Next Article in Journal
Hydrophobic Polymeric Additives toward a Long-Term Robust Carbonaceous Mudstone Slope
Next Article in Special Issue
Electrospun Nanofibrous Scaffolds: Review of Current Progress in the Properties and Manufacturing Process, and Possible Applications for COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Influence of Dyes Physico-Chemical Properties on Incorporation and Release Kinetics in Silk Fibroin Matrices
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/polym13050801
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Ultraviolet-C as a Viable Reprocessing Method for Disposable Masks and Filtering Facepiece Respirators

by
Talita Nicolau
1,
Núbio Gomes Filho
2 and
Andrea Zille
1,*
1
2C2T—Centre for Textile Science and Technology, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
2
School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, 4710-57 Braga, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2021, 13(5), 801; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym13050801
Submission received: 17 February 2021 / Revised: 27 February 2021 / Accepted: 1 March 2021 / Published: 5 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Polymeric Materials for COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In normal conditions, discarding single-use personal protective equipment after use is the rule for its users due to the possibility of being infected, particularly for masks and filtering facepiece respirators. When the demand for these protective tools is not satisfied by the companies supplying them, a scenario of shortages occurs, and new strategies must arise. One possible approach regards the disinfection of these pieces of equipment, but there are multiple methods. Analyzing these methods, Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) becomes an exciting option, given its germicidal capability. This paper aims to describe the state-of-the-art for UV-C sterilization in masks and filtering facepiece respirators. To achieve this goal, we adopted a systematic literature review in multiple databases added to a snowball method to make our sample as robust as possible and encompass a more significant number of studies. We found that UV-C’s germicidal capability is just as good as other sterilization methods. Combining this characteristic with other advantages makes UV-C sterilization desirable compared to other methods, despite its possible disadvantages.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In normal conditions, single-use personal protective equipment (SUPPE) is discarded after use, once it might be infected [1]. However, when pandemics, such as the one of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), happen, conditions for a perfect storm happen, creating a combination of two factors: (1) a higher demand-side pressure for those pieces of equipment on a global scale [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], added to (2) failure on the supply-side to meet these needs, as most SUPPE supply chains were in China, and they were unable to export their products [11]. When this perfect storm occurs, reprocessing SUPPE gains visibility as there is no universal treatment [10,12,13]. Despite the fact that there are now multiple vaccines, SUPPE demand will continue to suffer pressures until countries reach herd immunization, especially if countries start banning woven masks, as in Germany or France, due to virus mutations.
Reprocessing SUPPE is crucial because it tackles multiple problems, since (1) it gives a rapid solution to this shortage during a crisis (economic factor); (2) it reduces the environmental impact this increase in production would cause in terms of nonrecyclable waste (environmental facet); (3) it enables poorer countries to diminish their costs from highly inflated SUPPE at this moment (social aspect).
Facing this crisis, multiple organizations throughout the world (e.g., the F.D.A., the C.D.C., the E.C.D.C., the U.N.) have adjusted their infection control measures [14], issuing special authorizations for sterilizing SUPPE [15,16,17,18], as well as reports/guidelines about multiple reprocessing methods [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Even though such changes in perspective happened, there is still no universal option for reprocessing SUPPE. This lack of universal choice happens because each option may affect SUPPE’s efficiency and integrity, diminishing its barrier capability [1,4,7,8,10,14]. Given that there is no universal choice, reprocessing SUPPE must consider their materials, topologies, the resources at hand, and the markets’ acceptance [3,12,25]. The four major sterilization methods are thermal, chemical, radioactive, and energetic [3,8,12,13,26,27].
Thermal methods commonly deactivate microorganisms, such as viruses, given they denature their proteins [3,8]. However, these methods face two cardinal problems: they might deform SUPPE irreversibly and face scalability issues [3,8,9,12,13,14,20,26]. In order to deal with such problems, some researchers [28,29,30] use nanostructured materials with photothermal properties, such as poly(NIPAm-co-NIPMAm) hydrogels [28,29]. This characteristic enables the absorption of visible/near-infrared light, creating localized heat sources [28]. Although this solution might solve the previous problems, it is still in its infancy. Thus, the development of autophotothermal disinfection SUPPE [30] might prove useful in the future, but it lacks further research to evaluate its industrial feasibility.
The typical chemical methods used to sterilize SUPPE are Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide (VH2O2) and Ethylene Oxide (EtO), and the first has been gaining the second’s market. Even though VH2O2 is ineffective on cellulose-based SUPPE, it is environmentally friendly, and EtO is carcinogenic [2,8,12,25]. The chemical methods have some cons, such as their residues causing allergic reactions and having an intense odor. They depend on specific machinery, and VH2O2 is highly unstable when vaporized, losing significant efficiency when condensed [3,5,7,9,12,25,31].
Regarding radioactive sterilization methods, the most common one uses gamma irradiation, and it is already primarily used for sterilizing medical tools on a large scale, but it is highly dependent on expensive machinery, it might cause irreversible deformities on SUPPE, and these methods use radioactive raw material [2,8,20,25,26].
Regarding the energetic methods, the water and the food industry already apply germicidal ultraviolet (UVGI) [2]. Ultraviolet C (UV-C), among the UVGI, can damage biological structures via the photodimerization process since both RNA and DNA bases strongly absorb UV-C [3]. UV-C is suitable due to its low cost, high throughput, ease of use, and no chemical residues left [6,12,32]. UV-C has some limitations related to SUPPE thermal deformation, shadowing, and absorption effects [4,5,8,27,31].
Considering this panorama, UV-C seems to be the method that is more suitable to tackle the problems (economic, environmental, and social) of selecting a sterilization method for SUPPE. Thus, this paper aims to describe the state-of-the-art for UV-C sterilization in masks and filtering facepiece respirators.
Among different SUPPE, masks and filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) became necessary due to their primary role as a protective barrier from Coronavirus disease infection in the hospital and nonhospital environments [33]; therefore, this paper focuses on these SUPPE. This analysis allows observing if studies benefit from advantages and face the disadvantages described for UV-C and how they are overcoming them. Such evaluations are essential because UV-C is already useful in disinfecting other materials/equipment/products, but there remain doubts concerning its disinfection ability for masks/FFRs.
The authors have used a systematic literature review (SLR) on multiple databases to gather English-written publications that researched UV-C’s impacts on masks and FFRs. More information about the quantitative of analyzed studies and their sources (Table S1), SLR’s database description (Figure S1) and SLR’s database descriptive analysis (Figure S2) are available in Supplementary Materials.

2. UV-C Sterilization in Masks and Filtering Facepiece Respirators

This section compiles the SLR results describing the state-of-the-art for UV-C sterilization in masks and filtering facepiece respirators. Readers may find these studies’ samples, UV-C’s system setups, and results in Table 1, entitled SLR’s final database main features and results.

