Decontamination interventions for the reuse of surgical mask personal protective equipment: A systematic review

AIMS & OBJECTIVES: Surgical masks are broadly used as personal protective equipment in a pandemic setting, but little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for their reuse. This systematic review sought to evaluate and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks. METHODS: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178290). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, and preprint servers from inception to April 8, 2020. Citation screening was conducted independently in duplicate. Outcomes of interest included mask performance (i.e. filtration efficiency, airflow resistance) and germicidal effects following decontamination. RESULTS: Of 1874 unique citations, 33 full-texts were assessed of which 7 studies were included. One study evaluated mask performance with interventions applied after mask use: dry heat (via rice cooker), autoclave, and three chemical agents (70% ethanol, 100% isopropanol, and 0.5% sodium hypochlorite). Six studies evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance: nanoparticle emulsions, quaternary ammonium agent, N-halamine, salt film, and a fluorochemical repellent. Heterogeneity of interventions evaluated and outcomes assessed precluded quantitative analysis. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence exists on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination interventions. Studies to date have evaluated interventions and outcomes using heterogenous and non-standardized test conditions, limiting our ability to compare between interventions or draw conclusions on the most efficacious intervention.

Microwave- and heat-based decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In pandemics such as COVID-19, shortages of personal protective equipment are common. One solution may be to decontaminate equipment such as facemasks for reuse. AIM: To collect and synthesize existing information on decontamination of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) using microwave and heat-based treatments, with special attention to impacts on mask function (aerosol penetration, airflow resistance), fit, and physical traits. METHODS: A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020177036) of literature available from Medline, Embase, Global Health, and other sources was conducted. Records were screened independently by two reviewers, and data was extracted from studies that reported on effects of microwave- or heat-based decontamination on N95 FFR performance, fit, physical traits, and/or reductions in microbial load. FINDINGS: Thirteen studies were included that used dry/moist microwave irradiation, heat, or autoclaving. All treatment types reduced pathogen load by a log10 reduction factor of at least three when applied for sufficient duration (>30 s microwave, >60 min dry heat), with most studies assessing viral pathogens. Mask function (aerosol penetration <5% and airflow resistance <25 mmH2O) was preserved after all treatments except autoclaving. Fit was maintained for most N95 models, though all treatment types caused observable physical damage to at least one model. CONCLUSIONS: Microwave irradiation and heat may be safe and effective viral decontamination options for N95 FFR reuse during critical shortages. The evidence does not support autoclaving or high-heat (>90°C) approaches. Physical degradation may be an issue for certain mask models, and more real-world evidence on fit is needed.

Decontaminating N95 and SN95 masks with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation does not impair mask efficacy and safety.

Inadequate supply of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) for healthcare workers during a pandemic such as the novel coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV-2) is a serious public health issue. The aim of this study was to synthesize existing data on the effectiveness of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) for N95 FFR decontamination. A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020176156) was conducted on UVGI in N95 FFRs using Embase, Medline, Global Health, Google Scholar, WHO feed, and MedRxiv. Two reviewers independently determined eligibility and extracted predefined variables. Original research reporting on function, decontamination, or mask fit following UVGI were included. Thirteen studies were identified, comprising 54 UVGI intervention arms and 58 N95 models. FFRs consistently maintained certification standards following UVGI. Aerosol penetration averaged 1.19% (0.70-2.48%) and 1.14% (0.57-2.63%) for control and UVGI arms, respectively. Airflow resistance for the control arms averaged 9.79 mm H2O (7.97-11.70 mm H2O) vs 9.85 mm H2O (8.33-11.44 mm H2O) for UVGI arms. UVGI protocols employing a cumulative dose >20,000 J/m2 resulted in a 2-log reduction in viral load. A >3-log reduction was observed in seven UVGI arms using >40,000 J/m2. Impact of UVGI on fit was evaluated in two studies (16,200; 32,400 J/m2) and no evidence of compromise was found. Our findings suggest that further work in this area (or translation to a clinical setting) should use a cumulative UV-C dose of 40,000 J/m2 or greater, and confirm appropriate mask fit following decontamination.

Efficacy and safety of disinfectants for decontamination of N95 and SN95 filtering facepiece respirators: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decontaminating and reusing filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) for healthcare workers is a potential solution to address inadequate FFR supply during a global pandemic. AIM: The objective of this review was to synthesize existing data on the effectiveness and safety of using chemical disinfectants to decontaminate N95 FFRs. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on disinfectants to decontaminate N95 FFRs using Embase, Medline, Global Health, Google Scholar, WHO feed, and MedRxiv. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility and extracted predefined data fields. Original research reporting on N95 FFR function, decontamination, safety, or FFR fit following decontamination with a disinfectant was included. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: A single cycle of vaporized hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) successfully removes viral pathogens without affecting airflow resistance or fit, and maintains an initial filter penetration of <5%, with little change in FFR appearance. Residual hydrogen peroxide levels following decontamination were within safe limits. More than one decontamination cycle of vaporized H2O2 may be possible but further information is required on how multiple cycles would affect FFR fit in a real-world setting before the upper limit can be established. Although immersion in liquid H2O2 does not appear to adversely affect FFR function, there is no available data on its ability to remove infectious pathogens from FFRs or its impact on FFR fit. Sodium hypochlorite, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and ethylene oxide are not recommended due to safety concerns or negative effects on FFR function.

Decontamination interventions for the reuse of surgical mask personal protective equipment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The high demand for personal protective equipment during the novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted the need to develop strategies to conserve supply. Little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for surgical mask reuse. AIM: To identify and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks for the purpose of reuse. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, preprint servers, and prominent journals from inception to April 8th, 2020, were searched for prospective original research on decontamination interventions for surgical masks. Citation screening was conducted independently in duplicate. Study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from included studies by two independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest included impact of decontamination interventions on surgical mask performance and germicidal effects. FINDINGS: Seven studies met eligibility criteria: one evaluated the effects of heat and chemical interventions applied after mask use on mask performance, and six evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance. Mask performance and germicidal effects were evaluated with heterogeneous test conditions. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination. Given the heterogeneous methods used in studies to date, we are unable to draw conclusions on the most efficacious and safe intervention for decontaminating surgical masks.