 24) are summarized in tables. Commercially available H2O2 decontamination systems differ on how H2O2 is delivered, the temperature, the duration of treatment, and other factors that can impact N95 FFR filtration efficiency and fit. Some methods inactivate SARS-CoV-2 virus-contaminated N95 FFRs with >3 log attenuation, whereas other methods are yet to be evaluated. Discussion and Conclusion: Most of the H2O2 methods reviewed effectively decontaminate N95 FFRs without damaging FFR function. However, some methods adversely impact N95 fit or filtration efficiency, which could go undetected by the end user and compromise their protection from pathogen inhalation. When making decisions about H2O2 decontamination of respirators, it is important to understand differences in methods, effects on different FFR models, and potential hazards to workers who manage the decontamination process. Copyright 2021, ABSA International 2021.
Introduction: During a pandemic, when the supply of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) is limited, FFRs may be decontaminated by methods that inactivate pathogens as long as they do not damage FFR function. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is widely used for decontamination in medical settings. Objective: To review the literature on the use of H2O2 to decontaminate N95 FFRs and identify methods that inactivate virus and preserve FFR filtration efficiency and fit. Methods: The literature was searched for studies evaluating H2O2 decontamination methods on inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses and microorganisms inoculated on N95 FFRs and the effects on respirator filtration efficiency and fit. Current U.S. Federal guidelines are also presented. Results: Findings from relevant laboratory studies (N = 24) are summarized in tables. Commercially available H2O2 decontamination systems differ on how H2O2 is delivered, the temperature, the duration of treatment, and other factors that can impact N95 FFR filtration efficiency and fit. Some methods inactivate SARS-CoV-2 virus-contaminated N95 FFRs with >3 log attenuation, whereas other methods are yet to be evaluated. Discussion and Conclusion: Most of the H2O2 methods reviewed effectively decontaminate N95 FFRs without damaging FFR function. However, some methods adversely impact N95 fit or filtration efficiency, which could go undetected by the end user and compromise their protection from pathogen inhalation. When making decisions about H2O2 decontamination of respirators, it is important to understand differences in methods, effects on different FFR models, and potential hazards to workers who manage the decontamination process. Copyright 2021, ABSA International 2021.
Entities:
Keywords:
FFR; N95; SARS-CoV-2; decontamination; personal protective equipment; respirator
Authors: Michael S Bergman; Dennis J Viscusi; Ziqing Zhuang; Andrew J Palmiero; Jeffrey B Powell; Ronald E Shaffer Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2011-08-23 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: Krista R Wigginton; Peter J Arts; Herek L Clack; William J Fitzsimmons; Mirko Gamba; Katherine R Harrison; William LeBar; Adam S Lauring; Lucinda Li; William W Roberts; Nicole C Rockey; Jania Torreblanca; Carol Young; Loïc G Anderegg; Amy M Cohn; John M Doyle; Cole M Meisenhelder; Lutgarde Raskin; Nancy G Love; Keith S Kaye Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Avilash K Cramer; Deborah Plana; Helen Yang; Peter K Sorger; Nicole R LeBoeuf; Mary M Carmack; Enze Tian; Michael S Sinha; David Krikorian; David Turner; Jinhan Mo; Ju Li; Rajiv Gupta; Heather Manning; Florence T Bourgeois; Sherry H Yu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 4.379