Challenge of Liquid Stressed Protective Materials and Environmental Persistence of Ebola Virus

Portable UV-C Device to Treat High Flow of Infectious Aerosols Generated during Clinical Respiratory Care

Respiratory interventions including noninvasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal oxygen generated infectious aerosols may increase risk of airborne disease (SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus) transmission to healthcare workers. We developed/tested a prototype portable UV-C254 device to sterilize high flows of viral-contaminated air from a simulated patient source at airflow rates of up to 100 l/m. Our device consisted of a central quartz tube surrounded 6 high-output UV-C254 lamps, within a larger cylinder allowing recirculation past the UV-C254 lamps a second time before exiting the device. Testing was with nebulized A/PR/8/34 (H1N1) influenza virus. RNA extraction and qRT-PCR showed virus transited through the prototype. Turning on varying numbers of lamps controlled the dose of UVC. Viability experiments at low, medium and high (100 l/min) flows of contaminated gas were conducted with 6, 4, 2 and 1 lamp activated (single-pass and recirculation were tested). Our data show 5-log reduction in particle forming units from a single lamp (single- pass and recirculated conditions) at high and low flows. UVC dose at 100 l/m was calculated at 11.6 mJ/cm2 single pass and 104 mJ/cm2 recirculated. The protype device shows high efficacy in killing nebulized influenza virus in a high flow of contaminated air.

A Quick Laboratory Method for Assessment of Blood Penetration and Splash Resistance of PPE Fabrics During the COVID-19 Pandemic Situation

In the current outbreak of COVID-19, healthcare facilities are hit by a shortage of supply of Personal Protective Equipments (PPE) owing to extensive local and global demands and restrictions on their import or export. To circumvent this, trials with several indigenous materials suitable to qualify for PPEs and sterilization techniques for their reuse are being carried out. Prior to their commercialisation, it is imperative to evaluate the resistance of the PPE fabrics against penetration of synthetic blood under applied pressure, 40–300 mmHg as per test standards. Generally, two types of tests are recommended, Penetration Test and Splash Resistance Test, the former being more stringent. While the final certification of PPEs is carried out by authorised agencies, a first impression quick estimate of the choice of fabric can be made using a simple laboratory set-up. This study describes setups developed in the laboratory to carry out these tests. Evaluation of the fabrics, post-gamma irradiation, was also carried out. Microscopic examinations were performed to investigate radiation-induced structural changes in fabrics showing degraded performance. This set-up is useful for selection of fabrics and to assess the feasibility of reuse of PPEs, which is the need of the hour in this pandemic situation.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Disinfectant Pre-impregnated Wipes for Decontaminating Stainless Steel Carriers Experimentally Inoculated With Ebola Virus and Vesicular Stomatitis Virus

The authors evaluated four disinfectant pre-impregnated wipes (DPW) for efficacy against Ebola virus Makona variant (EBOV) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), Indiana serotype. Steel carriers were inoculated with the infectious virus and then were wiped with DPW in the Wiperator instrument per ASTM E2967-15. Following the use of J-Cloth impregnated with medium (negative control wipes) or the use of activated hydrogen peroxide (AHP)-, ethanol-, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)-, or single or dual quaternary ammonium compound (QAC)-based DPW, virus recovery from the carriers was assayed by titration assay and by two passages on Vero E6 cells in 6-well plates. The Wiperator also enabled the measurement of potential transfer of the virus from the inoculated carrier to a secondary carrier by the DPW or control wipes. The J-Cloth wipes wetted with medium alone (no microbicidal active) removed 1.9–3.5 log₁₀ of virus from inoculated carriers but transferred ~4 log₁₀ of the wiped virus to secondary carriers. DPW containing AHP, ethanol, NaOCl, or single or dual QAC as active microbicidal ingredients removed/inactivated ~6 log₁₀ of the virus, with minimal EBOV or no VSV virus transfer to a secondary surface observed. In Ebola virus outbreaks, a DPW with demonstrated virucidal efficacy, used as directed, may help to mitigate the unintended spread of the infectious virus while performing surface cleaning.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 on critical personal protective equipment

The spread of COVID-19 in healthcare settings is concerning, with healthcare workers representing a disproportionately high percentage of confirmed cases. Although SARS-CoV-2 virus has been found to persist on surfaces for a number of days, the extent and duration of fomites as a mode of transmission, particularly in healthcare settings, has not been fully characterized. To shed light on this critical matter, the present study provides the first comprehensive assessment of SARS-CoV-2 stability on experimentally contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) widely used by healthcare workers and the general public. Persistence of viable virus was monitored over 21 days on eight different materials, including nitrile medical examination gloves, reinforced chemical resistant gloves, N-95 and N-100 particulate respirator masks, Tyvek, plastic, cotton, and stainless steel. Unlike previous reports, viable SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of a soil load persisted for up to 21 days on experimentally inoculated PPE, including materials from filtering facepiece respirators (N-95 and N-100 masks) and a plastic visor. Conversely, when applied to 100% cotton fabric, the virus underwent rapid degradation and became undetectable by TCID₅₀ assay within 24 h. These findings underline the importance of appropriate handling of contaminated PPE during and following use in high-risk settings and provide interesting insight into the potential utility of cotton in limiting COVID-19 transmission.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 on critical personal protective equipment