3. UV-C’s Germicidal Capability

Considering the studies in the SLR’s final database, 31 studies [1,6,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49,50,52,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,63,64,65,66,85], representing 53.45% of the SLR database, attest to UV-C’s germicidal capability, as they find results of at least 3-log reduction using different biological indicators, conditions, and setups. These studies present results using UV-C as a single method of sterilization. In contrast, another five studies [44,48,51,66,74] use ultraviolet in hybrid models, four combined heat and UV-C, and one adds hydrogen peroxide. While two publications [48,74] do not evaluate UVGI alone, the other two [44,51] do, one attesting for it and another one not. The last one [66] simulates its efficiency. However, when the authors evaluate the hybrid model, they find reductions “well beyond 3” -log [51] (p. 13). Additionally, four research papers [1,47,55,56] indicate a relation between virucidal activity and the masks’ (or FFRs’) models. Summing these results up, all of the researchers tested for the germicidal capability of UVGI and found at least partial confirmation of it, being the majority working with UV-C and being in favor of its usage.
Besides its need to be germicidal for SUPPE, UV-C must have low cost, high throughput, ease of use, and reduce or leave behind no chemical byproducts [6,12,32]. The sum of these advantages creates appeal for this reprocessing method. These advantages can be either read solely for UVGI methods or in comparison with other (thermal, chemical, and radioactive) methods’ disadvantages.

4. UV-C’s Additional Advantages

Ultraviolet-C is normally regarded as a low-cost reprocessing method. From the SLR’s final sample, most publications used either adapted biosafety [6,49,50,57,58,59,61,83] or sterilization [33,56,86] cabinets; adapted chambers [7,39,43,48,64,66,75,78], rooms [51,68,69,85] or laminar flow cabinets [43,71,80,82]; the lamps alone [38,40,46,52,54,63,79,87] or tube racks [70]. Most of these resources are available in research departments or hospitals; making this method “reasonably (…) inexpensive” [7] (p. 515) or, at least, “a cost-effective alternative to heat or chemical decontamination” [69] (pp. 396–397).
Ten publications [34,37,42,44,45,60,62,73,76,77] adapted machines/robots or used specific UVGI cabinets. These options seemed more expensive approaches than the previous ones. This information does not completely invalidate the “low-cost” idea, as they might prove to be cost-effective once the facility is looking for reprocessing masks and might already own such devices, and they may be idle. Lastly, some researchers created prototypes [41,53], or built their own UV cabinets [1,35,55,65,67,72,74,84]. These self-built UV cabinets are sometimes built from scratch using inexpensive raw materials like aluminum [1,65], or they adapted other containers [55,67,72,74], such as metallic tool storage, an old freezer box, or a reflecting box.
Considering that UVGI methods are of high throughput, this advantage is not mentioned by every study. Assuming that most studies use small chambers [7,39,43,48,64,66,75,78], biosafety [6,50,57,58,59,61,83] or sterilization [33,56,86] cabinets, this could partially hinder this advantage, as SUPPE cannot be stacked (piled up) [47,76].
Although some publications [7,41,57] argue that reaching high throughput depends on adapting their systems’ setups, which increases their processes’ agility and consequently their throughput per round, finally, some studies [39,44,67,72,73] indicate an actual number of masks and FFRs disinfected per round. These numbers depend on the area each mask model has and the irradiated area the system has. Despite these studies, this capability becomes easily observed when researchers use adapted rooms [51,68,69,85] since they can disinfect multiple SUPPE at once.
In the matter of effortlessness application of UVGI, fewer studies [7,34,41,44,48,55,72,73,87] discuss it. Usually, this characteristic relates to how easy the insertion of these setups into the potential users’ facilities is or how workers benefit from it amidst each patient consultation. On some level, this effortlessness of inserting these setups into healthcare facilities is more important than workers’ ability to know how to do it. We argue that possible users should invest in training a group of workers and detach them for this job, given that if every worker starts doing it, it will increase the probability of someone not following the guidelines correctly, thus increasing the infection probability.
The last common advantage UVGI has compared to chemical disinfection methods is the reduced/no chemical byproduct left in SUPPE after sterilization rounds. Some studies [7,40,44,48,49,62,64,67,70,71,79,82,83] discuss this advantage. On the one hand, a few studies [7,40,83] only mention this advantage without testing it—three [70,71,82] publications tangentially discuss this characteristic by the possibility of the lasting odors resulting from the UV-C reprocessing. On the other hand, other publications [44,48,49,62,64,67,79] test for this chemical byproduct. Using low-pressure mercury lamps during the sterilization may create Ozone (O3), which “can pose an additional health hazard” [64] (p. 7592); if trapped inside the container, the reprocessing is taking place. Three research papers [44,48,64] find low accumulation levels of O3 ranging from less than 0.001 to 0.02 ppm after the UV-C sterilization process.
Still on chemical byproducts, two other publications [62,79] find some unique peaks in their analysis, but these results indicate divergent observations. Jung et al. explain that the byproducts are a result of “surface oxidation leaving some peaks of C–O–C and O–H bending” [62] (p. 11). In contrast, Salter et al. argue that their unique peaks “appear to be (…) related to the solvent (n-pentane) and unrelated to the disinfectant” [79] (p. 443).
Despite these advantages, there is no universal option concerning sterilization methods since all of them present disadvantages; thus, we should observe which disadvantages are present in our SLR database and if they have made this choice of reprocessing procedure inadvisable.

