We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chain disruptions force US health-care entities to adopt conservation strategies such as procurement from different respirator manufacturers. This research seeks to better understand how the number of respirator models on hand can serve as an indicator of N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) supply chain stability or disruption.
Methods:
Researchers looked at differences in the mean number of N95 FFR models, averaged weekly, from 10 hospitals in a health-care system over 15 wk from June 1 to September 10, 2020. Participating hospitals entered near-daily PPE inventory data by manufacturer and model number.
Results:
A linear mixed effect model was run in SPSS v. 26 using a random intercept for hospitals, with week as a fixed predictor and mean number of respirator models (averaged weekly) on hand as the dependent variable. Each week showed a small but significant effect compared with the past week (P < 0.001), where the average weekly number of respirator models on hand decreased.
Conclusions:
The limited data may indicate a resolution of supply chain disruptions and warrant further investigation. Consequently, the number of respirator models may be applicable as an indicator of supply chain stability and be more easily ascertained and tracked by health-care entities.
To circumvent the need for rationing personal protective equipment (PPE), we explored whether germicidal ultraviolet light (GUV) could be used to inactivate human coronaviruses on PPE, enabling safe reuse.
Design:
We performed a laboratory study to assess the ability of 2 commercially available portable GUV devices to inactivate 2 common cold coronaviruses (HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the surface of whole N95 respirators and coupons cut from those respirators. We experimentally contaminated N95 respirators with coronavirus cultures and then assessed viral inactivation after GUV exposure by plaque assay, the median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay, and quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).
Results:
We found that GUV could efficiently inactivate coronaviruses on the surface of N95 masks, with an average reduction in viral titers of 5-log for HCoV-229E, 3-log for HCoV-OC43, and 5-log for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, the GUV susceptibility of HCoV-229E was similar on coupons and whole N95 respirators.
Conclusions:
We demonstrate that diverse human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, are susceptible to GUV inactivation, and 2 scalable portable GUV devices were effective in inactivating coronaviruses on N95 respirators. Thus, GUV treatment with commercially scalable devices may be an effective method to decontaminate PPE, allowing their safe reuse.
We quantitatively assessed the fit failure rate of N95 respirators according to the number of donning/doffing and hours worn.
Design:
Experimental study.
Setting:
A tertiary-care referral center in South Korea.
Participants:
In total, 10 infection control practitioners participated in the fit test.
Methods:
The first experiment comprised 4 consecutive 1-hour donnings and fit tests between each donning. The second experiment comprised 2 consecutive 3-hour donnings and fit tests between each donning. The final experiment comprised fit tests after an 1-hour donning or a 2-hour donning.
Results:
For 1-hour donnings, 60%, 70%, and 90% of the participants had fit failures after 2, 3, and 4 consecutive donnings, respectively. For 3-hour donnings, 50% had fit failure after the first donning and 70% had failures after 2 consecutive donnings. All participants passed the fit test after refitting whenever fit failure occurred. The final experiment showed that 50% had fit failure after a single use of 1 hour, and 30% had fit failure after a single use of 2 hours.
Conclusions:
High fit-failure rates were recorded after repeated donning and extended use of N95 respirators. Caution is needed for reuse (≥1 time) and extended use (≥1 hour) of N95 respirators in high-risk settings such as those involving aerosol-generating procedures. Although adequate refitting may recover the fit factor, the use of clean gloves and strict hand hygiene afterward should be ensured when touching the outer surfaces of N95 respirators for refitting.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.