Contamination: a comparison of 2 personal protective systems

Zamora, Jorge E.

doi:10.1503/cmaj.060094

Cited by 105 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…26,27 A study examining self-contamination rates in HCWs wearing two personal protective systems found that the anterior neck, forearms, wrists, and hands were the likeliest zones for contamination during removal of protective systems. 28 This points to the importance of properly removing PPE, including gloves, which may minimize self-contamination, contamination of the working environment, and possibly contamination of patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances

Lai

Guo

et al. 2011

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances

Lai

Guo

et al. 2011

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1980) to hands has been demonstrated, suggesting that viruses can transfer from PPE to hands when contaminated items are handled in the course of removal and disposal. In addition, contamination can be present on skin after exposure to pathogens even when PPE is worn (Zamora et al. 2006), and may be transferred to used items of PPE, if they are handled after removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for the recovery of a model virus from healthcare personal protective equipment

Casanova

Rutala

Weber

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To develop methods for recovering a model virus (bacteriophage MS2) from healthcare personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods and Results: Nine eluents were evaluated for recovery of infectious MS2 from PPE: 1·5% beef extract (BE) pH 7·5 with and without 0·1% Tween 80, 1·5% BE pH 9·0 with and without 0·1% Tween 80, 3% BE pH 7·5 with and without 0·1% Tween 80, 3% BE pH 9·0 with and without 0·1% Tween 80 and PBS with 0·1% Tween 80. Methods were applied to experimentally contaminated PPE. Elution followed by two‐step enrichment assay could recover virus inputs as low as 1·5 log10, and could recover >90% of inoculated virus from used items of experimentally contaminated PPE worn by human volunteers. Conclusions: BE was effective for recovering infectious viruses from a range of PPE materials. Significance and Impact of the Study: PPE plays a crucial role in interrupting transmission of infectious agents from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The fate of micro‐organisms when PPE is removed and disposed of has important consequences for infection control. Methods described here can be used to conduct rigorous studies of viral survival and transfer on PPE for risk assessments in infection control and HCW protection.

show abstract

“…In the health care setting, the loose-fitting facepiece/visor PAPR is the predominant model, 19 although shrouded PAPRs are increasingly advocated in the context of health care chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear response because they offer greater dermal protection to the head/neck regions than helmeted PAPR. 26 Loosefitting PAPRs (eg, hoods, helmets) have an APF of 25. 22…”

Section: Class N95 Filtering Facepiece Respiratorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the rationale for concurrent use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators with loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators during aerosol-generating medical procedures

Roberge

2008

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concurrent use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators with powered air-purifying respirators during aerosol-generating medical procedures in patients with severe respiratory pathogens has been promoted as offering additional protection against infectious agents. The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of this additional respiratory equipment upon protection and personal performance. The presumed additive protective effect of an N95 filtering facepiece respirator used concurrently with a powered air-purifying respirator has not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation. The burden imposed by additional respiratory protective equipment should not be discounted, and the potentially minor contribution to protection may be offset by the negative impact on personal performance. Novel uses of protective equipment occasionally are spawned during crisis situations, but their generalized applicability to healthcare workers should ultimately be evidence-based.

show abstract

Contamination: a comparison of 2 personal protective systems

Cited by 105 publications

References 9 publications

Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances

Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances

Methods for the recovery of a model virus from healthcare personal protective equipment

Evaluation of the rationale for concurrent use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators with loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators during aerosol-generating medical procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About