Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

13 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Evaluation of Sporicidal Disinfectants for the Disinfection of Personal Protective Equipment During Biological Hazards.

ABSTRACT: A fast, effective, and safe disinfection of personal protective equipment (PPE) is vitally important for emergency forces involved in biological hazards. This study aimed to investigate a broad range of disinfectants to improve the established disinfection procedure. We analyzed the efficacy of chlorine-, peracetic acid-, and oxygen-based disinfectants against Bacillus spores on PPE. Therefore, spores of different Bacillus species were exposed to disinfectants on PPE material by using a standardized procedure covering the dried spores with disinfectants and applying mechanical distribution. Efficacy of disinfectants was quantified by determining the reduction factor (log10 levels) and number of viable spores left afterward. The chlorine-based granulate Hypochlorit CA G (2% chlorine) sufficiently inactivated Bacillus spores of risk groups 1 and 2, even with temperatures ranging from -20 to 35°C. Wofasteril® SC super (1.75% peracetic acid) achieved a reliable reduction of risk groups 1 and 2 and even fully virulent Bacillus spores by ≥5 log10 levels on PPE. With this, Hypochlorit-CA G and Wofasteril® SC super proved to be promising alternatives to the previously proven and widely used peracetic acid compound Wofasteril® (2% peracetic acid) for the disinfection of PPE when bacterial spores are known to be the contaminating agent. These results will help to improve the disinfection of PPE during biological hazards by providing new data on promising alternative compounds.

SUBMITTER: Papp S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7047094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Evaluation of disinfection methods for personal protective equipment (PPE) items for reuse during a pandemic.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many supply chain issues, including crippling of essential personal protective equipment (PPE) needed for high-risk occupations such as those in healthcare. As a result of these supply chain issues, unprecedented crisis capacity strategies were implemented to divert PPE items such as filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs, namely N95s) to those who needed them most for protection. Large-scale methods for decontamination were used throughout the world to preserve these items and provided for their extended use. The general public also adopted the use of non-specialized protective equipment such as face coverings. So, the need for cleaning, decontamination, or disinfection of these items in addition to normal clothing items became a necessary reality. Some items could be laundered, but other items were not appropriate for washing/drying. To fill research gaps in small-scale, non-commercial cleaning and disinfection, this bench-scale research was conducted using small coupons (swatches) of multiple PPE/barrier protection materials inoculated with virus (non-pathogenic bacteriophages Phi6 and MS2) and tested against a range of decontamination methods including bleach-, alcohol- and quaternary ammonium compound (QAC)-based liquid sprays, as well as low concentration hydrogen peroxide vapor (LCHPV) and bench-scale laundering. In general, non-porous items were easier to disinfect than porous items, and the enveloped virus Phi6 was overall easier to inactivate than MS2. Multiple disinfection methods were shown to be effective in reducing viral loads from PPE coupons, though only laundering and LCHPV were effective for all materials tested that were inoculated with Phi6. Applications of this and follow-on full-scale research are to provide simple effective cleaning/disinfection methods for use during the current and future pandemics.

| S-EPMC10374148 | biostudies-literature

Personal protection equipment for biological hazards: does it affect tracheal intubation performance?

Project description:PurposePersonal protection equipment (PPE) is recommended for use during airway management of patients with highly contagious respiratory tract illness. While its use in chemical hazards and its effect on airway management has been assessed previously, there has been no research assessing whether this equipment affects the ability to perform tracheal intubation. It is the intention of this investigation to answer this question.MethodsEighteen workers at various level of training were asked to wear three different types of PPE while performing four different types of tracheal intubation. The PPE used included the eye shield, face shield and the "Dustmaster". The intubation techniques were direct laryngoscopy, intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask (Fastrach) and flexible bronchoscopy using the eyepiece and an eyepiece with camera attached. We assessed the time to intubate as well as the incidence of oesophageal intubation. A short questionnaire was used to examine participants' subjective experiences of wearing the various types of PPE.ResultsThere was no significant effect on the time to intubation for any of the methods studied. However, all subjects found that the face shield was uncomfortably hot to wear. Fibreoptic bronchoscopic intubation using the eyepiece was particularly difficult with all of the PPE used due to the distance of the subjects' eye from the eyepiece.ConclusionAlthough the use of PPE may not affect the length of time to intubate manikins, certain types of PPE may be uncomfortable to wear and noisy. Further research is needed to investigate whether this could be a problem in the clinical setting or in actual difficult intubations.

| S-EPMC7115758 | biostudies-literature

Contamination of personal protective equipment during COVID-19 autopsies.

