Which alternative well-fit masks can be used in medical procedures?

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO and CDC recommended that healthcare personnel (HCPs) performing non-aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) don a properly fitted mask. We aimed to evaluate the fit factors (FFs) of eight alternative well-fit masks (AWMs) used by Thai HCPs.

METHODS

This comparative descriptive study was conducted on 33 HCPs between October and November 2022, categorized into three facial sizes: small, medium, and large. Each participant wore eight types of AWMs in random order: medical mask under adjustable ear-loop (AEL)-KF94 (MK), medical mask under AEL-KN95 with a hook (MN), medical mask under fabric mask (MF), AEL- KF94 (KF94), AEL-KF94 under fabric masks (KF), AEL-KF94 with a hook (KF94H), AEL-KN95 with a hook (KN95), and AEL-KN95 with a hook under fabric mask (NF). FFs were measured using a quantitative fit test.

RESULTS

The respective number of HCPs wearing small, medium, and large was 12, 12, and 9, and the mean±SD of face width and length was 132.98 ± 10.49 and 114.92 ± 10.10 mm. The highest respective median of FF was KN95 = 200, NF= 200, MN= 185, and KF94H = 171, and the respective passing fit-test rate was 97%, 84.8%, 63.6%, and 60.6%. There was no difference in FFs between the N95 and KN95 (p=0.72), the N95 and NF (p=0.202), and the three face sizes. Moreover, KF94H pass rates were significantly higher for females compared to males (OR = 13.3; p = 0.001) and for small facial sizes compared to either medium or large sizes (OR = 14.7; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The AEL-KN95 with hook and sponge at the nosepiece is an effective respirator for use by HCPs in non-AGPs, as the FF and fit test pass rates were comparable to those of N95, and there were no differences in FFs between facial sizes. However, the female who had a small face size may use a KF94H as an alternative PPE.

Health effects of filtering facepiece respirators: Research and clinical implications of comfort, thermal, skin, psychologic, and workplace effects

Filtering facepiece respirators (FFR's) such as N95s have become widely used in appropriate settings for personal respiratory protection and are increasingly used beyond workplace settings. Concerns about possible adverse effects have appeared in many publications, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic led to much more widespread use. This paper synthesizes known effects based upon review of publications in PubMed since 1995, addressing effects other than pulmonary and cardiovascular (reviewed elsewhere). Findings: (1) Subjective discomfort is very frequently reported; this includes general discomfort or organ-system-specific complaints such as respiratory, headache, dermatologic, and heat. Research methods are widely divergent, and we propose a taxonomy to classify such studies by methodology, study population (subjects, experimental vs. observational methodology, comparator, specificity, and timeframe) to facilitate synthesis. (2) Objective measures of increased heat and humidity within the mask are well documented. (3) Frequency and characteristics of dermatologic effects have been insufficiently evaluated. (4) Physical mask designs are varied, making generalizations challenging. (5) More studies of impact on work performance and communication are needed. (6) Studies of effect of FFR design and accompanying training materials on ease and consistency of use are needed.

Assessment of a novel, easy-to-implement, aerosolized H2O2 decontamination method for single-use filtering facepiece respirators in case of shortage

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world and caused a supply shortage of personal protection equipment, especially filtering facepiece respirators (FFP). This has increased the risk of many healthcare workers contracting SARS-CoV-2. Various strategies have been assessed to tackle these supply issues. In critical shortage scenarios, reusing single-use-designed respirators may be required. Thus, an easily applicable and reliable FFP2 (or alike) respirator decontamination method, allowing safe re-use of FFP2 respirators by healthcare personnel, has been developed and is presented in this study. A potent and gentle aerosolized hydrogen peroxide (12% wt) method was applied over 4 hr to decontaminate various brands of FFP2 respirators within a small common room, followed by adequate aeration and storage overnight. The microbial efficacy was tested on unused respirator pieces using spores of Geobacillus stearothermophilus. Further, decontamination effectiveness was tested on used respirators after one 12-hr shift by swabbing before and after the decontamination. The effects of up to ten decontamination cycles on the respirators' functionality were evaluated using material properties, the structural integrity of the respirators, and fit tests with subjects. The suggested H₂O₂ decontamination procedure was proven to be (a) sufficiently potent (no microbial recovery, total inactivation of biological indicators as well as spore inoculum on critical respirator surfaces), (b) gentle as no significant damage to the respirator structural integrity and acceptable fit factors were observed, and (c) safe as no H₂O₂ residue were detected after the defined aeration and storage. Thus, this easy-to-implement and scalable method could overcome another severe respirator shortage, providing enough flexibility to draft safe, effective, and logistically simple crisis plans. However, as highlighted in this study, due to the wealth of design and material used in different models and brands of respirators, the decontamination process should be validated for each FFP respirator model before its field implementation.

Determination of hydrogen peroxide on N95 masks after sanitization using a colorimetric method

Hydrogen peroxide is commonly used as a sterilizing agent for medical devices and its use has recently been extended to N95 masks during PPE shortages as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hydrogen peroxide remaining on the masks after sterilization could potentially pose a health hazard to the mask users. In the present study a colorimetric method was optimized for the determination of hydrogen peroxide on N95 masks following chemical sanitizations. The developed analytical method demonstrated an overall recovery of 98% ± 7%. The limit of detection ranged from 0.16 to 0.25 mg/mask, depending on the type of mask. The expanded measurement uncertainty was 13% (at a 95% confidence interval). The sanitization process itself introduced a significant variation in hydrogen peroxide load between masks. The ozone used in the sanitization process had no significant impact on analytical performance. Stamped and printed marks on the mask surfaces could induce biased readings. Hydrogen peroxide decomposes quickly on the mask surfaces so timing of analysis is an important factor in method standardization.•

The validation data demonstrated that the in-house method is reliable and fit for the intended purpose, offering a sensitive, simple, rapid, and inexpensive method of residue monitoring.

