Trial reportAmerican journal of otolaryngology
N95 respirator reuse, decontamination methods, and microbial burden: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personal protective equipment in GI endoscopy.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Filtration efficiency of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during multi-cycles of '8-hour simulated donning + disinfection'.The Journal of hospital infection · 2022Article
- An Experimental Analysis of Five Household Equipment-Based Methods for Decontamination and Reuse of Surgical Masks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and ease of N95 respirator decontamination methods in a clinic setting and to identify the extent of microbial colonization on respirators associated with reuse.
methodsIn a prospective fashion, N95 respirators (n = 15) were randomized to a decontamination process (time, dry heat, or ultraviolet C light [UVC]) in outpatient clinics. Each respirator was re-used up to 5 separate clinic sessions. Swabs on each respirator for SARS-CoV-2, bacteria, and fungi were obtained before clinic, after clinic and post-treatment. Mask integrity was checked after each treatment (n = 68). Statistical analyses were performed to determine factors for positive samples.
resultsAll three decontamination processes reduced bacteria counts similarly. On multivariate mixed model analysis, there were an additional 8.1 colonies of bacteria (95% CI 5.7 to 10.5; p < 0.01) on the inside compared to the outside surface of the respirators. Treatment resulted in a decrease of bacterial load by 8.6 colonies (95% CI -11.6 to -5.5; p < 0.01). Although no decontamination treatment affected the respirator filtration efficiency, heat treatments were associated with the breakdown of thermoplastic elastomer straps. Contamination with fungal and SARS-CoV-2 viral particles were minimal to non-existent.
conclusionsTime, heat and UVC all reduced bacterial load on reused N95 respirators. Fungal contamination was minimal. Heat could permanently damage some elastic straps making the respirators nonfunctional. Given its effectiveness against microbes, lack of damage to re-treated respirators and logistical ease, UVC represents an optimal decontamination method for individual N95 respirators when reuse is necessary.
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.