Project description:Confronted with an emerging infectious disease at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community faced concerns regarding the safety of autopsies on those who died of the disease. This attitude has changed, and autopsies are now recognized as indispensable tools for understanding COVID-19, but the true risk of infection to autopsy staff is nevertheless still debated. To clarify the rate of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in personal protective equipment (PPE), swabs were taken at nine points in the PPE of one physician and one assistant after each of 11 full autopsies performed at four centers. Swabs were also obtained from three minimally invasive autopsies (MIAs) conducted at a fifth center. Lung/bronchus swabs of the deceased served as positive controls, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected by real-time RT-PCR. In 9 of 11 full autopsies, PPE samples tested RNA positive through PCR, accounting for 41 of the 198 PPE samples taken (21%). The main contaminated items of the PPE were gloves (64% positive), aprons (50% positive), and the tops of shoes (36% positive) while the fronts of safety goggles, for example, were positive in only 4.5% of the samples, and all the face masks were negative. In MIAs, viral RNA was observed in one sample from a glove but not in other swabs. Infectious virus isolation in cell culture was performed on RNA-positive swabs from the full autopsies. Of all the RNA-positive PPE samples, 21% of the glove samples, taken in 3 of 11 full autopsies, tested positive for infectious virus. In conclusion, PPE was contaminated with viral RNA in 82% of autopsies. In 27% of autopsies, PPE was found to be contaminated even with infectious virus, representing a potential risk of infection to autopsy staff. Adequate PPE and hygiene measures, including appropriate waste deposition, are therefore essential to ensure a safe work environment.

| S-EPMC8735722 | biostudies-literature

Personal protective equipment for ENT activity during COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundIn the COVID-19 era physicians have to face with need to perform office procedures maintaining the maximum safety for both the patient and the Doctor himself. The purpose of this paper was to suggest some equipment useful to perform outpatient visits in an ENT setting.MethodsA simple modification of the standard headlight used during an ENT visit provides the operator a better face protection without any impairment in vision and comfort. In addition, in order to perform a safer ENT examination, a droplet protective barrier has been adapted to the patient's chair.ResultsBoth the devices have been texted with success during a period of 2 months in our ENT clinic. No cases of contamination have been registered among physicians.ConclusionA simple modification to a device used in the routine ENT activity implemented its protective efficacy with low costs. On the other hand, a more structured tool permitted to obtain a more protected environment during patient examination.

| S-EPMC7333584 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of a personal protective equipment support programme for staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented an enormous challenge to healthcare providers worldwide. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been essential to ensure staff and patient safety. The 'PPE Helper Programme' was developed at a large London hospital group to counteract suboptimal PPE practice. Based on a behaviour change model of capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B), the programme provided PPE support, advice and education to ward staff.AimEvaluation of the PPE Helper Programme.MethodsClinical and non-clinical ward staff completed a questionnaire informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model. The questionnaire was available in paper and electronic versions. Quantitative responses were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics, and free-text responses were analysed thematically.FindingsOver a 6-week period, PPE helpers made 268 ward visits. Overall, 261 questionnaires were available for analysis. Across the Trust, 68% of respondents reported having had contact with a PPE helper. Staff who had encountered a PPE helper responded significantly more positively to a range of statements about using PPE than staff who had not encountered a PPE helper. Black and minority ethnic staff were significantly more anxious regarding the adequacy of PPE. Non-clinical and redeployed staff (e.g. domestic staff) were most positive about the impact of PPE helpers. Free-text comments showed that staff found the PPE Helper Programme supportive and would have liked it earlier in the pandemic.ConclusionThe PPE Helper Programme is a feasible and beneficial intervention for providing support, advice and education to ward staff during infectious disease outbreaks.

| S-EPMC7722521 | biostudies-literature

Contributing factors to personal protective equipment shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:This study investigates the forces that contributed to severe shortages in personal protective equipment in the US during the COVID-19 crisis. Problems from a dysfunctional costing model in hospital operating systems were magnified by a very large demand shock triggered by acute need in healthcare and panicked marketplace behavior that depleted domestic PPE inventories. The lack of effective action on the part of the federal government to maintain and distribute domestic inventories, as well as severe disruptions to the PPE global supply chain, amplified the problem. Analysis of trade data shows that the US is the world's largest importer of face masks, eye protection, and medical gloves, making it highly vulnerable to disruptions in exports of medical supplies. We conclude that market prices are not appropriate mechanisms for rationing inputs to health because health is a public good. Removing the profit motive for purchasing PPE in hospital costing models, strengthening government capacity to maintain and distribute stockpiles, developing and enforcing regulations, and pursuing strategic industrial policy to reduce US dependence on imported PPE will help to better protect healthcare workers with adequate supplies of PPE.

| S-EPMC7531934 | biostudies-literature

The personal protective equipment fabricated via 3D printing technology during COVID-19

Project description:COVID-19 has been spread in more than 220 countries and caused global health concerns. The supply chain disruptions have abruptly affected due to the second wave of COVID-19 in various countries and caused unavailability and shortage of medical devices and personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare workers. Three-dimensional (3D) printing has proven to be a boon and revolutionized technology to supply medical devices and tackle the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The diverse designs were produced and are currently used in hospitals by patients and frontline healthcare doctors. This review summarises the application of 3D printing during COVID-19. It collects the comprehensive information of recently designed and fabricated protective equipment like nasopharyngeal swabs, valves, face shields, facemasks and many more medical devices. The drawbacks and future challenges of 3D printed medical devices and protective equipment is discussed.

| S-EPMC8667480 | biostudies-literature

<i>Ex vivo</i> evaluation of personal protective equipment in hands-on defibrillation.

Project description:BackgroundDefibrillation guidelines recommend avoiding patient contact during shock delivery. However, hands-on defibrillation (compressions during shock) and manual pressure augmentation (MPA - pushing on the defibrillator pads during shock) may lead to improved clinical outcomes. There are limited data addressing the protection provided by personal protective equipment (PPE) during hands-on defibrillation and MPA. This study investigated the hand-to-hand and hand-to-knee leakage current experienced by a simulated kneeling provider wearing different PPE.MethodsA defibrillator was used in experiments on a pork shoulder, investigating three different hands-on positions: closed fist on defibrillator pads; open palm on pads with inadvertent finger contact (overhang); and open palm on the chest. Evaluated PPE included single and double gloves (nitrile and latex) and rescuer cargo trousers in wet and dry conditions (N = 126 experiments).ResultsMean hand-to-hand leakage currents in MPA without PPE was 0.41 mA (0.2-0.74 mA) and with PPE was 0.2 mA (0.08-0.58 mA). For experiments involving finger or palm contact on the chest, wearing any PPE resulted in a >99% reduction in mean leakage currents from an average 354.58 mA (258.96-446.22 mA) to an average 0.48 mA (0.16-1.56 mA). Rescuer trousers were insulative in dry conditions even without gloves (0.2-1.2 mA).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the tested clinical examination gloves markedly reduced leakage current to the rescuer and that the lowest levels of leakage current occurred during MPA attributed to the electrical insulation of the pads.

| S-EPMC9356271 | biostudies-literature

COVID-19 and personal protective equipment: Treatment and prevention of skin conditions related to the occupational use of personal protective equipment.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7228687 | biostudies-literature

Brief Cost Analysis of Surgical Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the costs incurred and saved from universal use of N95 respirators with surgical masks for operating room providers in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe built a decision analytic model to compare direct medical costs of healthcare workers (HCWs) infected with COVID-19 during operating room procedures from expected transmission when using an N95 respirator relative to a surgical mask. We also examined quarantine costs.ResultsResults varied depending upon prevalence and false-negative rates of tests, but if N95 respirators reduce transmission by 2.8%, prevalence is at 1%, and testing yields 20% false negatives, providers should be willing to pay an additional $0.64 per HCW for the additional protection. Under this scenario, approximately 11 COVID-19 cases would be averted among HCWs per day.ConclusionsPotential savings depend on disease prevalence, rate of asymptomatic patients with COVID-19, accuracy of testing, the marginal cost of respirators, and the quarantine period. We provide a range of calculations to show under which conditions N95 respirators are cost saving.

| S-EPMC9042416 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data