Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19805391›Full record

ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2009

Evaluation of five decontamination methods for filtering facepiece respirators.

Dennis J Viscusi, Michael S Bergman, Benjamin C Eimer, Ronald E Shaffer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 201 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
201citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

201 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 380 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The COVID-19 pandemic and N95 masks: reusability and decontamination methods.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

141 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dennis J ViscusiNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA.
Michael S Bergman
Benjamin C Eimer
Ronald E Shaffer
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns have been raised regarding the availability of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) during an influenza pandemic. One possible strategy to mitigate a respirator shortage is to reuse FFRs following a biological decontamination process to render infectious material on the FFR inactive. However, little data exist on the effects of decontamination methods on respirator integrity and performance. This study evaluated five decontamination methods [ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), ethylene oxide, vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), microwave oven irradiation, and bleach] using nine models of NIOSH-certified respirators (three models each of N95 FFRs, surgical N95 respirators, and P100 FFRs) to determine which methods should be considered for future research studies. Following treatment by each decontamination method, the FFRs were evaluated for changes in physical appearance, odor, and laboratory performance (filter aerosol penetration and filter airflow resistance). Additional experiments (dry heat laboratory oven exposures, off-gassing, and FFR hydrophobicity) were subsequently conducted to better understand material properties and possible health risks to the respirator user following decontamination. However, this study did not assess the efficiency of the decontamination methods to inactivate viable microorganisms. Microwave oven irradiation melted samples from two FFR models. The remainder of the FFR samples that had been decontaminated had expected levels of filter aerosol penetration and filter airflow resistance. The scent of bleach remained noticeable following overnight drying and low levels of chlorine gas were found to off-gas from bleach-decontaminated FFRs when rehydrated with deionized water. UVGI, ethylene oxide (EtO), and VHP were found to be the most promising decontamination methods; however, concerns remain about the throughput capabilities for EtO and VHP. Further research is needed before any specific decontamination methods can be recommended.

Indexed as

DecontaminationEquipment ContaminationEquipment ReuseFiltrationHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalMaterials TestingRespiratory Protective Devices

Identifiers

PMID19805391
PMCPMC2781738
OpenAlexW2167199833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.