The spread of COVID-19 in healthcare settings is concerning, with healthcare workers representing a disproportionately high percentage of confirmed cases. Although SARS-CoV-2 virus has been found to persist on surfaces for a number of days, the extent and duration of fomites as a mode of transmission, particularly in healthcare settings, has not been fully characterized. To shed light on this critical matter, the present study provides the first comprehensive assessment of SARS-CoV-2 stability on experimentally contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) widely used by healthcare workers and the general public. Persistence of viable virus was monitored over 21 days on eight different materials, including nitrile medical examination gloves, reinforced chemical resistant gloves, N-95 and N-100 particulate respirator masks, Tyvek, plastic, cotton, and stainless steel. Unlike previous reports, viable SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of a soil load persisted for up to 21 days on experimentally inoculated PPE, including materials from filtering facepiece respirators (N-95 and N-100 masks) and a plastic visor. Conversely, when applied to 100% cotton fabric, the virus underwent rapid degradation and became undetectable by TCID₅₀ assay within 24 h. These findings underline the importance of appropriate handling of contaminated PPE during and following use in high-risk settings and provide interesting insight into the potential utility of cotton in limiting COVID-19 transmission.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 on critical personal protective equipment

The spread of COVID-19 in healthcare settings is concerning, with healthcare workers representing a disproportionately high percentage of confirmed cases. Although SARS-CoV-2 virus has been found to persist on surfaces for a number of days, the extent and duration of fomites as a mode of transmission, particularly in healthcare settings, has not been fully characterized. To shed light on this critical matter, the present study provides the first comprehensive assessment of SARS-CoV-2 stability on experimentally contaminated personal protective equipment (PPE) widely used by healthcare workers and the general public. Persistence of viable virus was monitored over 21 days on eight different materials, including nitrile medical examination gloves, reinforced chemical resistant gloves, N-95 and N-100 particulate respirator masks, Tyvek, plastic, cotton, and stainless steel. Unlike previous reports, viable SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of a soil load persisted for up to 21 days on experimentally inoculated PPE, including materials from filtering facepiece respirators (N-95 and N-100 masks) and a plastic visor. Conversely, when applied to 100% cotton fabric, the virus underwent rapid degradation and became undetectable by TCID₅₀ assay within 24 h. These findings underline the importance of appropriate handling of contaminated PPE during and following use in high-risk settings and provide interesting insight into the potential utility of cotton in limiting COVID-19 transmission.

A novel perspective approach to explore pros and cons of face mask in prevention the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has become a severe community health threat across the world. Covid-19 is a major illness, presently there is no as such any medicine and vaccine those can claim for complete treatment. It is spreading particularly in a feeble immune people and casualties are expanding abruptly and put the health system under strain. Among the strategic measures face mask is one of the most used measures to prevent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Wearing a face mask possibly create a false sense of security lead to decline others measures. Face mask could be risk for the people of under lying medical conditions, old age group, outdoor exercise, acute and chronic respiratory disorders and feeble innate immune. Restrictive airflow due to face mask is the main cause of retention of CO2 called hypercapnia that can lead to respiratory failure with symptoms of tachycardia, flushed skin, dizziness, papilledema, seizure and depression. According to latest updates face shield and social distancing could be better substitute of face mask.

An Otorhinolaryngologists Perspective on Using Face Masks by Health Care Professionals Based on an Online Survey

Acute respiratory infections pose a constant threat to society and health care professionals. The effectiveness of face masks covering mouth and nose in reducing aerosol spread and curbing respiratory infection acquisition is well-studied. Despite enough beneficial evidence in favour of wearing masks, general population and the health care workers needs to be convinced to wear it and often enforcement is required for the same. This study was designed to study various barriers perceived and experienced with poor mask usage among hospital staff from an otorhinolaryngological perspective. An online survey was conducted to study the awareness of health care professionals and other hospital staff about advantages and disadvantages of mask use. Total 100 questionnaire based responses were obtained using this method. The participants included the ministerial staff, nursing and paramedical staff and faculty and residents of various medical and surgical specialties. The data thus collected was analyzed to identify the perceived benefits and limitations in mask usage. The participants wore surgical mask more commonly (50%) as compared to N95 respirator and cloth mask. 58% of the participants were using masks due to professional need. Majority (40%) used masks for a period ranging from 4 to 8 h in a day. Most of the participants realized that the masks offered protection from aerosols (90%) and more than 60% also mentioned that it helped in avoiding touching the face inadvertently. 62% participants complained of fogging of vision while wearing masks and approximately 50% reported pain due to tight elastic bands, difficulty breathing through mask and excessive sweating in the masked area In non-pharmaceutical measures to contain the aerosol-associated pandemics, face masks play an important precautionary role. It is cheap, easy to use and protects against respiratory infections, pollution and allergies. Certain minor issues like fogging of spectacles, and difficulty breathing through mask may need revisions in mask fabric and design.