5. UV-C’s Disadvantages

There are three common problems the UV-C sterilization process demonstrates: the possibility of thermal deformation, shadowing, and absorption effects [4,5,8,27,31]. As the first potential problem (changes in integrity) already discards reprocessed SUPPE, we opted to leave it on Table 1 column “Changes in integrity or fit.” From our SLR database, 30 studies (51.72%) assess it, of which 21 [33,35,37,40,44,48,49,51,53,61,62,64,65,67,70,71,73,80,81,82,87] observe no physical changes within different rounds of sterilization or extenuating conditions. On the other hand, nine studies [36,38,42,47,54,75,78,84,86] find that masks or FFRs degraded, or faced changes in airflow resistance [36,47,75,78], or reached minimum acceptability levels after some rounds of reprocessing [38,42,54,84,86]. These results are important to consider, albeit with caution because one publication [78] indicates that despite having degradation problems, they varied according to the different models used, suggesting that it is wise to observe each case individually. In contrast, another study [75] indicates a positive relationship between degradation levels and dosage.
Another potential problem reprocessed masks and FFRs might present the reduction of their filtration power. Most studies [35,36,38,39,42,43,44,48,49,51,54,59,61,62,64,67,73,76,80,81,82,84,87] indicate that little or no effect happened as these SUPPE faced UV-C sterilization. However, this is not a consensus in the SLR’s final sample. Few publications [7,33,75,77] indicate problems in these SUPPE’s filtration power after sterilization, normally after some reprocessing cycles or in higher doses.
A third setback for choosing UV-C’s method is shadowing. This problem happens when parts of the masks or FFRs are poorly irradiated or not irradiated at all. Such a concern is a priority, especially when the object possesses inner-layers where microorganisms can remain. This problem automatically impacts UV-C’s germicidal capability because all parts must be irradiated to be decontaminated and reused. Shadowing is also a problem in these SUPPE’s straps. Some studies [1,37,40,41,44,55,58,66,67,72] discussed shadowing although only few [41,44,55,66,72] presented possible solutions. One study [41] is concerned with this problem regarding masks and FFRs straps, then to solve it, they include a fused quartz hook that enables UV irradiation. Other researchers [44,55,66,72] suggest changing the UV-C system setup or the SUPPE’s positions to increase exposure or the system’s reflection.
A fourth problem concerns UV-C’s penetration ability. This problem is intimately related to the irradiation of inner parts and with the material these SUPPEs use. Some studies [1,6,34,40,76] argue about it. The leading cause for this concern lies in the physio–chemical properties of the materials used in masks and FFRs [6,34,76]. None of these studies discussing absorption problems tried to solve them. Only one [40] argued about the possibility of optimizing their system’s setup to cope with it. Nevertheless, an increase in dosage to reach deeper layers may lead to photooxidation on the surface [42,67,75]. Thus, better reflective setups and more uniform irradiation might prove to be better solutions to reach the inner layers.
A fifth problem lies outside the capability of UV-C but in the potential users’ ability to explain to the users of reprocessed SUPPE the procedure’s safety. Only two studies [42,73] discuss it, but a system where users of the reprocessed masks and FFRs only wear their previously used SUPPE may increase acceptability.
Finally, we summarize all these potential hindrances in one. If researchers aimed at solving it, UV-C may turn into the universal method. How to improve its germicidal capability on small particles deep within masks and FFRs’ inner layers? This problem combines all possible disadvantages since it evaluates its germicidal ability, the possibility of material shadows shield these tiny particles, and the material absorption that could impede the appropriate dosage reaching them. Dealing with this problem could create more acceptance of the method in its users, and then they could use any reprocessed mask/FFR.

