Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 712, 2021 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34325673

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Exposure , Respiratory Protective Devices , Humans , Masks , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 2051, 2021 01 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33479334

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, including of N95 masks (filtering facepiece respirators; FFRs). These masks are intended for single use but their sterilization and subsequent reuse has the potential to substantially mitigate shortages. Here we investigate PPE sterilization using ionized hydrogen peroxide (iHP), generated by SteraMist equipment (TOMI; Frederick, MD), in a sealed environment chamber. The efficacy of sterilization by iHP was assessed using bacterial spores in biological indicator assemblies. After one or more iHP treatments, five models of N95 masks from three manufacturers were assessed for retention of function based on their ability to form an airtight seal (measured using a quantitative fit test) and filter aerosolized particles. Filtration testing was performed at a university lab and at a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) pre-certification laboratory. The data demonstrate that N95 masks sterilized using SteraMist iHP technology retain filtration efficiency up to ten cycles, the maximum number tested to date. A typical iHP environment chamber with a volume of ~ 80 m3 can treat ~ 7000 masks and other items (e.g. other PPE, iPADs), making this an effective approach for a busy medical center.


Subject(s)
Hydrogen Peroxide/pharmacology , N95 Respirators/virology , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Sterilization/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Equipment Reuse/statistics & numerical data , Humans , N95 Respirators/supply & distribution , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Respiratory Protective Devices , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United States/epidemiology
3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(9): ofaa396, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32989420

ABSTRACT

Proper disinfection using adequate disinfecting agents will be necessary for infection control strategies against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, limited guidance exists on effective surface disinfectants or best practices for their use against severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2. We outlined a process of fully characterizing over 350 products on the Environmental Protection Agency List N, including pH, method of delivery, indication for equipment sterilization, and purchase availability. We then developed a streamlined set of guidelines to help rapidly evaluate and select suitable disinfectants from List N, including practicality, efficacy, safety, and cost/availability. This resource guides the evaluation of ideal disinfectants amidst practical considerations posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.
medRxiv ; 2020 Jul 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32743596

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the current COVID-19 pandemic, supply chains for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) have been severely disrupted and many products, particularly surgical N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs; "masks") are in short supply. As a consequence, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA has allowed 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 mask in the inventory of major academic medical centers in Boston, MA to determine provenance and manufacturer. We then assembled a simple apparatus for performing a necessary (but not sufficient) test of filtration performance and tested masks from the inventory; an accompanying website shows how to build and use the testing apparatus. RESULTS: Our survey showed that, seven months after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 100 different makes and models of N95-type masks are in the inventory of local hospitals as opposed to 2-5 models under normal circumstances. A substantial number of unfamiliar masks are from unknown manufacturers. Many did not perform to accepted standards and are likely to be counterfeit. Due to the absence of publicly available information on mask suppliers in the FDA EUA and confusing or inconsistent labeling of KN95 masks, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate and counterfeit products. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the FFR masks 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 for end users to assist in acquiring legitimate products. In particular, 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 U.S and Chinese regulatory agencies with regard to labeling and public disclosure aimed at increase pandemic resilience.

5.
medRxiv ; 2020 Apr 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32511480

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers, including filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) such as N95 masks. These masks are normally intended for single use, but their sterilization and subsequent reuse could substantially mitigate a world-wide shortage. DESIGN: Quality assurance. SETTING: A sealed environment chamber installed in the animal facility of an academic medical center. INTERVENTIONS: One to five sterilization cycles using ionized hydrogen peroxide (iHP), generated by SteraMist equipment (TOMI; Frederick, MD). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Personal protective equipment, including five N95 mask models from three manufacturers, were evaluated for efficacy of sterilization following iHP treatment (measured with bacterial spores in standard biological indicator assemblies). Additionally, N95 masks were assessed for their ability to efficiently filter particles down to 0.3um and for their ability to form an airtight seal using a quantitative fit test. Filtration efficiency was measured using ambient particulate matter at a university lab and an aerosolized NaCl challenge at a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) pre-certification laboratory. RESULTS: The data demonstrate that N95 masks sterilized using SteraMist iHP technology retain function up to five cycles, the maximum number tested to date. Some but not all PPE could also be sterilized using an iHP environmental chamber, but pre-treatment with a handheld iHP generator was required for semi-enclosed surfaces such as respirator hoses. CONCLUSIONS: A typical iHP environment chamber with a volume of ~80 m3 can treat ~7000 masks per day, as well as other items of PPE, making this an effective approach for a busy medical center.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...