Assessing the Contributions of Inactivation, Removal, and Transfer of Ebola Virus and Vesicular Stomatitis Virus by Disinfectant Pre-soaked Wipes

Disinfectant pre-soaked wipes (DPW) containing activated hydrogen peroxide (AHP) or quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) were tested using ASTM E2967-15 to determine removal, transfer, and inactivation of Ebola virus Makona variant (EBOV/Mak) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) from contaminated stainless steel prototypic environmental surfaces. The infectious virus-contaminated carriers were subjected to wiping in the Wiperator per the standard. Following the use of negative control (J-Cloth)-, AHP-, or QAC-based wipes, recovery of residual infectious virus was assayed. In the case of the J-Cloth wipes (negative control), although removal of virus from inoculated carriers was extensive i.e., ~99% (1.9–3.5 log₁₀) transfer of virus by these wipes to a secondary surface amounted to ≤ 2% (~3.8 log₁₀) of the initial virus load. In the case of each DPW, >6 log₁₀ removal/inactivation of virus was observed, with limited (EBOV/Mak) or no (VSV) virus transfer observed. The efficacy of wipes for decontaminating high-touch environmental surfaces spiked with EBOV/Mak or VSV is discussed. In summary, removal of EBOV/Mak and VSV using wipes was extensive in this study. In the absence of a sufficient concentration and contact time of an appropriate microbicidal active in DPW (such as the AHP- and QAC-based DPW tested), transfer of a low, albeit significant (from an infectious unit/infectious dose perspective), quantity of infectious virus from the inoculated surface to a secondary surface was observed. In the case of Ebola virus, it is essential that a DPW with an appropriate microbicidal active, following the appropriate contact time, be used to prevent unintended transfer of infectious virus to a clean secondary surface (as observed in negative control /J-Cloth). Otherwise, there exists the possibility of dissemination of Ebola virus and the associated risk of transmission of Ebola virus disease.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Testing the Antimicrobial Characteristics of Wood Materials: A Review of Methods

Some wood species have antimicrobial properties, making them a better choice over inert surfaces in certain circumstances. However, the organic and porous nature of wood raises questions regarding the use of this material in hygienically important places. Therefore, it is reasonable to investigate the microbial survival and the antimicrobial potential of wood via a variety of methods. Based on the available literature, this review classifies previously used methods into two broad categories: one category tests wood material by direct bacterial contact, and the other tests the action of molecules previously extracted from wood on bacteria and fungi. This article discusses the suitability of these methods to wood materials and exposes knowledge gaps that can be used to guide future research. This information is intended to help the researchers and field experts to select suitable methods for testing the hygienic safety and antimicrobial properties of wood materials.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Evaluating the Environmental Persistence and Inactivation of MS2 Bacteriophage and the Presumed Ebola Virus Surrogate Phi6 Using Low Concentration Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor

Ebola virus (EBOV) disease outbreaks, as well as the ability of EBOV to persist in the environment under certain conditions, highlight the need to develop effective decontamination techniques against the virus. We evaluated the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) to inactivate MS2 and Phi6 bacteriophages, the latter a recommended surrogate for EBOV. The phages were inoculated onto six material types with and without the presence of whole human blood. The inoculated materials were then exposed to either a high or low concentration of HPV for various elapsed times. The phages were also recovered from positive controls at these same elapsed times, to assess environmental persistence and decontamination efficacy. Low concentration hydrogen peroxide vapor (LCHP; 25 ppm) was effective against both phages on all materials without the presence of blood at 2 h. LCHP was ineffective against the phages in the presence of blood, on all materials, even with a 3-day contact time. Higher concentrations of HPV (>400 ppm) with contact times of 24-32 h achieved approximately 2-6 log reduction of the phages in the presence of blood.