6. Conclusions

During a crisis in SUPPE, the ability of supply chains to meet the increase in demand, reprocessing these pieces of protective equipment, such as masks and FFRs, gains visibility. This visibility incentivizes academia to develop, evaluate and create multiple alternatives to sterilize them. This study aimed to describe the state-of-the-art for UV-C sterilization in masks and filtering facepiece respirators.
We used an SLR to gather information about UV-C’s germicidal capability, other advantages, and potential disadvantages. The germicidal ability combined with other benefits increases UV-C’s appeal compared to other existing sterilization methods.
Regarding the potential problems, we must consider that masks degrade in different ways [78] once they use other materials and possess individual physio–chemical properties. This consideration indicates that each model might present specific changes after UV-C sterilization rounds, and the same happens for shadowing or absorption effects [1,6]. From our SLR, we synthesize the most critical barrier for implementing UV-C sterilization as a disinfection method for masks and FFRs: How to improve its germicidal capability on small particles deep within masks and FFRs’ inner layers?
Our study might have regarded our database as another potential problem, as this topic gained relative importance after the COVID-19 pandemic. This importance increased the number of published studies significantly. Thus, we can only assert these results up to the end of January 2021, as other studies might appear after this one, and they could create new perspectives on this topic.
Therefore, a comprehensive study with multiple mask (and FFR) models, like Mills et al. [1], increases the likelihood of selecting the appropriate model(s) for UV-C sterilization, clearly explaining why the other models should not use it. Another potential avenue for future research is evaluating the physio–chemical changes masks and FFRs might pass when reprocessed by UV-C, such as the levels of chemical byproducts. Finally, UV-LEDs might be useful because they are adjustable into different shapes than the longitudinal bulbs.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2073-4360/13/5/801/s1, Figure S1: SLR’s database description, Figure S2: SLR’s database descriptive analysis. (a) Publications (Scholarly literature x “Grey” literature) before and after COVID-19 outbreak; (b) Journals’ quartiles according to SJR (2021). Observations: We suppressed the “Q4” column as there were no publications at it. “N/A” condensates studies published either in “grey” literature or in journals that were not in SJR (2021). (c) Journals’ area. Observations: “Health” encompasses multiples journal’s areas (“Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,” “Medicine (miscellaneous),” “Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,” “Infectious Diseases,” “Ophthalmology,” “Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,” and “Neurology (clinical)”). “Engineering” condensates journals with the following areas: “Material Sciences (miscellaneous),” “Polymers and Plastics,” and “Engineering (miscellaneous).” “N/A” condensates “grey” literature and some journals that do not have defined areas in SJR, Table S1: Quantitative of analyzed studies and their sources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.N., N.G.F., and A.Z.; methodology, N.G.F.; validation, T.N.; formal analysis, T.N., N.G.F., A.Z.; data curation, T.N., and N.G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, T.N., N.G.F., and A.Z.; writing—review and editing, T.N., N.G.F., and A.Z.; visualization, T.N.; supervision, A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would also like to acknowledge the project PLASMAMED - PTDC/CTM-TEX/28295/2017 financed by Fundação para Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) and Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) in the frame of the Portugal 2020 program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mills, D.; Harnish, D.A.; Lawrence, C.; Sandoval-Powers, M.; Heimbuch, B.K. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation of influenza-contaminated N95 filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2018, 46, e49–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Rowan, N.J.; Laffey, J.G. Challenges and solutions for addressing critical shortage of supply chain for personal and protective equipment (PPE) arising from Coronavirus disease (COVID19) pandemic—Case study from the Republic of Ireland. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Derraik, J.G.B.; Anderson, W.A.; Connelly, E.A.; Anderson, Y.C. Rapid Review of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Viability, Susceptibility to Treatment, and the Disinfection and Reuse of PPE, Particularly Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Livingston, E.H.; Desai, A.; Berkwits, M. Sourcing Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2020, 323, 1912–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Deskins, A. Attention Nurses, Doctors, First Responders, Healthcare Providers and Anyone Re-Using an N95 Mask or Making One. 2020. Available online: https://i0.wp.com/www.sages.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/reuse-n95.png?ssl=1 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
  6. Fisher, E.; Shaffer, R. A method to determine the available UV-C dose for the decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 110, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lindsley, W.G.; Martin, S.B., Jr.; Thewlis, R.E.; Sarkisian, K.; Nwoko, J.O.; Mead, K.R.; Noti, J.D. Effects of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) on N95 Respirator Filtration Performance and Structural Integrity. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rubio-Romero, J.C.; Pardo-Ferreira, M.D.C.; Torrecilla-García, J.A.; Calero-Castro, S. Disposable masks: Disinfection and sterilization for reuse, and non-certified manufacturing, in the face of shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Czubryt, M.; Stecy, T.; Popke, E.; Aitken, R.; Jabusch, K.; Pound, R.; Lawes, P.; Ramjiawan, B.; Pierce, G. N95 mask reuse in a major urban hospital: COVID-19 response process and procedure. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Harskamp, R.E.; Van Straten, B.; Bouman, J.; Santvoort, B.V.M.-V.; Dobbelsteen, J.J.V.D.; Van Der Sijp, J.R.; Horeman, T. Reprocessing filtering facepiece respirators in primary care using medical autoclave: Prospective, bench-to-bedside, single-centre study. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e039454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ranney, M.L.; Griffeth, V.; Jha, A.K. Critical Supply Shortages—The Need for Ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 Pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Paul, D.; Gupta, A.; Maurya, A.K. Exploring options for reprocessing of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (N95-FFRs) amidst COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pascoe, M.; Robertson, A.; Crayford, A.; Durand, E.; Steer, J.; Castelli, A.; Wesgate, R.; Evans, S.; Porch, A.; Maillard, J.-Y. Dry heat and microwave-generated steam protocols for the rapid decontamination of respiratory personal protective equipment in response to COVID-19-related shortages. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Daeschler, S.C.; Manson, N.; Joachim, K.; Chin, A.W.; Chan, K.; Chen, P.Z.; Jones, A.; Tajdaran, K.; Mirmoeini, K.; Zhang, J.J.; et al. Effect of moist heat reprocessing of N95 respirators on SARS-CoV-2 inactivation and respirator function. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2020, 192, E1189–E1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hinton, D.M. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Emergency Use of the Battelle CCDS Critical Care Decontamination System; FDA: Irvine, CL, USA, 2020.
