Effect of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator on Venous Blood Carbon Dioxide Levels and Hemodynamic Changes in Health Care Workers.

Background: N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) are used by health care workers for prevention of airborne infection, and its use has increased manifolds during COVID-19 pandemic. Prolonged use may result in carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulation, affect hemodynamics, and blood gas values. Although arterial blood gas values accurately measure the blood CO2 levels, venous blood gas values also show acceptable correlation. Aim: To evaluate the physiological impact of N95 FFRs on health care workers, including hemodynamic changes and venous blood levels of CO2 during a period of 6 h. Settings and Design: Prospective observational study in a tertiary care hospital. Methods: The study was conducted on 30 health care workers who performed routine duties while wearing N95 FFR. Venous blood gas values (CO2, pH, and bicarbonate) and vitals (respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, and saturation) were noted at baseline, 2 (T2), and 6 h (T6) after wearing the mask. Discomfort level was also measured on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of 1-10. Statistical Analysis: Repeated measures analysis was done using repeated measures ANOVA or Friedman's test. Group comparisons for continuously distributed data were made using independent sample "t" test or Wilcoxon test. Results and Conclusion: Hemodynamic and blood gas values did not change over time. The VAS for discomfort because of respirator use was 1.33 (1.42) at T2 and 2.77 (1.91) at T6. This was a significant increase in discomfort over time (P = 0.001). About 80% of participants experienced discomfort during this period. N95 FFR did not lead to significant alteration in hemodynamics or change in blood gas values after 6 h of continuous usage. However, discomfort significantly increased over time.

Assessment of saliva interference with UV-based disinfection technologies.

Worldwide shortages of personal protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of methods for decontaminating face piece respirators such as N95 respirators. The use of UV irradiation to reduce bioburden of used respirators attracts attention, making proper testing protocols of uttermost importance. Currently artificial saliva is used but its comparison to human saliva from the UV disinfection perspective is lacking. Here we characterize UV spectra of human and artificial saliva, both fresh and after settling, to test for possible interference for UV-based disinfection. ASTM 2720 artificial saliva recipe (with either porcine or bovine mucin) showed many discrepancies from average (N = 18) human saliva, with different mucins demonstrating very different UV absorbance spectra, resulting in very different UV transmittance at different wavelength. Reducing porcine mucin concentration from 3 to 1.7 g/L brought UVA254 in the artificial saliva to that of average human saliva (although not for other wavelengths), allowing 254 nm disinfection experiments. Phosphate saline and modified artificial saliva were spiked with 8.6 log CFU/ml B. subtilis spores (ATCC 6633) and irradiated at dose of up to 100 mJ/cm2, resulting in 5.9 log inactivation for a saline suspension, and 2.8 and 1.1 log inactivation for ASTM-no mucin and ASTM-1.7 g/L porcine mucin 2 µL dried droplets, respectively. UVC irradiation of spores dried in human saliva resulted in 2.3 and 1.5 log inactivation, depending on the size of the droplets (2 vs 10 µL, respectively) dried on a glass surface. Our results suggest that in the presence of the current standard dried artificial saliva it is unlikely that UVC can achieve 6 log inactivation of B. subtilis spores using a realistic UV dose (e.g. less than 2 J/cm2) and the ATSM saliva recipe should be revised for UV decontamination studies.

Comparison of Fit for Sealed and Loose-Fitting Surgical Masks and N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators.

OBJECTIVES: N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95 FFRs) and surgical masks are comprised of multiple layers of nonwoven polypropylene. Tight-fitting N95 FFRs are respiratory protective devices (RPDs) designed to efficiently filter aerosols. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) throughout the world continue to face shortages of disposable N95 FFRs. Existing version of widely available FDA cleared loose-fitting surgical masks with straps do not provide reliable protection against aerosols. We tested the faceseal of a modified strapless form-fitting sealed version of surgical mask using quantitative fit testing (QNFT) and compared the performance of this mask with that of N95 FFRs and unmodified loose-fitting surgical masks. METHODS: Twenty HCWs participated in the study (10 women; 10 men; age 23-59 years). To create the sealed surgical masks, we removed the straps from loose-fitting surgical masks, made new folds, and used adhesive medical tape to secure the new design. All participants underwent QNFT with a loose-fitting surgical mask, the sealed surgical mask, and an N95 FFR; fit factors were recorded. Each QNFT was performed using a protocol of four exercises: (i) bending over, (ii) talking, (iii) moving head side to side, and (iv) moving head up and down. When the overall fit factor for the sealed surgical mask or N95 FFR was <100, the participant retook the test. Participants scored the breathability and comfort of the sealed surgical mask and N95 FFR on a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (unfavorable) to 10 (favorable). RESULTS: The median fit factor for the sealed surgical mask (53.8) was significantly higher than that of the loose-fitting surgical mask (3.0) but lower than that of the N95 FFR (177.0) (P < 0.001), equating to significantly lower inward leakage of ambient aerosols (measuring 0.04-0.06 µm) with the sealed surgical mask (geometric mean 1.79%; geometric standard deviation 1.45%; range 0.97-4.03%) than with the loose-fitting surgical mask (29.5%; 2.01%; 25-100.0%) but still higher than with the N95 FFR (0.66%; 1.46%; 0.50-1.97%) (P < 0.001). Sealed surgical masks led to a marked reduction (range 60-98%) in inward leakage of aerosols in all the participants, compared to loose-fitting surgical masks. Among the exercises, talking had a greater effect on reducing overall fit factor for the sealed surgical mask than for the N95 FFR; when talking was excluded, the fit factor for the sealed surgical mask improved significantly (median 53.8 to 81.5; P < 0.001). The sealed surgical mask, when compared with the N95 FFR, offered better reported breathability (median VAS 9 versus 5; P < 0.001) and comfort (9 versus 5; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Widely available loose-fitting surgical masks can be easily modified to achieve faceseal with adhesives. Unlike loose-fitting surgical masks, sealed surgical masks can markedly reduce inward leakage of aerosols and may therefore offer useful levels of respiratory protection during an extreme shortage of N95 FFRs and could benefit HCWs who cannot comply with N95 FFRs due to intolerance. However, because a wide range of surgical masks is commercially available, individual evaluation of such masks is highly recommended before sealed versions are used as RPDs.