Effectiveness of a low-cost UVGI chamber for decontaminating filtering facepiece respirators to extend reuse. Issue 1 (2nd January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Singh, Tanusha; Duba, Thabang; Muleba, Lufuno; Matuka, Dikeledi Onnicah; Glaser, Daniel; Ratshikhopha, Edith; Kirsten, Zubaydah; van Reenen, Tobias; Masuku, Zibusiso; Singo, Dikeledi; Ntlailane, Lebogang; Nthoke, Tebogo; Jones, David; Ross, Mary; du Toit, Pieter
• Is Part Of: Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. Volume 20:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 40
• Page End: 53
• Publication Date: 2023-01-02
• Subjects: Airborne infection control -- low-cost UVGI chamber -- respirator reprocessing -- SARS-CoV-2 -- UVGI effectiveness -- viral filtration efficiency -- viral inactivation efficacy; Industrial hygiene -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Occupational Health -- Periodicals; Environmental Exposure -- Periodicals; Environmental Health -- Periodicals; Occupational Exposure -- Periodicals; Hygiène industrielle -- Périodiques; Hygiène du milieu -- Périodiques; Médecine du travail -- Périodiques; 613.62
• DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2022.2137299
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-9624

Abstract

Abstract: In emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, the reuse or reprocessing of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) may be required to mitigate exposure risk. Research gap: Only a few studies evaluated decontamination effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 that are practical for low-resource settings. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a relatively inexpensive ultraviolet germicidal irradiation chamber to decontaminate FFRs contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. A custom-designed UVGI chamber was constructed to determine the ability to decontaminate seven FFR models including N95s, KN95, and FFP2s inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. Vflex was excluded due to design folds/pleats and UVGI shadowing inside the chamber. Structural and functional integrity tolerated by each FFR model on repeated decontamination cycles was assessed. Twenty-seven participants were fit-tested over 30 cycles for each model and passed if the fit factor was ≥100. Of the FFR models included for testing, only the KN95 model failed filtration. The 3M™ 3M 1860 and Halyard™ duckbill 46727 (formerly Kimberly Clark) models performed better on fit testing than other models for both pre-and-post decontaminations. Fewer participants (0.3 and 0.7%, respectively) passed fit testing for Makrite 9500 N95 and Greenline 5200 FFP2 and only two for the KN95 model post decontamination. Fit testing appeared to be more affected by donning & doffing, as some passed with adjustment and repeat fit testing. A ≥ 3 log reduction of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved for worn-in FFRs namely Greenline 5200 FFP2. Conclusion: The study showed that not all FFRs tested could withstand 30 cycles of UVGI decontamination without diminishing filtration efficiency or facial fit. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 log reduction varied across the FFRs, implying that the decontamination efficacy largely depends on the decontamination protocol and selection of FFRs. We demonstrated the effectiveness of a low-cost and scalable decontamination method for SARS-CoV-2 and the effect on fit testing using people instead of manikins. It is recognized that extensive experimental evidence for the reuse of decontaminated FFRs is lacking, and thus this study would be relevant and of interest in crisis-capacity settings, particularly in low-resource facilities.