American journal of infection control · 2024
Comparison of 2 methods for sterilization of filtering facepiece respirators worn for extended periods during the COVID-19 pandemic: An experimental laboratory study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Costa Daniela Galdino, Margatho Amanda Salles, Ciol Marcia A, Hoffman Jeanne Marie, Ferreira Elaine Barros, do Monte Adamo Ferreira Gomes, Silveira Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a shortage of filtering facepiece respirators (FFR), leading to prolonged use and reuse of FFRs.
METHODS: FFRs were collected in 3 hospitals after extended use (up to 15 or 30days). We assessed the physical characteristics and filtration levels of worn FFRs, before sterilization. Respirators that achieved at least 94% filtration of aerosol particles, nasal clip still attached, had no tears, had preserved elastic bands, and had no dirt were randomized to receive or not receive cleaning before being submitted to hydrogen peroxide plasma gas sterilization.
RESULTS: A total of 1,055 FFRs were collected. Over 85% of them exhibited secured nose clips, preserved strap elasticity, and no tears. However, more than 78% of samples contained dirt, leaving only 101 (19.6%) eligible to undergo sterilization. After sterilization, none of the FFRs in either group achieved minimum filtration, although 72% without cleaning and 80% with cleaning had filtration between 90.0% and 93.9%.
DISCUSSION: A large proportion of FFRs were ineligible for sterilization due to factors unrelated to health care (eg, dirt from makeup).
CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged reuse of FFRs significantly reduced aerosol filtration efficiency. Eligible FFRs did not maintain 94% filtration after sterilization with or without cleaning.
METHODS: FFRs were collected in 3 hospitals after extended use (up to 15 or 30days). We assessed the physical characteristics and filtration levels of worn FFRs, before sterilization. Respirators that achieved at least 94% filtration of aerosol particles, nasal clip still attached, had no tears, had preserved elastic bands, and had no dirt were randomized to receive or not receive cleaning before being submitted to hydrogen peroxide plasma gas sterilization.
RESULTS: A total of 1,055 FFRs were collected. Over 85% of them exhibited secured nose clips, preserved strap elasticity, and no tears. However, more than 78% of samples contained dirt, leaving only 101 (19.6%) eligible to undergo sterilization. After sterilization, none of the FFRs in either group achieved minimum filtration, although 72% without cleaning and 80% with cleaning had filtration between 90.0% and 93.9%.
DISCUSSION: A large proportion of FFRs were ineligible for sterilization due to factors unrelated to health care (eg, dirt from makeup).
CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged reuse of FFRs significantly reduced aerosol filtration efficiency. Eligible FFRs did not maintain 94% filtration after sterilization with or without cleaning.