1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo

Volume 4, Issue 3

Effect of five decontamination methods on face masks and filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with and Open Access

Abstract

In the context of the global pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2, procurement of personal protective equipment during the crisis was problematic. The idea of reusing and decontaminating personal surgical masks in facilities was explored in order to avoid the accumulation of waste and overcome the lack of equipment.

Our hypothesis is that this work will show the decontamination methods assessed are effective for bacteria, such as and .

We aim to provide information about the effects of five decontamination procedures (UV treatment, dry heat, vaporized HO, ethanol treatment and blue methylene treatment) on and . These bacteria are the main secondary bacterial pathogens responsible for lung infections in the hospital environment.

The surgical masks and the filtering facepiece respirators were inoculated with two bacterial strains ( ATCC 29213 and S0599) and submitted to five decontamination treatments: vaporized HO (VHP), UV irradiation, dry heat treatment, ethanol bath treatment and blue methylene treatment. Direct and indirect microbiology assessments were performed on three positive controls, five treated masks and one negative control.

The five decontaminations showed significant (<0.05) but different degrees of reductions of and . VHP, dry heat treatment and ethanol treatment adequately reduced the initial contamination. The 4 min UV treatment allowed only a reduction to five orders of magnitude for face mask respirators. The methylene blue treatment induced a reduction to two orders of magnitude.