  16. Hinton, D.M. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the ASP STERRAD 100S, NX, and 100NX Sterilization Systems in the STERRAD 100S, NX Standard and 100NX Express Cycles, Respectively, for Decontamination of Compatible N95 Respirators; FDA: Irvine, CL, USA, 2020.
  17. Hinton, D.M. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Emergency Use of the STERIS V-PRO 1 Plus, maX, and maX2 Low Temperature Sterilization Systems; FDA: Irvine, CL, USA, 2020.
  18. Hinton, D.M. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Emergency Use of Stryker Instrument’s Sterizone VP4 Sterilizer; FDA: Irvine, CL, USA, 2020.
  19. World Health Organization (WHO). Rational Use of Personal Protective Equipment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Guidance; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  20. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Cloth Masks and Mask Sterilisation as Options in Case of Shortage of Surgical Masks and Respirators; Technical Report; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Contamination. Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Facemasks. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Contamination. Implementing Filtering Facepiece Respirator (FFR) Reuse, Including Reuse after Decontamination, When There Are Known Shortages of N95 Respirators. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/decontamination-reuse-respirators.html (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  23. Centers for Disease Control and Contamination. Recommended Guidance for Extended Use and Limited Reuse of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Healthcare Settings. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hcwcontrols/recommendedguidanceextuse.html (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  24. Centers for Disease Control and Contamination. Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Isolation Gowns. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/isolation-gowns.html (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  25. McEvoy, B.; Rowan, N. Terminal sterilization of medical devices using vaporized hydrogen peroxide: A review of current methods and emerging opportunities. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 127, 1403–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Kenney, P.A.; Chan, B.J.; Kortright, K.; Cintron, M.; Havill, N.; Russi, M.; Epright, J.; Lee, L.; Balcezak, T.J.; Martinello, R.A. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Feldmann, F.; Shupert, W.L.; Haddock, E.; Twardoski, B.; Feldmann, H. Gamma Irradiation as an Effective Method for Inactivation of Emerging Viral Pathogens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2019, 100, 1275–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pierini, F.; Guglielmelli, A.; Urbanek, O.; Nakielski, P.; Pezzi, L.; Buda, R.; Lanzi, M.; Kowalewski, T.A.; De Sio, L. Thermoplasmonic-Activated Hydrogel Based Dynamic Light Attenuator. Adv. Opt. Mater. 2020, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nakielski, P.; Pawłowska, S.; Rinoldi, C.; Ziai, Y.; De Sio, L.; Urbanek, O.; Zembrzycki, K.; Pruchniewski, M.; Lanzi, M.; Salatelli, E.; et al. Multifunctional Platform Based on Electrospun Nanofibers and Plasmonic Hydrogel: A Smart Nanostructured Pillow for Near-Infrared Light-Driven Biomedical Applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 54328–54342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Sio, L.; Ding, B.; Focsan, M.; Kogermann, K.; Pascoal-Faria, P.; Petronella, F.; Mitchell, G.; Zussman, E.; Pierini, F. Personalized Reusable Face Masks with Smart Nano-Assisted Destruction of Pathogens for COVID-19: A Visionary Road. Chem. Eur. J. 2020, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Toomey, E.C.; Conway, Y.; Burton, C.; Smith, S.; Smalle, M.; Chan, X.-H.S.; Adisesh, A.; Tanveer, S.; Ross, L.; Thomson, I.; et al. Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 42, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nogueira, M.S. Ultraviolet-based biophotonic technologies for control and prevention of COVID-19, SARS and related disorders. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 2020, 31, 101890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Zhao, M.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Can N95 Respirators Be Reused after Disinfection? How Many Times? ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6348–6356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ludwig-Begall, L.F.; Wielick, C.; Dams, L.; Nauwynck, H.; Demeuldre, P.-F.; Napp, A.; Laperre, J.; Haubruge, E.; Thiry, E. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cheok Hong, M.; Sook Lan, T.; Soo Zeng Fiona, P.; Wei Qi, L.; Shyue Wei, P.; Vidhya, N.; Geraldine, C.; Yu Hui Shermin, C. Surgical masks decontamination for reuse by members of the public: Feasibility study and development of home-based methods. Res. Sq. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ludwig-Begall, L.F.; Wielick, C.; Jolois, O.; Dams, L.; Razafimahefa, H.N.; Demeuldre, P.F.; Napp, A.; Laperre, J.; Farnir, F.; Thiry, E.; et al. From “don, doff, and discard” to “don, doff, and decontaminate”—Determination of filtering facepiece respirator and surgical mask integrity and inactivation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate and a small non-enveloped virus following multiple-cycles of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and dry heat decontamination. medRxiv 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cadnum, J.L.; Li, D.F.; Redmond, S.N.; John, A.R.; Pearlmutter, B.; Donskey, C.J. Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C Light and a High-Level Disinfection Cabinet for Decontamination of N95 Respirators. Pathog. Immun. 2020, 5, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fischer, R.J.; Morris, D.H.; Van Doremalen, N.; Sarchette, S.; Matson, M.J.; Bushmaker, T.; Yinda, C.K.; Seifert, S.N.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B.N.; et al. Effectiveness of N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse against SARS-CoV-2 Virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 2253–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hanyanunt, P.; Juntanawiwat, P.; Chatreewonanakul, T.; Potisuwan, P.; Simsiriporn, W.; Phondee, S.; Sungsirin, N.; Kesakomol, P.; Watanaveeradej, V.; Boonsiri, T. Effects of ultraviolet C (uvc) light and dry heat on filtration performance of N95 respirator mask. J. Southeast Asian Med. Res. 2020, 4, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
  40. Heimbuch, B.K.; Wallace, W.H.; Kinney, K.; Lumley, A.E.; Wu, C.-Y.; Woo, M.-H.; Wander, J.D. A pandemic influenza preparedness study: Use of energetic methods to decontaminate filtering facepiece respirators contaminated with H1N1 aerosols and droplets. Am. J. Infect. Control 2011, 39, e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kayani, B.J.; Weaver, D.T.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; King, E.S.; Dolson, E.; Krishnan, N.; Pelesko, J.; Scott, M.J.; Hitomi, M.; Cadnum, J.L.; et al. UV-C tower for point-of-care decontamination of filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kumar, A.; Kasloff, S.B.; Leung, A.; Cutts, T.; Strong, J.E.; Hills, K.; Gu, F.X.; Chen, P.; Vazquez-Grande, G.; Rush, B.; et al. Decontamination of N95 masks for re-use employing 7 widely available sterilization methods. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lore, M.B.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Brown, T.L.; Wander, J.D.; Hinrichs, S.H. Effectiveness of Three Decontamination Treatments against Influenza Virus Applied to Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 56, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Muñoz, M.; Comtois-Bona, M.; Cortes, D.; Cimenci, C.E.; Du, Q.; Thompson, C.; Figueroa, J.D.; Franklin, V.; Liu, P.; Alarcon, E.I. Integrated photothermal decontamination device for N95 respirators. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Simmons, S.E.; Carrion, R.; Alfson, K.J.; Staples, H.M.; Jinadatha, C.; Jarvis, W.R.; Sampathkumar, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Khawaja, F.; Povroznik, M.; et al. Deactivation of SARS-CoV-2 with pulsed-xenon ultraviolet light: Implications for environmental COVID-19 control. