ArticlePloS one2021
Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current perspective in metal oxide based photocatalysts for virus disinfection: A review.Journal of environmental management · 2022Review
- N95 respirator decontamination: a study in reusability.Materials today. Advances · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A gas-phase Advanced Oxidation Process (gAOP) was evaluated for decontaminating N95 and surgical masks. The continuous process was based on the generation of hydroxyl-radicals via the UV-C (254 nm) photo-degradation of hydrogen peroxide and ozone. The decontamination efficacy of the gAOP was dependent on the orientation of the N95 mask passing through the gAOP unit with those positioned horizontally enabling greater exposure to hydroxyl-radicals compared to when arranged vertically. The lethality of gAOP was independent of the applied hydrogen peroxide concentration (2-6% v/v) but was significantly (P<0.05) higher when H2O2 was introduced into the unit at 40 ml/min compared to 20 ml/min. A suitable treatment for N95 masks was identified as 3% v/v hydrogen peroxide delivered into the gAOP reactor at 40 ml/min with continuous introduction of ozone gas and a UV-C dose of 113 mJ/cm2 (30 s processing time). The treatment supported >6 log CFU decrease in Geobacillus stearothermophilus endospores, > 8 log reduction of human coronavirus 229E, and no detection of Escherichia coli K12 on the interior and exterior of masks. There was no negative effect on the N95 mask fitting or particulate efficacy after 20 passes through the gAOP system. No visual changes or hydrogen peroxide residues were detected (<1 ppm) in gAOP treated masks. The optimized gAOP treatment could also support >6 log CFU reduction of endospores inoculated on the interior or exterior of surgical masks. G. stearothermophilus Apex spore strips could be applied as a biological indicator to verify the performance of gAOP treatment. Also, a chemical indicator based on the oxidative polymerization of pyrrole was found suitable for reporting the generation of hydroxyl-radicals. In conclusion, gAOP is a verifiable treatment that can be applied to decontaminate N95 and surgical masks without any negative effects on functionality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.