Graphene Modified Multifunctional Personal Protective Clothing

Personal protective clothing is intended to protect the wearer from various hazards (mechanical, biological, chemical, thermal, radiological, etc.) and inhospitable environmental conditions that may cause harm or even death. There are various types of personal protective clothing, manufactured with different materials based on hazards and end user requirements. Conventional protective clothing has impediments such as high weight, bulky nature, lack of mobility, heat stress, low heat dissipation, high physical stress, diminishing dexterity, diminishing scope of vision, lack of breathability, and reduced protection against pathogens and hazards. By virtue of the superlative properties of graphene, fabrics modified with this material can be an effective means to overcome these limitations and to improve properties such as mechanical strength, antibacterial activity, flame resistance, conductivity, and UV resistance. The limitations of conventional personal protective equipment are discussed, followed by necessary measures which might be taken to improve personal protective equipment (PPE), the unique properties of graphene, methods of graphene incorporation in fabrics, and the current research status and potential of graphene-modified performance textiles relevant to PPE.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Evaluation of Apparatus Used to Test Liquid through Protective Materials: Comparison of a Modified Dot-Blot Apparatus to the ASTM Penetration Cell

Personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gowns used in the latest Ebola outbreak in Western Africa, are critical in preventing the spread of deadly diseases. Appropriate test systems and test soils are needed to adequately evaluate PPE. ASTM F903, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing to Penetration by Liquid, has been used for decades to test fabrics' resistance to liquid penetration. However, this test apparatus requires at least 60 mL of test solutions, is labor intensive, and has problems with leakage around the gaskets. We compared the F903 test apparatus to a modified dot-blot apparatus to evaluate the visual penetration of a blood test soil. A series of commercially available gowns and drapes were tested in each apparatus. Using blood test soil at 2 psi, there was no statistically significant difference between the two methods except for in one gown. By comparing this gown in the ASTM test apparatus with and without a screen, the particular screen selected did not account for the difference between the dot-blot and F903 apparatuses; however, it is conceivable that a particular screen/fabric combination could account for this difference. The modified dot-blot apparatus was evaluated using three different test solutions: blood, vomit, and a labeled protein (goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G-horseradish peroxidase [GaR IgG-HRP]) in a blood test soil solution. This testing revealed significant difference in penetration for some of the PPE garments. The modified dot-blot had several large advantages over the ASTM apparatus-over six times less specimen volume and no edge or gasket leakage. In addition, nitrocellulose can be easily incorporated into the modified dot-blot apparatus, enabling the trapping of viruses and proteins that penetrate PPE-thus permitting the use of antibodies to quickly and sensitively detect penetration.

Bioaerosols and Transmission, a Diverse and Growing Community of Practice

The transmission of infectious microbes via bioaerosols is of significant concern for both human and animal health. However, gaps in our understanding of respiratory pathogen transmission and methodological heterogeneity persist. New developments have enabled progress in this domain, and one of the major turning points has been the recognition that cross-disciplinary collaborations across spheres of human and animal health, microbiology, biophysics, engineering, aerobiology, infection control, public health, occupational health, and industrial hygiene are essential. Collaborative initiatives support advances in topics such as bioaerosol behavior, dispersion models, risk assessment, risk/exposure effects, and mitigation strategies in clinical, experimental, agricultural, and other field settings. There is a need to enhance the knowledge translation for researchers, stakeholders, and private partners to support a growing network of individuals and agencies to achieve common goals to mitigate inter- and intra-species pathogen transmission via bioaerosols.

Assessment of a respiratory face mask for capturing air pollutants and pathogens including human influenza and rhinoviruses

Background

Prevention of infection with airborne pathogens and exposure to airborne particulates and aerosols (environmental pollutants and allergens) can be facilitated through use of disposable face masks. The effectiveness of such masks for excluding pathogens and pollutants is dependent on the intrinsic ability of the masks to resist penetration by airborne contaminants. This study evaluated the relative contributions of a mask, valve, and Micro Ventilator on aerosol filtration efficiency of a new N95 respiratory face mask.

Methods

The test mask was challenged, using standardized methods, with influenza A and rhinovirus type 14, bacteriophage ΦΧ174, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and model pollutants. The statistical significance of results obtained for different challenge microbial agents and for different mask configurations (masks with operational or nonoperational ventilation fans and masks with sealed Smart Valves) was assessed.

Results

The results demonstrate >99.7% efficiency of each test mask configuration for exclusion of influenza A virus, rhinovirus 14, and S. aureus and >99.3% efficiency for paraffin oil and sodium chloride (surrogates for PM_2.5). Statistically significant differences in effectiveness of the different mask configurations were not identified. The efficiencies of the masks for excluding smaller-size (i.e., rhinovirus and bacteriophage ΦΧ174) vs. larger-size microbial agents (influenza virus, S. aureus) were not significantly different.

Conclusions

The masks, with or without features intended for enhancing comfort, provide protection against both small- and large-size pathogens. Importantly, the mask appears to be highly efficient for filtration of pathogens, including influenza and rhinoviruses, as well as the fine particulates (PM_2.5) present in aerosols that represent a greater challenge for many types of dental and surgical masks. This renders this individual-use N95 respiratory mask an improvement over the former types of masks for protection against a variety of environmental contaminants including PM_2.5 and pathogens such as influenza and rhinoviruses.