The three methods that showed a log reduction factor of 6 were the dry heat method, VHP and ethanol bath treatment. These methods are effective and their establishment in the medical field are easy but require economic investment.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): decontamination (UV, H2O2, dry heat, ethanol, blue methylene) , filtering face mask respirator , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , SARS-CoV-2 , Staphylococcus aureus and surgical mask
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Walloon Region (Award Project 2010053)
    • Principle Award Recipient: EricHaubruge
© 2022 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000342
2022-03-30
2024-05-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/4/3/acmi000342.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000342&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bashir MF, Ma B, Shahzad L. A brief review of socio-economic and environmental impact of Covid-19. Air Qual Atmos Health 2020; 13:1–7 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, Sait SM. Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar Pollut Bull 2021; 168:112419 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bereket W, Hemalatha K, Getenet B, Wondwossen T, Solomon A et al. Update on bacterial nosocomial infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmaco Sci 2012; 16:1039–1044
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Lafaurie M, Porcher R, Donay J-L, Touratier S, Molina J-M. Reduction of fluoroquinolone use is associated with a decrease in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and fluoroquinolone-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation rates: a 10 year study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67:1010–1015 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Juan C, Peña C, Oliver A. Host and pathogen biomarkers for severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. J Infect Dis 2017; 215:S44–S51 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gnanamani A, Hariharan P, Paul-Satyaseela M. Staphylococcus aureus overview of bacteriology, clinical Diseases, epidemiology, antibiotic resistance and therapeutic approach. In Enany S, Crotty Alexander LE. eds Frontiers in Staphylococcus Aureus London, UK: InTech; 2017
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baron S. eds Medical Microbiology, 4th ed. Galveston (TX): University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston; 1996 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Federal Agency for Medecines and Health Products Guidance for the reprocessing of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators (FFP2, FFP3) during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency; 2020 https://www.fagg-afmps.be/sites/default/files/content/famhp_national_guidance_mask_reprocessing_v1.1_05052020.pdf accessed 17 March 2021
  9. Shintani H. Simultaneous Achievement of Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6 and Material and Functional Compatibility in Gas Plasma Sterilization. Pharmaceut Reg Affairs 2015; 4:1000131 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Rodriguez-Martinez CE, Sossa-Briceño MP, Cortés JA. Decontamination and reuse of N95 filtering facemask respirators: A systematic review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48:1520–1532 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Xiang Y, Song Q, Gu W. Decontamination of surgical face masks and N95 respirators by dry heat pasteurization for one hour at 70°C. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48:880–882 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Mills D, Harnish DA, Lawrence C, Sandoval-Powers M, Heimbuch BK. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of influenza-contaminated N95 filtering facepiece respirators. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46:e49–e55 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lore MB, Heimbuch BK, Brown TL, Wander JD, Hinrichs SH. Effectiveness of three decontamination treatments against influenza virus applied to filtering facepiece respirators. Ann Occup Hyg 2012; 56:92–101 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer RJ, Morris DH, van Doremalen N, Sarchette S, Matson MJ et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirator decontamination and rRespirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26:2253–2255 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Corrêa TQ, Blanco KC, Inada NM, Hortenci M de F, Costa AA et al. Manual operated ultraviolet surface decontamination for healthcare environments. Photomed Laser Surg 2017; 35:666–671 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Sickbert-Bennett EE et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems for terminal room decontamination: Focus on clinical trials. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44:e77–84 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hofacre Kent Richter William Willenberg Zachary Final Report for the Bioquell hydrogen peroxide HPV decontamination for reuse of N95 respirators; 2016 https://www.fda.gov/media/136386/download accessed 17 March 2021
  18. Lemmen S, Scheithauer S, Häfner H, Yezli S, Mohr M et al. Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide vapor for the inactivation of nosocomial pathogens on porous and nonporous surfaces. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43:82–85 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Almatroudi A, Tahir S, Hu H, Chowdhury D, Gosbell IB et al. Staphylococcus aureus dry-surface biofilms are more resistant to heat treatment than traditional hydrated biofilms. J Hosp Infect 2018; 98:161–167 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chambers ST, Peddie B, Pithie A. Ethanol disinfection of plastic-adherent micro-organisms. J Hosp Infect 2006; 63:193–196 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kampf G. Antiseptic Stewardship: Biocide Resistance and Clinical Implications Cham: Springer International Publishing; [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Park I-S, Baek S-W, Moon KH. The sterilization effect of methylene blue, formalin and iodine on egg and adult stage of marine medaka, Oryzias dancena. Dev Reprod 2019; 23:199–211 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ludwig-Begall LF, Wielick C, Dams L, Nauwynck H, Demeuldre P-F et al. The use of germicidal ultraviolet light, vaporized hydrogen peroxide and dry heat to decontaminate face masks and filtering respirators contaminated with a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus. J Hosp Infect 2020; 106:577–584 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lendvay TS, Chen J, Harcourt BH, Scholte FEM, Lin YL et al. Addressing personal protective equipment (PPE) decontamination: Methylene blue and light inactivates severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on N95 respirators and medical masks with maintenance of integrity and fit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20211–10 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ludwig-Begall LF, Wielick C, Jolois O, Dams L, Razafimahefa RM et al. “Don, doff, discard” to “don, doff, decontaminate”-FFR and mask integrity and inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a norovirus following multiple vaporised hydrogen peroxide-, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation-, and dry heat decontaminations. PLoS ONE 2021; 16:e0251872 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grinshpun SA, Yermakov M, Khodoun M. Autoclave sterilization and ethanol treatment of re-used surgical masks and N95 respirators during COVID-19: impact on their performance and integrity. J Hosp Infect 2020; 105:608–614 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Liao L, Xiao W, Zhao M, Yu X, Wang H et al. Can N95 respirators be reused after disinfection? how many times?. ACS Nano 2020; 14:6348–6356 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ibáñez-Cervantes G, Bravata-Alcántara JC, Nájera-Cortés AS, Meneses-Cruz S, Delgado-Balbuena L et al. Disinfection of N95 masks artificially contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 and ESKAPE bacteria using hydrogen peroxide plasma: Impact on the reutilization of disposable devices. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48:1037–1041 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Bergman MS, Viscusi DJ, Heimbuch BK, Wander JD, Sambol AR et al. Evaluation of multiple (3-Cycle) decontamination processing for filtering facepiece respirators. J Eng Fiber Fabr 2010; 5:155892501000500 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lin T-H, Tang F-C, Hung P-C, Hua Z-C, Lai C-Y. Relative survival of Bacillus subtilis spores loaded on filtering facepiece respirators after five decontamination methods. Indoor Air 2018; 28:754–762 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cadnum JL, Li DF, Redmond SN, John AR, Pearlmutter B et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet-C light and a high-level disinfection cabinet for decontamination of N95 respirators. Pathog Immun 2020; 5:52–67 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhiqing L, Yongyun C, Wenxiang C, Mengning Y, Yuanqing M et al. Surgical masks as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures. J Orthop Translat 2018; 14:57–62 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Luksamijarulkul P, Aiempradit N, Vatanasomboon P. Microbial contamination on used surgical masks among hospital personnel and microbial air quality in their working wards: a hospital in bangkok. Oman Med J 2014; 29:346–350 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000342
Loading
Effect of five decontamination methods on face masks and filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Access Microbiology 4, 000342 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000342
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000342
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000342
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error