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 42, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Singh, G.; Jorgenson, J.; Pringle, T.; Nelson, T.; Ramamoorthy, S. Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 decontamination by dry heat and ultraviolet treatment with a swine coronavirus as a surrogate. Infect. Prev. Pract. 2021, 3, 100103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Smith, J.S.; Hanseler, H.; Welle, J.; Rattray, R.; Campbell, M.; Brotherton, T.; Moudgil, T.; Pack, T.F.; Wegmann, K.; Jensen, S.; et al. Effect of various decontamination procedures on disposable N95 mask integrity and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2020, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vernez, D.; Save, J.; Oppliger, A.; Concha-Lozano, N.; Hopf, N.B.; Niculita-Hirzel, H.; Resch, G.; Michaud, V.; Dorange-Pattoret, L.; Charrière, N.; et al. Reusability of filtering facepiece respirators after decontamination through drying and germicidal UV irradiation. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e003110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vo, E.; Rengasamy, S.; Xu, S.; Horvatin, M.; Zhuang, Z. New technique to evaluate decontamination methods for filtering facepiece respirators. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vo, E.; Rengasamy, S.; Shaffer, R. Development of a Test System To Evaluate Procedures for Decontamination of Respirators Containing Viral Droplets. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7303–7309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Wigginton, K.R.; Arts, P.J.; Clack, H.L.; Fitzsimmons, W.J.; Gamba, M.; Harrison, K.R.; LeBar, W.; Lauring, A.S.; Li, L.; Roberts, W.W.; et al. Validation of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Decontamination Methods Available at a Large University Hospital. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofaa610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Woo, M.-H.; Grippin, A.; Anwar, D.; Smith, T.; Wu, C.-Y.; Wander, J.D. Effects of Relative Humidity and Spraying Medium on UV Decontamination of Filters Loaded with Viral Aerosols. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5781–5787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Chotiprasitsakul, D.; Kitiyakara, T.; Jongkaewwattana, A.; Santanirand, P.; Jiaranaikulwanich, A.; Prahsam, C.; Wadwongsri, P.; Jeendum, N.; Watcharananan, S.P. Approach of using a household device in decontaminating respirators with ultraviolet C during the scarcity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Res. Sq. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fischer, R.J.; Morris, D.H.; van Doremalen, N.; Sarchette, S.; Matson, M.J.; Bushmaker, T.; Yinda, C.K.; Seifert, S.N.; Gamble, A.; Williamson, B.N.; et al. Assessment of N95 respirator decontamination and re-use for SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Golovkine, G.R.; Roberts, A.W.; Cooper, C.; Riano, S.; DiCiccio, A.M.; Worthington, D.L.; Clarkson, J.P.; Krames, M.; Zhang, J.; Gao, Y.; et al. Practical considerations for Ultraviolet-C radiation mediated decontamination of N95 respirator against SARS-CoV-2 virus. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ozog, D.M.; Sexton, J.Z.; Narla, S.; Pretto-Kernahan, C.; Mirabelli, C.; Lim, H.W.; Hamzavi, I.H.; Tibbetts, R.J.; Mi, Q.-S. The Effect of Ultraviolet C Radiation Against SARS-CoV-2 Inoculated N95. medRxiv 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rathnasinghe, R.; Karlicek, R.F.; Schotsaert, M.; Koffas, M.; Arduini, B.; Jangra, S.; Wang, B.; Davis, J.L.; Alnaggar, M.; Costa, A.; et al. Scalable, effective, and rapid decontamination of SARS-CoV-2 con-taminated N95 respirators using germicidal Ultra-Violet C (UVC) irradiation device. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Weaver, D.T.; McElvany, B.D.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Card, K.J.; Crozier, D.; Dhawan, A.; Dinh, M.N.; Dolson, E.; Farrokhian, N.; Hitomi, M.; et al. UV decontamination of personal protective equipment with idle laboratory biosafety cabinets during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. He, W.; Guo, Y.; Gao, H.; Liu, J.; Yue, Y.; Wang, J. Evaluation of Regeneration Processes for Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Terms of the Bacteria Inactivation Efficiency and Influences on Filtration Performance. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 13161–13171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lede, I.; Nolte, K.; Kroes, R.; Scalable, A. Method for Ultraviolet C Disinfection of Surgical Facemasks Type IIR and Filtering Facepiece Particle Respirators 1 and 2. Preprints 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Suen, C.Y.; Leung, H.H.; Lam, K.W.; Hung, K.P.S.; Chan, M.Y.; Kwan, J.K.C. Feasibility of reusing surgical mask under different disinfection treatments. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jung, S.; Hemmatian, T.; Song, E.; Lee, K.; Seo, D.; Yi, J.; Kim, J. Disinfection Treatments of Disposable Respirators Influencing the Bactericidal/Bacteria Removal Efficiency, Filtration Performance, and Structural Integrity. Polymers 2020, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Lin, T.-H.; Tang, F.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Purschke, M.; Elsamaloty, M.; Wilde, J.; Starr, N.; Anderson, R.R.; Farinelli, W.; Sakamoto, F.; Tung, M.; Tam, J.; Hesselink, L.; et al. Construction and validation of UV-Cdecontamination cabinets for filteringfacepiece respirators. Appl. Opt. 2020, 59, 7585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kierat, W.; Augustyn, W.; Koper, P.; Pawlyta, M.; Chrusciel, A.; Wyrwol, B. The Use of UVC Irradiation to Sterilize Filtering Facepiece Masks Limiting Airborne Cross-Infection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Banerjee, R.; Roy, P.; Das, S.; Paul, M.K. A hybrid model integrating warm heat and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation might efficiently disinfect respirators and personal protective equipment. Am. J. Infect. Control 2021, 49, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Lanzarini-Lopes, M.; Sinha, S.; Rho, H.; Herckes, P.; Westerhoff, P. Germicidal Ultraviolet Light Does Not Damage or Impede Performance of N95 Masks Upon Multiple Uses. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sears, A.P.; Ohayon, J.; Shutov, A.D.; Pettigrew, R.I. Modeling-based UV-C decontamination of N95 masks optimized to avoid undertreatment. medRxiv 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Baluja, A.; Arines, J.; Vilanova, R.; Cortiñas, J.; Bao-Varela, C.; Flores-Arias, M.T. UV light dosage distribution over irregular respirator surfaces. Methods and implications for safety. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2020, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bergman, M.S.; Viscusi, D.J.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Wander, J.D.; Sambol, A.R.; Shaffer, R.E. Evaluation of Multiple (3-Cycle) Decontamination Processing for Filtering Facepiece Respirators. J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 2010, 5, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Bergman, M.S.; Viscusi, D.J.; Palmiero, A.J.; Powell, J.B.; Shaffer, R.E. Impact of three cycles of decontamination treatments on filtering facepiece respirator fit. J. Int. Soc. Respir. Prot. 2011, 28, 48–59. [Google Scholar]