Assessment of the impact of multiple mild-steam decontaminations on the protection performance of disposable KN95 filtering facepiece respirators

The COVID-19 pandemic caused tremendous supply bottlenecks of single-use filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) leading to a growing need for a potential reuse. This study assesses the impact of multiple mild-steam decontaminations with 121 °C/2000 mbar/20 min on the protection performance of disposable FFRs. It focuses on FFRs of type KN95 that is recently dominating the markets, but its decontamination is not covered in the literature. It was found that up to ten cycles, only minor degradation in the filter efficiency, breathing resistance and none in the material structure is apparent, suggesting a potential for multiple decontamination cycles at almost unchanged protective properties of KN95 FFRs.

Assessing the filtration efficiency and regulatory status of N95s and nontraditional filtering face-piece respirators available during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains for many types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; “masks”). As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed use of industrial N95 respirators and importation of N95-type masks manufactured to international standards; these include KN95 masks from China and FFP2 masks from the European Union.

Methods

We conducted a survey of masks in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer or supplier. We then assembled a testing apparatus at a university laboratory and performed a modified test of filtration performance using KCl and ambient particulate matter on masks from hospital inventories; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus.

Results

Over 100 different makes and models of traditional and nontraditional filtering facepiece respirators (N95-type masks) were in the inventory of surveyed U.S. teaching hospitals as opposed to 2–5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many are not correctly labelled and do not perform to accepted standards and a subset are obviously dangerous; many of these masks are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers and inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit products.

Conclusions

Many FFRs available for procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic do not provide levels of fit and filtration similar to those of N95 masks and are not acceptable for use in healthcare settings. Based on these results, and in consultation with occupational health officers, we make six recommendations to assist end users in acquiring legitimate products. Institutions should always assess masks from non-traditional supply chains by checking their markings and manufacturer information against data provided by NIOSH and the latest FDA EUA Appendix A. In the absence of verifiable information on the legitimacy of mask source, institutions should consider measuring mask fit and filtration directly. We also make suggestions for regulatory agencies regarding labeling and public disclosure aimed at increasing pandemic resilience.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06008-8.

Filtering efficiency measurement of respirators by laser-based particle counting method

Respirators are one of the most useful personal protective equipment which can effectively limit the spreading of coronavirus (COVID-19). There are a worldwide shortage of respirators, melt-blown non-woven fabrics, and respirator testing possibilities. An easy and fast filtering efficiency measurement method was developed for testing the filtering materials of respirators. It works with a laser-based particle counting method, and it can determine two types of filtering efficiencies: Particle Filtering Efficiency (PFE) at given particle sizes and Concentration Filtering Efficiency (CFE) in the case of different aerosols. The measurement method was validated with different aerosol concentrations and with etalon respirators. Considerable advantages of our measurement method are simplicity, availability, and the relatively low price compared to the flame-photometer based methods. The ability of the measurement method was tested on ten different types of Chinese KN95 respirators. The quality of these respirators differs much, only two from ten reached 95% filtering efficiency.

Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide and ozone residue levels on N95 masks following chemical decontamination

Background

Hydrogen peroxide and ozone have been used as chemical decontamination agents for N95 masks during supply shortages. If left behind on the masks, the residues of both chemicals represent a potential health hazard by skin contact and respiratory exposure.

Aim

Characterization of hydrogen peroxide and ozone residues on mask surfaces after chemical decontamination.

Methods

Various N95 masks were decontaminated using two commercial systems employing either aerosol spray or vaporization of hydrogen peroxide in the presence of ozone. Following the decontamination, the masks were aired out to eliminate moisture and potential chemical residues. The residual hydrogen peroxide and ozone were monitored in the gas phase above the mask surface, and hydrogen peroxide residue directly on mask surfaces using a colorimetric assay.

Findings

After decontamination, hydrogen peroxide and ozone were detectable in the gas phase in the vicinity of masks even after 5 h of aeration. Hydrogen peroxide was also detected on all studied masks, and levels up to 56 mg per mask were observed after 0.5 h of aeration. All residues gradually decreased with aeration, likely due to decomposition and vaporization.

Conclusion

Hydrogen peroxide and ozone were present on N95 masks after decontamination. With appropriate aeration, the gaseous residue levels in the vicinity of the masks decreased to permissible levels as defined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Reliable assays to monitor these residues are necessary to ensure the safety of the mask users.

Heat sterilisation dramatically reduces filter efficiency of the majority of FFP2 and KN-95 respirators

BACKGROUND

Because of the enormous demand for personal protective equipment and especially respiratory protective devices (respirators) during the initial phase of the corona pandemic shortages arose. Sterilisation of used respirators can reduce these shortages. In our study, respirator testing was carried out after only one sterilisation cycle.

AIM

To determine if steam sterilisation and reuse could be safely applied for used respirators.

METHODS

In a cabinet an aqueous solution of NaCl (0.02% w/v) was nebulized and passed through a sample of the material of a respirator. Passing particle concentrations were measured directly from the cabinet and via the filter material of the respirator for particles ≥ 0.3 μm, ≥ 0.5 μm and ≥ 1.0 μm.

FINDINGS

only three out of ten steam sterilised respirators met the requirements of 94% filtration efficiency.

CONCLUSION

The results prove that heat sterilisation cannot be generically applied for reuse of respirators safely.