Evaluation of Multiple (3-Cycle) Decontamination Processing for Filtering Facepiece Respirators

Disposable N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are widely used by healthcare workers to reduce exposures to infectious biological aerosols. There is currently major concern among public health officials about a possible shortage of N95 FFRs during an influenza pandemic. Decontamination and reuse of FFRs is a possible strategy for extending FFR supplies in an emergency; however, the NIOSH respirator certification process does not currently include provisions for decontamination and reuse. Recent studies have investigated the laboratory performance (filter aerosol penetration and filter airflow resistance) and physical integrity of FFRs following one-cycle (1X) processing of various decontamination treatments. The studies found that a single application of some methods did not adversely affect laboratory performance. In the event that healthcare facilities experience dramatic shortages of FFR supplies, multiple decontamination processing may become necessary. This study investigates three-cycle (3X) processing of eight different methods: ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, ethylene oxide, hydrogen peroxide gas plasma, hydrogen peroxide vapor, microwave-oven-generated steam, bleach, liquid hydrogen peroxide, and moist heat incubation (pasteurization). A four-hour 3X submersion of FFR in deionized water was performed for comparison (control). Following 3X treatment by each decontamination and control method, FFRs were evaluated for changes in physical appearance, odor, and laboratory filtration performance. Only the hydrogen peroxide gas plasma treatment resulted in mean penetration levels > 5% for four of the six FFR models; FFRs treated by the seven other methods and the control samples had expected levels of filter aerosol penetration (< 5%) and filter airflow resistance. Physical damage varied by treatment method. Further research is still needed before any specific decontamination methods can be recommended.

[1]  Ziqing Zhuang,et al.  Respiratory protection against bioaerosols: Literature review and research needs , 2004, American Journal of Infection Control.

[2]  R. Shaffer,et al.  A method to determine the available UV‐C dose for the decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators , 2010, Journal of applied microbiology.

[3]  이수정 해외산업간호정보 - 미국 산업안전보건연구원(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) 소개 , 2009 .

[4]  E. Moyer,et al.  Electrostatic N-95 respirator filter media efficiency degradation resulting from intermittent sodium chloride aerosol exposure. , 2000, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[5]  R. Shaffer,et al.  Effect of Decontamination on the Filtration Efficiency of Two Filtering Facepiece Respirator Models , 2008 .

[6]  C. Richardson,et al.  Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide gaseous disinfection systems to decontaminate viruses. , 2010, The Journal of hospital infection.

[7]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Filter Performance of N99 and N95 Facepiece Respirators Against Viruses and Ultrafine Particles , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[8]  E. Moyer,et al.  Electrostatic respirator filter media: filter efficiency and most penetrating particle size effects. , 2000, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[9]  D. Wake,et al.  EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL AEROSOLS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ELECTRICALLY CHARGED FILTER MATERIAL , 1988 .

[10]  R. Shaffer,et al.  Comparison of nanoparticle filtration performance of NIOSH-approved and CE-marked particulate filtering facepiece respirators. , 2009, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[11]  Leonard W. Barrett,et al.  Aerosol Loading Performance of Electret Filter Media , 1998 .

[12]  Lisa M. Brosseau,et al.  Mycobacterial Aerosol Collection Efficiency of Respirator and Surgical Mask Filters under Varying Conditions of Flow and Humidity , 1997 .

[13]  Ronald E Shaffer,et al.  Evaluation of the filtration performance of 21 N95 filtering face piece respirators after prolonged storage , 2009, American Journal of Infection Control.

[14]  Tiina Reponen,et al.  Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks? , 2006, American journal of infection control.

[15]  R. Shaffer,et al.  Evaluation of Five Decontamination Methods for Filtering Facepiece Respirators , 2009, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[16]  R. Shaffer,et al.  Development of a Test System To Apply Virus-Containing Particles to Filtering Facepiece Respirators for the Evaluation of Decontamination Procedures , 2009, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[17]  L M Brosseau,et al.  Collection of three bacterial aerosols by respirator and surgical mask filters under varying conditions of flow and relative humidity. , 1997, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[18]  C C Coffey,et al.  Performance of N95 respirators: filtration efficiency for airborne microbial and inert particles. , 1998, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[19]  R. Shaffer,et al.  Development of a Test System To Evaluate Procedures for Decontamination of Respirators Containing Viral Droplets , 2009, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.