  72. Gilbert, R.M.; Donzanti, M.J.; Minahan, D.J.; Shirazi, J.; Hatem, C.L.; Hayward-Piatkovskyi, B.; Dang, A.M.; Nelson, K.M.; Bothi, K.L.; Gleghorn, J.P. Mask Reuse in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Creating an Inexpensive and Scalable Ultraviolet System for Filtering Facepiece Respirator Decontamination. Glob. Health Sci. Pract. 2020, 8, 582–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Golladay, G.J.; Leslie, K.A.; Zuelzer, W.A.; Cassano, A.D.; Plauny, J.J.; Daniels, F.E.; Bearman, G.; Kates, S.L. Rationale and process for N95 respirator sanitation and re-use in the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Venkatesh, R.; Gurnani, B.; Kaur, K.; Vedachalam, R.; Gubert, J. Innovative application of ultraviolet rays and hydrogen peroxide vapor for decontamination of respirators during COVID-19 pandemic- An experience from a tertiary eye care hospital. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 68, 1714–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yujie, M.; Rae, Z.; Kurt, R.; Kelly, B. Effect of Ultraviolet C Disinfection Treatment on the Nanomechanical and Topographic Properties of N95 Respirator Filtration Microfibers. MRS Adv. 2020, 5, 2863–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ou, Q.; Pei, C.; Kim, S.C.; Abell, E.; Pui, D.Y. Evaluation of decontamination methods for commercial and alternative respirator and mask materials—View from filtration aspect. J. Aerosol Sci. 2020, 150, 105609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Peltier, R.E.; Wang, J.; Hollenbeck, B.L.; Lanza, J.; Furtado, R.M.; Cyr, J.; Ellison, R.T.; Kobayashi, K.J. Addressing decontaminated respirators: Some methods appear to damage mask integrity and protective function. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Rohit, A.; Rajasekaran, S.; Shenoy, S.; Rai, S.; Iddya, K.; Dorairajan, S.K. Reprocessing of N95 masks: Experience from a resource-limited setting in India. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 104, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salter, W.B.; Kinney, K.; Wallace, W.H.; Lumley, A.E.; Heimbuch, B.K.; Wander, J.D. Analysis of Residual Chemicals on Filtering Facepiece Respirators After Decontamination. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2010, 7, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Viscusi, D.J.; King, W.P.; Shaffer, R.E. Effect of decontamination on the filtration efficiency of two filtering facepiece respirator models. J. Int. Soc. Respir. Prot. 2007, 24, 93–107. [Google Scholar]
  81. Viscusi, D.J.; Bergman, M.S.; Eimer, B.C.; Shaffer, R.E. Evaluation of Five Decontamination Methods for Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53, 815–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Viscusi, D.J.; Bergman, M.S.; Novak, D.A.; Faulkner, K.A.; Palmiero, A.; Powell, J.; Shaffer, R.E. Impact of Three Biological Decontamination Methods on Filtering Facepiece Respirator Fit, Odor, Comfort, and Donning Ease. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2011, 8, 426–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Card, K.J.; Crozier, D.; Dhawan, A.; Dinh, M.; Dolson, E.; Farrokhian, N.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Ho, E.; Jagdish, T.; King, E.S.; et al. UV Sterilization of Personal Protective Equipment with Idle Laboratory Biosafety Cabinets during the Covid-19 Pandemic. medRxiv 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Chen, P.Z.; Ngan, A.; Manson, N.; Maynes, J.T.; Borschel, G.H.; Rotstein, O.D.; Gu, F.X. Transmission of aerosols through pristine and reprocessed N95 respirators. medRxiv 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lowe, J.J.; Paladino, K.D.; Farke, J.D.; Boulter, C.K.; Emodi, M.; Hankins, R.; Hinkle, L.; Micheels, T.; Schwedhelm, S.; Vasa, A.; et al. N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) Process for De-contamination and Reuse; Nebraska Medicine: Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  86. Price, A.; Cui, Y.; Liao, L.; Xiao, W.; Yu, X.; Wang, H.; Zhao, M.; Wang, Q.; Chu, S.; Chu, L. Is the fit of N95 facial masks effected by disinfection? A study of heat and UV disinfection methods using the OSHA protocol fit test. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Borro, L.; Raponi, M.; Del Fatore, A.; Zanini, F.; di Lillo, F.; Contillo, A.; Di Piazza, E.; Bordonaro, V.; Tozzi, A.E.; Secinaro, A. Reusability of P3 facial filter in pandemic emergency: A 3D Analysis of a filter microstructure with X-Ray micro-tomography images after dry heat and UV sterilization procedures. Res. Sq. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. SLR’s final database main features and results.
Table 1. SLR’s final database main features and results.
SampleBiological IndicatorsNº of LampsUV-C Total Dose (J/cm2)Lamp Power (W)Exposure to UV-C (min)Sterilization CyclesLog ReductionToxic ByproductFiltration PowersChanges in Integrity or FitSource
VIRUSES
Surgical Masks/ Procedure Masks/FFP1
Surgical masks $PRCV strain 91V4442.65.521Yes, >5NoNoNo[34]
Surgical maskH1N1 Influenza A virus21.353015Up to 30Yes, ≥4NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes after 30 cycles.[35]
Surgical mask $Infectious porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV strain 91V44) and murine norovirus (MuNoV line RAW264.7 ATCC TIB-71)42.6 &5.52Up to 5Yes, 5.37 (PRCV) and 4.65 (MuNoV)NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, slightly decreased airflow resistance.[36]
FFP2/KN95/N95 FFR
N95 $H1N1 influenza (VR-1469) covered with artificial saliva or skin oil810.391, 10 #1Yes, ≥3 in 12/15 FFRs and 7/15 straps for both soiling conditionsNoNoNo[1]
N95MS2 coliphage138 to 4707402 to 266-Yes, >3 (after 1000 J of irradiation)NoNoNo[6]
N95MS2 bacteriophages and Phi62--22 (each cycle) or 31 (once extended)Up to 3Yes, ≥2.1 (MS2) single cycle. >6 (three consecutive cycles or extended)NoNoYes, no physical changes after three cycles.[37]
N95Hcov-19 ncov-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1)10.33 to 1.98-Multiple (10, 30, and 60)Up to 3Yes, >3NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, it reached the minimum at fit test after three cycles.[38]
N95RIX4414 strain of the human rotavirus G1P[8] Wa strain1--15 &Up to 5Yes, “the rotaviral RNA was detected on both decontamination methods, while the back of N95 respirators, the rotaviral RNA was undetected.” (p. 50)NoYes, little or no effect.No[39]
N95H1N1 influenza (VR-1469) using droplet and aerosol applications11.880151Yes, >4 (all models both applications)NoNoYes, no physical changes.[40]
N95 $Escherichia virus MS2.8>2-11Yes, >3NoNoNo[41]
N95 $Escherichia virus MS2 (MS2), Pseudomonas virus phi6 (Phi6)8>2-11Yes, >2 (MS2 and Phi6)NoNoNo[41]
N95Vesicular stomatitis virus Up to 1.12--Up to 5Yes, >4NoYes, little or no effect after ten cycles.Yes, effect after ten cycles.[42]
N95Influenza A/H5N1 (VNH5N1)218,000-151Yes, >4 (all models)NoYes, little or no effect.No[43]
KN95 $PRCV strain 91V4445.25.541Yes, >4NoNoNo[34]
N95Lentivirus bearing a GFP reporter (a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2)-1.8-<30 (7 white cycle, 10.5 colored cycle, 12 heat)3Yes, ~5 (UV-C alone)Yes, minimal ozone accumulationYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[44] *
N95SARS-CoV-2 (USA-WA1/202)---Up to 51Yes, >4.79NoNoNo[45]
N95Swine coronavirus (PEDV strain CO2013)-0.36 to 2.52 &25Multiple (1, 3, 5, 7) &MultipleYes, 4NoNoNo[46]
N95Clinical samples of SARS-CoV-21-30-1Yes, it depended on the modelNoNoYes, internal degradation, producing particulate.[47]
N95Staphylococcal bacteriophages (vb_hsa_2002 and P66 phages)10Multiple-41Yes, >3Yes, minimal ozone concentrationYes, little or no effect. (Effect caused by wearing)Yes, no physical changes even in dosage corresponding to 50 cycles.[48] *
N95 (one model with a hydrophilic outer layer and another with a hydrophobic outer layer)MS2 bacteriophage (ATCC 15597-B1) (multiple deposition methods: droplets, vaporized, and aerosolized)1~14051Yes, >5 (for all models and methods).Yes, no toxic byproduct left.Yes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[49]
N95MS2 coliphage14.3240Up to 3001Yes, >3 after three hours. No virus after five hours at ~7.20 J/cm2.NoNoNo[50]
N95/KN95MS2, Phi6, influenza A virus, murine hepatitis virus1--151Yes, but <2 (MS2, Phi6, influenza A, MHV) (only UV-PX).NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[51] *
N95MS2 bacteriophage (multiple deposition methods and humidity levels)1-4Up to 240MultipleYes, multiple results depending on the relative humidity of the coupon face and the deposition method (the highest was 5.8)NoNoNo[52]
