Can sterilization of disposable face masks be an alternative for imported face masks? A nationwide field study including 19 sterilization departments and 471 imported brand types during COVID-19 shortages.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
21
04
2021
accepted:
01
09
2021
entrez:
14
9
2021
pubmed:
15
9
2021
medline:
22
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Face masks, also referred to as half masks, are essential to protect healthcare professionals working in close contact with patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Because of the Corona material shortages, healthcare institutions sought an approach to reuse face masks or to purchase new, imported masks. The filter quality of these masks remained unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of sterilized and imported FFP2/KN95 face masks. A 48-minute steam sterilization process of single-use FFP2/KN95 face masks with a 15 minute holding time at 121°C was developed, validated and implemented in the Central Sterilization Departments (CSSD) of 19 different hospitals. Masks sterilized by steam and H2O2 plasma as well as new, imported masks were tested for particle filtration efficiency (PFE) and pressure drop in a custom-made test setup. The results of 84 masks tested on the PFE dry particle test setup showed differences of 2.3±2% (mean±SD). Test data showed that the mean PFE values of 444 sterilized FFP2 face masks from the 19 CSSDs were 90±11% (mean±SD), and those of 474 new, imported KN95/FFP2 face masks were 83±16% (mean±SD). Differences in PFE of masks received from different sterilization departments were found. Face masks can be reprocessed with 121 °C steam or H2O2 plasma sterilization with a minimal reduction in PFE. PFE comparison between filter material of sterilized masks and new, imported masks indicates that the filter material of most reprocessed masks of high quality brands can outperform new, imported face masks of unknown brands. Although the PFE of tested face masks from different sterilization departments remained efficient, using different types of sterilization equipment, can result in different PFE outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Face masks, also referred to as half masks, are essential to protect healthcare professionals working in close contact with patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Because of the Corona material shortages, healthcare institutions sought an approach to reuse face masks or to purchase new, imported masks. The filter quality of these masks remained unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of sterilized and imported FFP2/KN95 face masks.
METHODS
A 48-minute steam sterilization process of single-use FFP2/KN95 face masks with a 15 minute holding time at 121°C was developed, validated and implemented in the Central Sterilization Departments (CSSD) of 19 different hospitals. Masks sterilized by steam and H2O2 plasma as well as new, imported masks were tested for particle filtration efficiency (PFE) and pressure drop in a custom-made test setup.
RESULTS
The results of 84 masks tested on the PFE dry particle test setup showed differences of 2.3±2% (mean±SD). Test data showed that the mean PFE values of 444 sterilized FFP2 face masks from the 19 CSSDs were 90±11% (mean±SD), and those of 474 new, imported KN95/FFP2 face masks were 83±16% (mean±SD). Differences in PFE of masks received from different sterilization departments were found.
CONCLUSION
Face masks can be reprocessed with 121 °C steam or H2O2 plasma sterilization with a minimal reduction in PFE. PFE comparison between filter material of sterilized masks and new, imported masks indicates that the filter material of most reprocessed masks of high quality brands can outperform new, imported face masks of unknown brands. Although the PFE of tested face masks from different sterilization departments remained efficient, using different types of sterilization equipment, can result in different PFE outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34520503
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257468
pii: PONE-D-21-13083
pmc: PMC8439445
doi:
Substances chimiques
Steam
0
Hydrogen Peroxide
BBX060AN9V
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0257468Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2019 Oct 31;13(10):858-864
pubmed: 32084015
J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:
pubmed: 27195721
Am J Infect Control. 1987 Oct;15(5):196-200
pubmed: 3674536
J Histotechnol. 2020 Jun;43(2):102-104
pubmed: 32116147
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Oct;106(2):246-253
pubmed: 32763333
Cell. 2020 May 14;181(4):954-954.e1
pubmed: 32413300
Vaccines (Basel). 2020 Apr 14;8(2):
pubmed: 32295153
Ann Occup Hyg. 2009 Nov;53(8):815-27
pubmed: 19805391
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 4;10(8):e039454
pubmed: 32753454
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Jun;105(2):356-357
pubmed: 32277964