Reusing and/or reprocessing the N95 face respirator mask or equivalent: An integrative review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.5135.3492Keywords:
Personal Protective Equipment; Pandemics; Coronavirus Infections; Facial Masks; Respiratory Protective Devices; Review.Abstract
Objective: to analyze the scientific evidence available on the
different reprocessing methods and the necessary conditions for
reuse of the N95 face respirator mask or equivalent. Method:
an integrative literature review. The PICO strategy was used
to elaborate the question. The search was conducted in four
databases: PubMed, Sci Verse Scopus, Web of Science and
EMBASE, considering any period of time. Results: a total
of 32 studies were included from the 561 studies identified,
and they were presented in two categories: “Conditions
for reuse” and “Reprocessing the masks”. Of the evaluated
research studies, seven (21.8%) addressed the reuse of
the N95 face respirator mask or equivalent and 25 (78.1%)
evaluated different reprocessing methods, namely: ultraviolet
germicidal irradiation (14); hydrogen peroxide (8); vapor
methods (14); using dry heat (5) and chemical methods (sodium
hypochlorite [6], ethanol [4] and sodium chloride with sodium
bicarbonate and dimethyldioxirane [1]). We emphasize that
different methods were used in one same article. Conclusion:
no evidence was found to support safe reprocessing of face
respirator masks. In addition, reuse is contraindicated due to
the risk of self-contamination and inadequate sealing.
Downloads
References
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