N95Swine coronavirus (PEDV)1-4Multiple (10, 15, and 20), 1 #1Yes, “it is likely that 10-min UV-C is sufficient for the inactivation of the virus” (p. 06)NoNoYes, no physical changes.[53]
N95Hcov-19 ncov-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1)10.33 to 1.98-Multiple (10, 30, and 60)Up to 3Yes, >3NoYes, little or no effect after three cycles.Yes, minimum at fit test after three cycles.[54]
N95 $SARS-CoV-2UV LEDs0.3 to 0.6-Multiple (0, 5, and 10)Up to 3Yes, >3 (in one model)NoNoNo[55]
KN95 $Infectious porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV strain 91V44) and murine norovirus (MuNoV line RAW264.7 ATCC TIB-71)42.6 &5.525Yes, 4.48 (PRCV) and 4.33 (MuNoV)NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[36]
N95 $SARS-CoV-2 (USA-WA1/2020 NR-52281)-1.5 &-1 to 1.16 &1Yes, it depended on the modelNoNoNo[56]
N95SARS-CoV-2 (USA-WA1/202, bei resource NR52281)21.5-0 to 2.731Yes, 3.5NoNoNo[57]
N95Human coronavirus NL631--151Yes, >3NoNoNo[58]
BACTERIA
Surgical Masks/ Procedure Masks/FFP1
FFP1 and surgical maskE. Coli (K12) and B. Subtilis (B 4056)1Up to 0.378-Multiple (5, 10, 15)1-NoYes, little or no effect.No[59]
surgical maskS. Aureus21.353015Up to 30Yes, ≥4NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes after 30 cycles.[35]
FFP1 and surgical mask S. Aureus242.79530Up to 3Yes, ≥8NoNoNo[60]
surgical maskS. Aureus1-205 &Up to 3Yes, 4NoYes, little or no effect after three cycles.Yes, no physical changes after a 90-min exposure.[61]
FFP2/KN95/N95 FFR
N95Methicillin-resistant S. Aureus (MRSA)2--22 (each cycle) or 31 (once extended)Up to 3Yes, >6 (single cycle, consecutive cycles, and extended)NoNoYes, no physical changes after three cycles.[37]
FFP2E. Coli (K12) and B. Subtilis (B 4056)1Up to 0.378 Multiple (5, 10, 15)1Yes, “No surviving bacterium was observed after UVI treatment for 5 min or longer” (p. 13166)NoYes, little or no effect even when 20 J/cm2.No[59]
N95 (5 layers: coverweb, stiffener, 1st and 2nd filter layers, innerweb)/KF94 (3 layers: coverweb, filter web, inner web)E. Coli (KCTC 1039)1-1060 &1Yes, <2Yes, peaks of C–O–C and O–H bendingYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes[62]
N95 $Methicillin-resistant S. Aureus (MRSA) and C. Difficile8>2-Up to 31Yes, >5 (MRSA), <3 (C. difficile)NoNoNo[41]
N95B. Subtilis (CCRC 12145)1-6Multiple (1, 2, 5, 10, 20) &1Yes, “no colony was recovered after exposure to UVC for as little as five minutes” (p. 757)NoNoNo[63]
N95S. Epidermis, P. Aeruginosa, and G. Stearothermophilus-1.8-<30 (7 white cycle, 10.5 colored cycle, 12 heat)3Yes, 6 (S. Epidermis and P. Aeruginosa) and > 6 (G. Stearothermophilus) just using UV-C Yes, minimal ozone accumulationYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes[44] *
N95B. Pumilus PM-106 (as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2)Variable≥130 (nonozone)5, 10 #Up to 5Yes, 6Yes, minimal ozone concentration.Yes, little or no effect. (one model)Yes, no physical changes through five cycles. (One model)[64]
N95/KN95E. Coli, S. Aureus, and G. Stearothermophilus1--151Yes, but <1 (S. aureus) (UV-PX alone). NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[51] *
N95/KN95S. Aureus242.79530Up to 3Yes, ≥7NoNoNo[60]
FFP3/KN98/N98 FFR
FFP3E. Coli (K12) and B. Subtilis (B 4056)1Up to 0.378-Multiple (5, 10, 15)1-NoYes, little or no effect.No[59]
Others
One mask (with HEPA filter)B. Atrophaeus (ATCC9372)1011715Up to 3Yes, “UVC radiation eliminates pathogens in all layers ofthe HEPA filter.” (p. 13)NoNoYes, no physical changes.[65]
NO BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS/OTHER BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Surgical Masks/ Procedure Masks/FFP1
Surgical mask-1≥10.01711Yes, >5.5 (in 52 min, simulation)NoNoNo[66] *
Surgical mask (two outers of cellulose acetate and interior of polypropylene)-41 to 10120~2-NoYes, no toxic byproduct left.Yes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[67]
surgical mask-22.7-5-NoNoNoNo[68]
FFP2/KN95/N95 FFR
N95 $-2120 to 95015-1NoNoYes, efficiency reduction of 1.25% in higher doses.No[7]
N95/KN95/KF94 $-1~3.6830, 10 #10NoNoNoYes, no physical changes.[33]
FFP2-30.3 to 34.90.183 to 100-NoNoNoNo[69]
N95-1≥10.01711Yes, >5.5 (in 52 min, simulation)NoNoNo[66] *
N95/FFP2-1-40451NoYes, no odor.NoYes, no physical changes.[70]
N95-13.24 (1.62 &)4015Up to 3NoYes, no odor.NoYes, no physical changes.[71]
N95-Variable0.3-19.4 &1NoNoNoNo[72]
N95 (in different sizes)->1--12.5 &2NoNoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[73]
N95-10.06-15 to 20Up to 5NoNoNoNo[74] *
N95-2Multiple (1, 7, 13, 19, 31)38Multiple (5, 35, 65, 95, 155)Up to 5NoNoYes, it presented a decrease in fiber filtration power.Yes, it showed degradation with the increase in dosage.[75]
N95--~1-510NoNoYes, little or no effect up to 10 cycles.No[76] **
N95----10 &1 (equivalent to 10×)NoNoYes, some decrease after the ninth cycle.No[77]
N95-8-18101NoNoNoYes, it showed degradation after reprocessing, but levels are dependent on the model.[78]
N95--2.7860-NoYes, unique peaks, but related to the n-pentane (solvent).NoNo[79]
N95-2-40Up to 480 (240 &)1NoNoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[80]
N95-10.176 to 0.181 &4030 (15 &)1NoNoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[81]
N953-1-4030 (15 &), Overnight #Up to 5NoYes, no odor.Yes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[82]
N95/KN95fungus Aspergillus niger1--151Yes, but <0.3 (UV-PX alone).NoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[51] *
N95 (One model with the second layer: polyester, while the other possesses a plastic-mesh in the outer layer)-41 to 10120~2-NoYes, no toxic byproduct left.Yes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[67]
N95-110.000162 to 258 &1NoNoNoNo[83]
N95-4≥1-4Multiple (1, 3, 5, and 10)NoNoYes, little or no effect (<1.5% at 0.3 μm).Yes, it “induced slight dose-dependent photochemical damage” (p. 03) after three cycles (p. 30).[84]
N95-160.18 to 1.20.0165Up to 5.NoNoNoNo[85]
N95/KN95 $---830, 10 #Up to 10NoNoNoYes, effect after ten cycles.[86]
N95-22.7-5-NoNoNoNo[68]
FFP3/KN98/N98 FFR
FFP3-30.3 to 34.90.183 to 100-NoNoNoNo[69]
P3-1-401201NoNoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[87]
Others
Meltblown fabric (20 g/m2)-1~3.6830, 10 #10NoNoYes, reduction to 93% after 20 cycles.No[33]
P100-2-40Up to 480 (240 &)1NoNoYes, little or no effect, but its results were more variable when the exposure period increased.Yes, no physical changes.[80]
P100-10.176 to 0.181 &4030 (15 &)1NoNoYes, little or no effect.Yes, no physical changes.[81]
Observations: Grey background indicates “grey” literature, explained in section Methods. “$” indicates that researchers also evaluated straps. “*” indicates that authors normally considered hybrid methods instead of only UV-C. “**” indicates that there were in these authors’ sample “alternative face mask and respirator materials”, but they did not evaluate these masks after UVGI sterilization. “-” implies that the source did not provide such information. “~” signs for the idea of approximately. “&” indicates “(per) each side”. “#” stands for ambient conditions.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nicolau, T.; Filho, N.G.; Zille, A. Ultraviolet-C as a Viable Reprocessing Method for Disposable Masks and Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Polymers 2021, 13, 801. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym13050801

AMA Style

Nicolau T, Filho NG, Zille A. Ultraviolet-C as a Viable Reprocessing Method for Disposable Masks and Filtering Facepiece Respirators. Polymers. 2021; 13(5):801. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym13050801

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nicolau, Talita, Núbio Gomes Filho, and Andrea Zille. 2021. "Ultraviolet-C as a Viable Reprocessing Method for Disposable Masks and Filtering Facepiece Respirators" Polymers 13, no. 5: 801. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/polym13050801

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop