Decontamination interventions for the reuse of surgical mask personal protective equipment: a systematic review.
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
Coronavirus Infections
/ prevention & control
Decontamination
/ methods
Equipment Reuse
/ standards
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Masks
/ standards
Pandemics
/ prevention & control
Personal Protective Equipment
/ standards
Pneumonia, Viral
/ prevention & control
Prospective Studies
Respiratory Protective Devices
/ standards
SARS-CoV-2
COVID-19
Decontamination
Personal protective equipment
SARS-CoV-2
Surgical masks
Systematic review
Journal
The Journal of hospital infection
ISSN: 1532-2939
Titre abrégé: J Hosp Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8007166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2020
accepted:
06
07
2020
pubmed:
13
7
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
13
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The high demand for personal protective equipment during the novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted the need to develop strategies to conserve supply. Little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for surgical mask reuse. To identify and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks for the purpose of reuse. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, preprint servers, and prominent journals from inception to April 8 Seven studies met eligibility criteria: one evaluated the effects of heat and chemical interventions applied after mask use on mask performance, and six evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance. Mask performance and germicidal effects were evaluated with heterogeneous test conditions. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks. There is limited evidence on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination. Given the heterogeneous methods used in studies to date, we are unable to draw conclusions on the most efficacious and safe intervention for decontaminating surgical masks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The high demand for personal protective equipment during the novel coronavirus outbreak has prompted the need to develop strategies to conserve supply. Little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for surgical mask reuse.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To identify and synthesize data from original research evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks for the purpose of reuse.
METHODS
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, preprint servers, and prominent journals from inception to April 8
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Seven studies met eligibility criteria: one evaluated the effects of heat and chemical interventions applied after mask use on mask performance, and six evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance. Mask performance and germicidal effects were evaluated with heterogeneous test conditions. Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Good germicidal effects were observed in salt-, N-halamine-, and nanoparticle-coated masks.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination. Given the heterogeneous methods used in studies to date, we are unable to draw conclusions on the most efficacious and safe intervention for decontaminating surgical masks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32653432
pii: S0195-6701(20)30337-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.07.007
pmc: PMC7347478
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
283-294Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Sep;106(1):163-175
pubmed: 32687870
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2014 Sep;8(5):585-6
pubmed: 25074677
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 16;15(12):e0243965
pubmed: 33326504
Am J Ind Med. 2006 Dec;49(12):1056-65
pubmed: 17096360
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2005 Jan;194(1-2):1-6
pubmed: 15118911
PLoS Med. 2014 Feb 18;11(2):e1001603
pubmed: 24558353
Health Secur. 2017 May/Jun;15(3):244-252
pubmed: 28636443
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):e63
pubmed: 32237672
BMJ. 2015 Apr 09;350:h694
pubmed: 25858901
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;26(9):
pubmed: 32491983
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-1567
pubmed: 32182409
Risk Anal. 2014 Aug;34(8):1423-34
pubmed: 24593662
Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Jul 15;39(2):272-4
pubmed: 15307038
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 14;8(3):e019703
pubmed: 29540417
Biomacromolecules. 2007 May;8(5):1359-84
pubmed: 17425365
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015 Jan 28;7(3):1752-7
pubmed: 25587845
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60 Suppl 1:S42-51
pubmed: 25878300
JAMA. 2020 May 19;323(19):1912-1914
pubmed: 32221579
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Nov;106(3):536-553
pubmed: 32841704
J Hosp Infect. 2006 Jan;62(1):58-63
pubmed: 16099072
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Feb;14(2):92-103
pubmed: 27540979
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 04;7:39956
pubmed: 28051158
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Oct;106(2):283-294
pubmed: 32653432
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Nov;106(3):504-521
pubmed: 32800824
J Appl Microbiol. 2019 Nov;127(5):1403-1420
pubmed: 31410952
Indoor Air. 2018 May 31;:
pubmed: 29855107
Am J Infect Control. 2006 Mar;34(2):51-7
pubmed: 16490606
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 11;13(12):e0208769
pubmed: 30533061
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 12;12(10):e0186217
pubmed: 29023492